Sitting of 27 July 1910

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bill,
London County Council (Money) Bill,
Lords Amendments, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 25th July, considered, and agreed to.
Little Hulton Urban District Council Bill (by Order),
Bradford Corporation Bill (by Order),
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Southampton Corporation Bill (by Order),
Lords Amendments considered:
Lords Amendments to the Amendment in page 33, line 24, agreed to.
Lords Amendment, in page 33, line 24, leave out ("the sewer or"), and insert ("any"), the next Amendment, disagreed to.
Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.
Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of the Amendments made by the Lords to the Bill.
Committee nominated of,—Sir Francis Layland-Barratt, Mr. Helme, Mr. Charles Nicholson, Sir William Priestley, and Mr. Roch.
Three to be the quorum.
To withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Charles Nicholson.]
Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to. To be communicated to the Lords.—[Mr. Charles Nicholson.]
Message from the Lords—
That they do not insist on their Amendment to the Southampton Corporation Bill to which this House has disagreed.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill [Lords],
Ordered, That, in the case of the Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill [Lords],
2086
Standing Orders 211 and 236 be suspended, and that the Committee on Unopposed Bills have leave to consider the Bill forthwith.—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Fraserburgh Water Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Sidlaw Sanatorium (Transfer) Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; read the third time, and passed.
Severn Fisheries Provisional Order Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]. Bill to be read the third time to-morrow (Thursday).
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]. Bill to be read the third time to-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed].
Bill to be read the third time to-morrow.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed].
Bill to be read the third time to-morrow.
Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed].
Bill, as amended, to be considered tomorrow.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed].
Bill, as amended, to be considered tomorrow.
Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Reported, with an Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed].
Bill, as amended, to he considered tomorrow.
Abertillery and District Water Board Bill [Lords],
Reported, with Amendments.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed].
Bill to be read the third time to-morrow.
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Berks, etc.) Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed].
Bill to be read the third time to-morrow.
Message from the Lords,—That they have agreeds to—
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill, without amendment:—
Water Provisional Order Bill,
Slough Water Bill,
Bristol Gas Bill, with Amendments.

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
Returns ordered, "For the year ending the 20th day of November, 1909 (1) from each savings bank in England and Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and the Channel Islands, containing, in columns, the number of such banks; the number of accounts remaining open; the total amount owing to depositors; the total amount invested with the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, excluding the surplus fund; the balance in the hands of the treasurer; the total amount of the separate surplus fund in the hands of the Commissioners; the other assets, including the estimated value of the bank premises, furniture, etc.; the total assets; the rate of interest paid to depositors on the various amounts of deposit, and the average rate of interest on all accounts; the annual expenses of management, inclusive of all payments and salaries; the rate per cent. per annum on the capital of the bank for the expenses of management; the average cost of each transaction; the
2088
total amount of Government Stock standing to the credit of depositors; and the total number and amount of annuities in course of payment, including in such Return a summary of all such savings banks, as, under the provisions of the Act 26 Vic. c. 14, or otherwise, have been closed and have transferred their funds, or any part thereof, to the Post Office Savings Bank, showing for England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, and the United Kingdom the number of such banks, the number and amount of depositors' balances on the 20th day of November previous to date of notice to close; the number and amount of accounts so transferred, and the amount of compensation, if any, made to all or any of the officers of such banks; and showing in separate columns the particulars relating to such savings banks as have been closed during the year; and (2) showing the total number of depositors in trustee savings banks; the total number of deposits; the total number of withdrawals; the average amount of each deposit account; the average sums paid in and drawn out; and the total number of persons who have deposited in single sums the entire amount allowed to be deposited during the year (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 246, of Session 1900)."—[Sir F. Banbury.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Universal Military Training (New Zealand).
  Dr. HILLIERasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how long universal military training of the youth of the country under the Defence Act had been in force in New Zealand; whether it had been adopted with general good will by the inhabitants of the country; and if he could say approximately what the annual cost to the Colony per head, of the training provided for up to the age of twenty-one years, amounted to?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): The law providing for universal military training in New Zealand was passed last December. I am not in a position to answer the second part of the question. Owing to its recent adoption it is, of course, impossible to say at present what will be the annual cost of the scheme.
  Dr. HILLIER: Have the Colonial Office not some information with regard to this very important matter?
  Colonel SEELY: I am not in a position to answer the question whether the scheme adopted has been received with the general good will of the inhabitants of the country.

  Lagos State Clergyman.
  Sir GEORGE WHITEasked whether an assistant white clergyman has been appointed to take the place of the State clergyman at Lagos during the necessarily frequent furlough of the reverend gentleman; and, if not, what provision does the Government intend to make for the burial of white men who die at Lagos during the absence of this clergyman?
  Colonel SEELY: The question of appointing an assistant clergyman has not been raised. I should suppose that the clergyman now resident in Lagos will not proceed on leave without arranging with some minister of religion to take his place during his absence. In that case the difficulties which my hon. Friend apprehends would be avoided.

  St. Matthew's Church, Bonthe, Sherbo.
  Sir GEORGE WHITEasked what portion, if any, of the £5,000 spent in the erection of St. Matthew's Church, Bonthe, Sherbo, was paid by the Government from local revenues towards its erection; whether a white clergyman is stationed continuously at Bonthe; and, if not, what provision is made for the burial of white men who die there?
  Colonel SEELY: The Secretary of State has no information on the subject, but will inquire.

  Petroleum Discoveries (Trinidad).
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGERasked whether, having regard to the recent discoveries of petroleum in Trinidad, and to the importance which that island will acquire when the Panama Canal is completed, it is proposed to take steps to fortify the entrances to the Gulf of Paria?
  Colonel SEELY: This matter has already had attention, and will not be lost sight of.

  St. Helena (Strength of Garrison).
  Colonel BATH URSTasked what is the strength of the military and naval garrison on the island of St. Helena for
  2090
  the defence of the island and the telegraph station situated there?
  Colonel SEELY: The troops were withdrawn from St. Helena at the end of 1906, since which time no garrison, either military or naval, has been stationed there.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what steps will be taken to protect the telegraph lines in case of war?
  Colonel SEELY: I think the House realises that it would be very unwise to state publicly what steps would be taken in the event of war. It depends on how far such preparations are made public how far they will be effective.

  Dominion of Canada (Railway Construction).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether he had any official information of an Order in Council being passed by the Dominion Government of Canada admitting all labourers, except Asiatics, to the Dominion who were guaranteed employment by railway contractors or companies, irrespective of money qualification or of a direct journey; if so, would he explain in what way this order amends the new regulation refusing entry to Canada to all persons assisted by emigration societies, philanthropic bodies, or out of public funds, unless such persons are going to farm work previously found for them by Dominion agents; and what steps, if any, the Government had taken or propose to take to promulgate the information in this country?
  Colonel SEELY: The Secretary of State has not yet received a copy of the Order in Council referred to, but he has ascertained by semi-official inquiry that, until otherwise advised, railway construction labourers will be admitted without landing money on presenting themselves to immigration inspectors in Canada, if they are found to be mentally, morally, and physically fit and can produce a guarantee of work from railway contractors or railway companies. As far as can be ascertained this does not apply to emigrants assisted by emigration societies, philanthropic bodies, or out of public funds. Publicity will no doubt be given to the facts of the case by the Canadian Government and its representatives in this country, and all the information that comes to hand will be given to inquirers by the Emigrants' Information Office.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: In view of the statement made in this House by the President of the Board of Trade the other day that employers in the Colonies would be allowed to communicate with the Labour Exchanges for the purpose of obtaining labour in this country, may I ask, if that labour could be obtained, would those persons be allowed to enter Canada?
  Colonel SEELY: That would depend upon circumstances, as I have already explained in my answer to the hon. Member's question.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I take it persons would not be allowed to go to Canada unless they were going to work on the railways?
  Colonel SEELY: This is a very important matter. It would depend, apparently, in most cases whether first of all the emigrants were assisted out of public funds or by public bodies. If they are, it appears to be a case that they must undertake to proceed to farm labour, but if they are not so assisted, then they can land.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: May I take it, from the answer of the President of the Board of Trade, that this has no effect whatever so far as the Labour Exchanges go?
  Colonel SEELYNo; I do not think the hon. Gentleman can draw that inference.

  Somaliland (Desecration of British Graves).
  Lord ALEXANDER THYNNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is in a position to furnish any information to the House with regard to the desecration of British graves in Somaliland; and whether adequate steps are being taken to prevent a recurrence of similar outrages in the future?
  Colonel SEELY: News has been received of the desecration of the grave of a British sailor at a place on the Somali coast, called Hais, some 150 miles to the east of Berbera. Suitable measures are being taken.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Mullah is still dead?

  Morocco (Alleged Outrage at Fez).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Sultan of Morocco officially denied to the
  2092
  Consuls of Great Britain, France, Germany, and Spain at Fez that any barbarities had been perpetrated upon the wife of the late Governor of that city?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I have no information to this effect.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Does not the British Vice-Consul at Fez send reports on important matters such as this to the Foreign Office?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes, Sir, he does.
  Mr. ASHLEY: May I ask what the report of the British Vice-Consul was?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The British Vice-Consul has not reported on this subject, as I said in the answer.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman call for a report?
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, owing to the persistent efforts of His Majesty's Consul at Fez, the wife of the governor of that city was, after weeks of delay, eventually produced and, having been examined by two English ladies of the Fez medical mission, was found to bear evident and in some cases unhealed traces of torture; and, if so, what notice he intends to take of the Sultan's barbarous practices and of his untrue official assurances?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The examination referred to by the hon. Member showed that torture had undoubtedly been inflicted. I am communicating the information which has reached me to the French Government, but otherwise I can add nothing to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire on the 14th.
  Lord BALCARRES: May I ask whether the report received from the British Consul, in which the description of this barbarity was given, contained no reference to the official interview of that Consul, together with other Consuls, with the Moroccan authorities?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I really can add nothing to the answer. I have no information as to the denial of the Sultan of Morocco, and the answer to this question shows, I think, that they did not attach very much importance to the matter.

  Trawling (Prohibited Waters).
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to the injury done by trawlers to the spawning beds along the coasts of Scotland and England, and in the destruction of immature fish and to the consequent depletion of the fishing grounds along our coasts, he will consider as to approaching the foreign Powers signatories of the North Sea Convention of 1882 with a view to obtaining their assent to the extension of the present limits within which trawling is prohibited?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have nothing to add to the answer of the 11th instant to the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty.

  Registration of Title Office, Ireland.
  Mr. KELLYasked the Attorney-General for Ireland whether applications to discharge equities when lodged in the Registration of Title Office, Ireland, are strictly dealt with in the order in which they are received in the office; whether the authorities would have any objection to following a rule to that effect; whether he is aware that it is at present impossible to ascertain when a case may be dealt with; how many cases have been lodged from the county Dublin in the first half of the present year and how many from the county Tipperary in the same period; and can he explain why there is more delay in the Tipperary cases?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry): I refer the hon. Member to my answer to his question on this subject on 7th July. As the result of further information, I now understand that the counties in Ireland are divided amongst the examiners, and the greater delay in dealing with the applications from any particular county is due to the comparatively larger number of cases in the division of which it forms part. That is the case of Tipperary as contrasted with Dublin. In each division the cases are taken in the order of lodgment, subject to exceptions for special reasons. Within the period mentioned in the question the number of applications from county Dublin and county Tipperary were seventeen and thirteen respectively. By the aid of the new examiner recently appointed it is hoped that the arrears will be rapidly disposed of.
  Mr. KELLY: Does not the hon. Gentleman think a case has been made out for
  2094
  reconsideration, seeing it takes three times as long in one county than in another to get through a case?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: I am quite aware there has been some delay, but I am told it was unavoidable. A new examiner has recently been appointed, and I think the hon. Gentleman may rest assured the cases will be disposed of.

  Educational System (Cost of Changes).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in respect of extension and continuation classes, extension of school age, feeding of children in holidays, and reducing the size of classes, he does not fear lack of money, and has not to overcome Government or Treasury reluctance so much as other kinds of reluctance; and, if this be the policy of the Department, what is estimated to be the cost of effecting these changes in our educational system?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): I find some difficulty in understanding precisely what my hon. Friend desires to learn. The difficulty of providing money has always to be considered, and naturally always exercises considerable influence in connection with new developments in education as well as in other matters of social reform. I am afraid I cannot undertake to commit my Department to acceptance of any policy expressed in such vague and general terms as those of the question, nor would it be possible to estimate the cost of effecting changes which are defined with so little precision.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the Parliamentary Under-Secretary whether the words used in the question are not his own words, of the meaning of which he should be aware, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark, and whether, if they are, it is not fair that the result of this policy should be expressed approximately—at least, in figures?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I have not had an opportunity of comparing the words, but when the policy is formulated the necessary financial steps will be taken to meet the requirements of it.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask if those were not the hon. Gentleman's words, or if I have misapprehended them?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I have not been able to compare them.

  Board of Education (Grants for Building Public Elementary Schools).
  Sir GEORGE WHITEasked the President of the Board of Education whether the Regulations dated 13th August, 1907 (3680), under which Grants for building public elementary schools were made by the Board of Education, are still in force; and, if so, whether he will revise and reissue them in such a form that the Grants offered may be available without uncertainty and on a fixed scale for building the schools which are now needed to make good a numerical deficiency in many districts, but which the local authorities are unwilling to provide without assistance?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: No further Grants towards the cost of providing elementary schools will be made except in so far as concerns certain outstanding balances of Grants already allocated. The special Grant for building public elementary schools was voted by Parliament to assist in the provision of alternative accommodation for children who would otherwise be compelled, against the wish of their parents, to attend denominational schools. It was never contemplated that the Grant should be applied towards the provision of school places to make good a numerical deficiency which it is the duty of the local education authorities to make good in any case.

  Register of Trained Certificated Teachers.
  Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will consider the desirability of establishing at the Board of Education a register of trained certificated teachers who are desirous of obtaining employment, in order to save the loss of time and expense which is caused at present by the absence of any central clearing house, resulting as it does in a shortage of teachers in some parts of the country while in other parts teachers have the utmost difficulty in obtaining posts?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I am anxious to do all I can to assist teachers to find employment, but the Board, as my hon. Friend is aware, do not themselves appoint teachers, and I am doubtful whether the Board can properly undertake to exercise the functions of the various advertisement agencies in this respect. I may say, however, that the difficulty to which my hon. Friend alludes is engaging my serious attention.

  Towyn Council School.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked what was the date of issue of the notice announcing the proposed enlargement of Towyn council school; whether any appeal was made within the statutory period against the proposal; and at what date the work on the enlargement commenced?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: The notice was issued on 21st April. An appeal has been received, and will be taken into consideration. I have no information as to whether building operations have commenced.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Will the hon. Gentleman ascertain whether the building commenced before the period of appeal lapsed, and will he undertake to have a local inquiry into the whole matter?
  Mr. TREVELYAN: I cannot say whether my right hon. Friend will undertake to have a local inquiry. I think my hon. Friend had better put a question to him.

  Small Holdings Act (Lindsey County Council).
  Sir ALFRED GELDERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Lindsey County Council have yet been able to supply any of the applications for small holdings already approved in the Brigg Division; and, if not, will he bring pressure to bear upon the county council to proceed without further delay to meet the demands of applicants under the Small Holdings Act?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): The Board are informed by the clerk to the county council that inquiries are being actively made for suitable land to satisfy the demand for small holdings in the county. The Board propose to instruct one of their inspectors to visit the district and to report on the position.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Outbreak near Ripon).
  Mr. EDWARD WOODasked whether the Board of Agriculture will, in the absence of any further outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at Kirkby Malzeard, near Ripon, and in view of the inconvenience caused to farmers and butchers by the necessary abandonment of the Ripon auction sale of 25th July, consider it consistent with safety to permit the holding

  2097
  of the next fortnightly sale on 8th August by licence, and with due provisions for the marking and slaughtering of stock sold?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: A further outbreak was confirmed yesterday at Kirkby Malzeard, and it would be premature, therefore, at present to open any markets. The Board will, however, do so at the earliest possible moment consistent with safety. It will also interest the House to know that the animals in contact, namely, thirty-four cattle and 170 sheep, are about to be slaughtered.
  Mr. ORDE-POWLETTasked if, in the event of no further cases of foot-and-mouth disease occurring, the Board of Agriculture will remove the existing restrictions at as early a date as is consistent with safety, in view of the imminence of several agricultural shows in the proscribed area?
  Mr. EDWARD WOODasked at what date, in the event of no further outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease near Ripon, the Board will consider it consistent with safety so to relax the regulations as to permit the exhibition of stock at agricultural shows within the scheduled area?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: A further outbreak was confirmed yesterday. The Board hope to modify the restrictions as soon and in such manner as may seem most expedient, but they are not prepared to specify at present any date on which exhibitions of stock within the scheduled area will be allowed.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked if the cause of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Yorkshire has been ascertained?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: No, Sir.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary if he would state what steps have been taken to protect Irish agricultural interests in consequence of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Yorkshire?
  Mr. BIRRELL: On receipt of information from the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries of the existence of foot-and-mouth disease in Yorkshire, the Department at once suspended all importations of animals (except horses) from Great Britain. The Department's inspectors at Irish ports were also instructed to warn drovers, dealers, and others proceeding to
  2098
  Great Britain in connection with the export of live stock, of the importance of taking special care, while in Great Britain, to avoid contact with any diseased or suspected animals, and to refrain from visiting any locality where such animals are. Notice of the steps taken by the Department was published by the Press on the 23rd instant. The situation in Great Britain is being closely watched, with a view, if necessary, to further action in Ireland.
  Mr. MOORE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he considers that the Vice-President of the Department in Ireland has sufficient experience or competence to deal with the matter in question?
  Captain COOPER: May I ask whether precautions will be taken to prevent the introduction of the disease to Ireland through forage imported from England?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not think that that matter has received the attention of the Board of Agriculture.
  Captain COOPER: Will it receive their attention?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, it will.

  Large Larch Sawfly (Wales).
  Mr. COOPERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if the attention of his Department has been drawn to the appearance of the large larch sawfly in Wales, and, if so, is he taking any steps to deal with this pest?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Yes. A Memorandum on the subject was issued in the spring, and further publicity has been given to the matter in a communication sent to the Press. An attempt is now being made to control the pest by the distribution in certain parts of Wales of parasites which are known to destroy the caterpillars.

  Labour Exchanges.
  Dr. HILLIERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will in future, when issuing the monthly returns of unemployment, take into calculation the emigration from the country and the number of trade unionists who are removed from membership of their unions from inability to continue their subscriptions?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): Details with regard to the passenger movement to and from places out of Europe are published each month by the Board of Trade. Information as to the number of workpeople who cease to be members of trade unions owing to their inability to continue their subscriptions is not available. Most of the unions making returns to the Board of Trade with regard to unemployment excuse or reduce the payment of subscriptions by unemployed members, and the removals from membership on this account are thus minimised. The percentage unemployed is always calculated on the latest membership.
  Mr. BRACKENBURYasked how many unemployed have, up to the present, been provided with employment by the Labour Exchanges?
  Mr. BUXTON: During the first five months since the opening of Labour Exchanges 122,556 vacancies notified have been filled through the Labour Exchanges established by the Board of Trade, exclusive of the casual situations filled by the special Cotton Porters' Exchange in Manchester.
  Mr. BRACKENBURY: What was the percentage of employment in the month of June, 1910, as compared with that in the month of June, 1909?
  Mr. BUXTON: I must ask for notice of that question.
  Mr. NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he could state on whose recommendation the appointment of general manager to the Tottenham Labour Exchange was recently made; whether the official in question combines the duty of supervising this Labour Exchange with a seat on the district council and other local and political activities; and whether, with a view to the efficient working of Labour Exchanges, he will take steps to prevent the appointment of persons holding such a plurality of offices?
  Mr. BUXTON: The manager of the Tottenham Labour Exchange was appointed on the recommendation of the Selection Committee which was constituted to consider the qualifications of applicants for posts as managers under the Labour Exchanges Act. At the time of his appointment he was a member of the urban district council which position
  2100
  he was instructed to resign on 13th July last, and he has made arrangements to do so after the recess. This resignation will also involve resignation of membership of the committee of education, but I am informed that he holds no other office of any sort.

  Board of Trade Appointments.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked what is the total number of persons, not at the time of appointment in permanent Government employment, who have been appointed since January, 1906, to positions in his Department with salaries exceeding £100 a year, and who did not previously to their appointment pass an examination by the Civil Service Commissioners; and what is the total amount of their salaries?
  Mr. BUXTON: Two hundred and ninety-four persons have received appointments, without examination, under the Board of Trade, since January, 1906, with salaries exceeding £100 a year. The total annual salaries on appointment was £71,231. Of these 243 occupy unestablished posts, at an initial cost of £52,797. The remaining fifty-one are permanent officials, appointed either under Treasury Warrant, provided for in Section 4 of the Superannuation Act, 1859, or under Clause 7 of the Order in Council of 4th January, 1870 (now Clause 7 of the Order in Council of 10th January, 1910), under which, when the qualifications are wholly or in part professional or otherwise peculiar, and not ordinarily to be acquired in the Civil Service, examination may be dispensed with.
  Mr. GEORGE FABER: Were the gentlemen who got appointments nominated by the President of the Board of Trade?
  Mr. BUXTON: They were appointed by the President of the Board of Trade.
  Mr. G. FABER: Without any examination or other means of sifting out?
  Mr. BUXTON: They were most carefully sifted out in this sense: there were a large number of applications, and a Committee—a strong one, as I believe hon. Members will agree—went most carefully into the matter, and recommended applications to the President of the Board of Trade for the time being, who no doubt appointed them while exercising his own discretion with regard to the recommendations of the Committee.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: Is there not an Order in Council which provides that in certain cases appointments may be made without examination, but have not these appointments been made without any Order in Council?
  Mr. BUXTON: In my answer I quoted the various sections of various Acts and various Orders in Council. I pointed out there was a dispensing power.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: But in addition to this dispensing power given by Orders in Council, has not the right hon. Gentleman added largely to the number of appointments?
  Mr. BUXTON: I would like notice of that. The appointments have been made under the Sections referred to in the answer.
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: That would apply to only 41. The rest have been appointed outside the Order.
  Mr. BUXTON: I would rather have notice of the question.

  Education (Scotland) Fund.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the fact that the Grants paid out of the Education (Scotland) Fund to voluntary schools in Scotland, under the minute of June, 1909, averaged only 5s. 9d., and some received as little as 9d. per scholar, while the Aid Grants received in the previous year averaged 7s. 9d. per scholar, the Government intends to take means to compensate the managers who were led to expect at least 6s. per scholar for the past year, and to prevent elementary education being starved during the current year?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): Against the payment at the rate of 9d. on an average attendance of 1,576 pupils in twelve voluntary schools in three separate districts must be set payment at the rate of 10s. 3d. per head on account of no less than 20,740 pupils attending twenty-three voluntary schools within the district of the Glasgow Burgh Committee. These figures are exclusive of the Voluntary Schools Aid Grant of 3s. per head, which continues to be paid to all voluntary schools, and are the equivalent, not of 7s. 9d. per scholar in the previous year, as stated by the hon. Member, but of 3s. 6d. only. The position of the voluntary schools has, therefore, improved by 2s. 3d. per head on the average as compared with the previous year, and there
  2102
  is no ground for the suggestion that elementary education in these schools is being starved.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Lord Advocate (1), whether he is aware that many school boards in Scotland, including the school boards of Edinburgh and Glasgow, are exercising their powers under Section 3, Sub-section 6, of The Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, in a partial and unjust manner for the purpose of penalising parents who prefer to send their children to voluntary State-aided schools; whether he is aware that the school board of Edinburgh grants books at the expense of the ratepayers to all children, rich and poor alike, provided only they attend its board schools, all of which are conducted as purely Presbyterian schools, while the school board of Glasgow grants books at the expense of the ratepayers only to such children as are necessitous and attend its own schools; what action he proposes to take in the matter; (2) whether each child to whom books are granted by the school boards of Edinburgh and Glasgow costs, respectively, the ratepayers of Edinburgh £3 3s. 10d. and the ratepayers of Glasgow £2 17s. 4d. per annum, while the children to whom free books are refused by those two boards cost the ratepayers nothing; whether the family circumstances are inquired into by the School Board officials before the Glasgow Board grants free books to any child, and there is no difficulty in making similar inquiries in regard to children attending non-board schools; whether the school boards are the only public bodies in Scotland that apply for the benefit of one denomination public rates are levied on citizens of all denominations; and whether the Government intends to take any means to prevent boards continuing to penalise parents who are not Presbyterians for not sending their children to board schools specially adapted for Presbyterian children, and especially from differentiating in cases of extreme poverty between children who do and those who do not attend hoard schools?
  Mr. URE: I would refer the hon. Member to my answers to his questions of 22nd April, 29th April, 26th May, and 17th June, 1909, dealing with the same subject. To those answers I have nothing to add.
  Mr. BOLAND: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman gave me no satisfaction last year, will be undertake to do it in the future?

  Firearms Regulations (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state the intentions of the Government as to restricting the carrying of arms and ammunition by unauthorised persons in Ireland?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I have nothing to add to the statements I have already made on this matter.
  Captain CRAIG: How many outbreaks through the use of firearms are to be allowed before the right hon. Gentleman takes action?
  Mr. JOYCE: Especially about the 12th July.

  Accession Declaration Bill.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Prime Minister whether he will postpone the Report stage and Third Reading of the Accession Declaration Bill till the Autumn Session, in order to afford Members an opportunity of consulting their constituents on the Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot take the course suggested by the hon. Member.
  Captain CRAIG: Why is the right hon. Gentleman afraid of the country being consulted in this matter?
  Mr. MacNEILLasked the Prime Minister whether, in any of the offices to which Catholics are not eligible but whose holders have, under the provisions of the Statute of 1867, been relieved from making the declaration of disbelief in the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church contained in the formula now known as the Accession Declaration, a previous declaration of religious conviction is now required; if so, what is the declaration and from the holders of what offices is it required; whether, since the passing of the Act of 1867, he has any reason to believe that any of the offices reserved for non-Catholics, and, if so, which of them, have been held by Catholics; and what is the necessity, having regard to the many safeguards for the securing of the succession of Protestants to the Throne and its tenure by the Protestants, of imposing on the Sovereign the necessity of making a declaration of faith?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No previous declaration of religious conviction is
  2104
  required by law in the case of persons holding offices for which Roman Catholics are not eligible, and I have no reason to believe that any of those offices have been held by persons who are Roman Catholics. The necessity for the making of a Declaration of Faith by the Sovereign will be the subject of Debate later in the day.
  Mr. MacNEILL: Is the Sovereign the only person subject to the obligation of making this Declaration at the present time?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No; I think the Lord Chancellor of England and the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland have to make it.
  Mr. MacNEILL: No, no.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is it not the fact that the obligation to make this Declaration on the part of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the Lord Chancellor was abolished by the Act of 1863?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I believe that is so.
  Mr. MacNEILLasked the Prime Minister whether his attention had been directed to the fact that the Accession Declaration was not made by His late Majesty King Edward VII. on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament after his coming to the Throne, but on the 14th February, 1901, in a Parliament which had been convened by the late Queen Victoria, and had held its first Session in her reign and which had met in the interval between the death of Queen Victoria on the 22nd January, 1901, and the making of the Declaration by the King on 14th February; and whether, seeing that His late Majesty King Edward VII. did not make the Declaration in the manner prescribed by the Statute, and that the Declaration made by him on 14th February, 1901, is a nullity, the Government will take any, and, if so, what, steps to remedy the breach of the law and the effects, if any, on subsequent legislation of this omission?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Accession Declaration was made by King Edward VII. at the correct time and in the correct manner according to law. The questions asked by the hon. Member do not therefore arise.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Prime Minister if his attention had been called to the fact that the Australian Commonwealth House of Representatives

  2105
  has unanimously passed an Address to the King in favour of the Government's Bill for the alteration of the King's Accession Declaration; and whether a copy of the Address will be circulated to Members as a Parliamentary Paper at an early date?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I observe from Press telegrams that such an Address was unanimously agreed to by the Commonwealth House of Representatives, but the text of the Address has not yet been received.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Has the right hon. Gentleman the text of the Commonwealth Parliament's Address?
  The PRIME MINISTER: They expressly approve the Bill.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: When the right hon. Gentleman receives the text will he take steps to circulate it, together with the proceedings of the Canadian Parliament on the same subject?

  Water Supplies Protection Bill.
  Mr. J. G. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the recent Report from the Select Committee on the Water Supplies (Protection) Bill; and whether, in view of the grave difficulties arising in connection with the abstraction of underground water by water authorities and others, and of the demand for an alteration in the law as regards compensation for injury caused by such abstraction, he will favourably consider the recommendation of the Select Committee to the effect that a comprehensive inquiry into the whole subject of surface and underground water supplies should be held?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that prior to the appointment of the Joint Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board had decided to introduce a Bill to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal endorsed recently by the Joint Select Committee. The recommendations of the Select Committee will be carefully considered by the Government in connection with the Bill in question.

  Veto Resolutions Conference.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether he is able to make any
  2106
  statement as to the probable duration of the Conference on the relations between the two Houses of Parliament; and whether any statement as to the result of such Conference will be made before the House rises for the Autumn Recess?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will make a statement on Friday next.

  Assize Circuit Arrangements.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the limited amount of time which will probably be available during the Winter Session, he can see his way to give any particulars of the proposed rearrangement of the circuit system for the information of the public before the House rises; whether ample opportunity will be given to Debate the whole matter; and whether those facilities will be afforded early or late in the Winter Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer the hon. Member to the statements I have already made on this matter. I am not now in a position to give any undertaking as to the Winter Session.

  Scottish Congested Districts Board (Accounts).
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGERasked the Lord Advocate whether he will arrange that in future the accounts of the Congested Districts Board shall be presented to Parliament in an intelligible form, and particularly that there shall be submitted detailed accounts of annual income and expenditure in the cases of estates acquired by that Board?
  Mr. URE: The Secretary for Scotland has already given an undertaking to consider the form of the accounts of the Congested Districts Board in response to suggestions made in another place.

  Registration of Titles Commission (Scotland).
  Mr. CLYDEasked why no Report has been presented by the Commission on the Registration of Titles in Scotland; and when the Report will be presented?
  Mr. URE: The Report referred to by my hon. and learned Friend has now been received, and measures will be taken to expedite its issue. The delay has been caused by the absence abroad of one member of the Commission.

  Government Hospitality.
  Mr. MORTONasked the First Commissioner of Works whether a Return will be made to this House of how the sums of money voted for Government hospitality have been spent?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): A Return is not made to the House of the details of this expenditure, but all the items are accounted for to the Treasury, and passed by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I will gladly give the hon. Member any information he desires, but I hope the House will not ask for a publication of the details. I should be sorry if the value of Government hospitality were to be estimated by the actual cost of each entertainment, and I should deprecate comparisons of the respective amounts expended on particular bodies of guests.

  Ex-Chief Inspector Arrow.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that ex-Chief Inspector Arrow is writing a series of articles purporting to give details of cases in which he was professionally engaged; whether he is in receipt of a pension; and, if so, whether the publication of such articles has been sanctioned by him?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME OFFICE (Mr. Masterman): My right hon. Friend's attention has been drawn to the series of articles in question. The ex-Chief-Inspector is in receipt of a pension from Police Funds. The publication of the articles has not been sanctioned.

  County Asylum Notices.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEhad given notice to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the advisability of deleting from the notices sent out from the county asylums the description pauper patient, in view of the fact that such description is unnecessary, and wounds the feelings of the relatives of the deceased person?
  This question is withdrawn at the request of the Home Secretary, who, I believe, has accepted the suggestion.

  Dr. Crippen (Offer of a Reward).
  Lord ALEXANDER THYNNEasked whether a sum of money has been offered
  2108
  by Government for information leading to the arrest of Dr. Crippen; what was the last previous occasion on which a similar reward was offered; and whether the same reasons which prevented previous Home Secretaries from authorising rewards in connection with the plot to blow up London Bridge and the White-chapel murders of 1888 apply in the present case?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: A reward has been offered for information as to the whereabouts of Dr. Crippen. The last occasion where a reward was offered in similar circumstances was, the Secretary of State believes, in 1889. Where, as in the cases mentioned by the Noble Lord, the offender is unknown, rewards for evidence leading to his conviction may lead to the production of false evidence, and are open to other grave objections. But these objections do not apply where, as in the present case, the person wanted is known and named and all that is required is information as to where he is. There has never been any rule in the Home Office against offering a reward for the discovery of a named offender.

  Emigration to Canada (Young Children).
  Mr. CLYNES (for Mr. William Thorne)asked the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that many young children whose ages range from eight to thirteen years have been emigrated to Canada from the Chorlton Union and are now engaged in farm work and household work and in consequence are not receiving an efficient education, as would have been the case had they not been sent away; whether his attention has been drawn to the report sent by Mr. D. S. Bloomfield, the clerk to the Chorlton Union, giving particulars of the work that about seventy-eight of the children are engaged in that have been sent away from the Chorlton Union; and whether he intends in the future to prevent young children being used in the manner described in the report?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I have received from the guardians of the Chorlton Union some extracts from Reports made by the Canadian Government authorities after visits by their inspectors to children emigrated from that union. The extracts relate to twenty-nine children only, and show, with one or two exceptions, that the children have attended school with more or less regularity. I

  2109
  understand that the information furnished by these extracts is relied upon to support the allegation that young children are emigrated to Canada in the interests of cheap labour. The information so furnished does not, in my judgment, support that allegation.
  Mr. CLYNES: In the information which the right hon. Gentleman has received has he any account of the very serious statements and allegations made on this subject by members of the Chorlton Union?
  Mr. BURNS: I have seen the statements made and I intend to communicate with the Canadian authorities to ascertain their truth or otherwise. I have recently on this particular matter seen the Governor-General and two or three of the authorities from Canada now in this country and I am satisfied completely that every step is taken both by the Canadian Government and by the Committee of Canadian Ladies to give every assistance and the utmost protection to children in Canada from this country.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not the duty of a certain official in Canada to make inquiries as to what these children are doing and how they are being looked after?
  Mr. BURNS: Yes, that is so, and they report periodically both to the Canadian and the Home Governments.

  Chemical Bleaching of Flour.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the President of the Local Government Board if he had received the Report of the inspector who was directed to investigate the effects of the bleaching of flour by chemical process; and if he could state whether legislation will be necessary to enable him to protect the public from being supplied with impure and adulterated flour?
  Mr. BURNS: The inquiry is still proceeding, and I am not yet in a position to make any statement as to whether legislation will be necessary.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some manufacturing chemists are openly offering phosphate of lime to millers for the purpose of this adulteration?
  Mr. BURNS: I am aware of something like that, and I am anxious to make the Report and investigation as complete as possible.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to make it known that the whitest flours are the worst and least digestible?

  Paris Roads Congress.
  Mr. MORTONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the Report of the engineer who attended the International Congrès de la Route, held at Paris in 1908, will be published; and, if not, will he say why this is not to be done; whether the cost of the visit was paid out of public moneys; and, if so, what was the amount?
  Mr. BURNS: The cost of the visit of the Board's representative to the Roads Congress at Paris in 1908 was defrayed out of public moneys, and amounted to £19 5s. 1d. He made a Report to the Board, but I did not think it necessary that it should be published.
  Mr. MORTON: Can I have a copy of the Report?
  Mr. BURNS: The hon. Member can look at my copy.

  Preservation of Meat (Borax).
  Mr. HUNTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that it is a criminal offence in America to use borax as a preservative of meat, he proposes to take steps to prevent the importation into this country of meat in which borax has been used as a preservative?
  Mr. BURNS: In pursuance of the Public Health (Foreign Meat) Regulations, 1908, certain meats such as tongue, tripe, and kidneys, which were formerly imported in pickle containing large quantities of borax, have ceased to be imported, and I do not at present think it necessary to take any further steps in the matter.
  Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industries in America stated in his 23rd report that meat for England might be preserved in borax if it was made under special rules and specially labelled?
  Mr. BURNS: Under the Regulations under the Food Act which this House passed in the year 1907 that condition is dealt with.
  Mr. HUNT: Is it or is it not the fact that it is continually done according to the Americans themselves?
  Mr. BURNS: We do not share the hon. Member's view about the American information.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Is it a fact that the Brazilian Government prohibit the use of borax in the preservation of meat on the ground that it is injurious to the public health?
  Mr. BURNS: That may be so.

  American Meat (Importation).
  Mr. HUNTasked the President of the Local Government Board (1) whether he is aware that in 1907 over 90,000 carcases of cattle and pigs from which tumours and abscesses, including cancerous tumours, had been cut out were stamped by the United States Government as sound, wholesome, and healthful for human food; what steps he proposes to take to preserve our people from consuming without knowing it this diseased American meat; (2) whether he is aware that in 1908 667 car-cases of animals suffering from actinomycosis or lumpy jaw, formerly called cancer and hardly distinguishable from it, were condemned as unfit for human food by the American authorities; whether he is aware that 32,430 carcases of animals suffering from the same disease, after those parts {Erectly affected by the disease had been cut out, were stamped by the American Government as sound, wholesome, and healthful for human food; whether he intends to take any action to prevent this diseased meat being imported into this country; (3) whether he is aware that in 1908 655,829 carcases of pigs and cattle which had suffered from tuberculosis, but from which the tuberculous parts had been cut out, were stamped by the United States Government as sound, wholesome, and healthy for human food; whether such animals, if killed in this country, would be allowed to be consumed; and, if not, whether he proposes to take any action to protect the British consumers from this supply of tuberculous American meat?
  Mr. BURNS: The figures which the hon. Member gives appear to be taken from the Annual Reports of the United States Bureau of Animal Industry, but I have no means of verifying them. Under the Public Health (Unsound Food) Regulations, 1908, the Medical Officer of Health is empowered to seize any article of food which is unsound, unwholesome, or unfit for human consumption. This officer has similar power in regard to home-killed meat.
  Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under the American regulations of 1908 they are allowed to stamp, and do stamp, American meat so long as the cancerous and other diseased parts are cut out? Does he know anything about it at all?
  Mr. BURNS: Yes. Whatever the American may do or stamp no meat that answers to the description given by the hon. Member is allowed to be landed in this country under the Act of 1908.
  Mr. HUNT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his experts can tell when these carcases are sent over here if diseased parts are cut out?
  Mr. BURNS: In many cases they can, and we are now taking steps to prevent any possibility of what the hon. Member suggests occurring at all.
  Mr. HUNT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman——
  Mr. SPEAKER: There are a number of questions on the Paper, and the hon. Member must limit his supplementary questions.

  American Lard.
  Mr. HUNTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that, under the official regulations of the American Department of Agriculture, lard is allowed to be extracted from the carcases of diseased swine; and, as on the average 2,000,000,000 lbs. of American lard are imported into this country every year, he proposes to take any action to protect our people from this diseased supply?
  Mr. BURNS: The average quantity of American lard imported into this country every year would appear, from the Board of Trade Returns, to be more nearly 200,000,000 than 2,000,000,000 lbs. The fat extracted from carcases condemned by the inspectors of the Department of Agriculture at United States packing houses is required by official regulations to be placed in specially marked containers, bearing the word "Inedible," before shipment. Under the Public Health (Unsound Food) Regulations, 1908, action has been taken by the Board and by British port sanitary authorities to prevent this material, when imported, from being used by lard refiners or for other food purposes.
  Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under the regulations they can send lard here and mark it fit for food?

  Diseased Meat (Ship Stores).
  Mr. HUNTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that under the regulations of the American Government all meat for ship stores is specially exempted from inspection, he is aware that British sailors can be supplied with meat from animals diseased to any extent; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. BUXTON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The Board of Trade have no power to inspect at United States ports meat supplied to British ships, but seamen have under Section 198 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, the right to complain if the provisions are unsatisfactory, and an inquiry is then held. Under Section 206 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, the provisions intended for the use of the crew of any ship going from the United Kingdom through the Suez Canal or round the Cape of Good Hope or Cape Horn must be inspected by officers appointed by the Board of Trade. Under Section 26 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1906 this inspection may be extended to any ship going from any port in the United Kingdom. If the inspector finds the provisions deficient in quality, the ship can be detained until the defects are remedied to his satisfaction.
  Mr. HUNT: Are we to understand that no protection is afforded to sailors against diseased meat being put on board at American ports?
  Mr. TENNANT: I do not think the hon. Member ought to think there is no protection. The United States Government is perfectly able to protect its seamen from diseased meat.
  Mr. HUNT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the United States Regulations especially exempt the stores of ships from any regulations at all?
  Mr. TENNANT: I have already informed the hon. Member that if there is objection an inquiry can be held.

  Dirty Bedding.
  Lord ALEXANDER THYNNEasked whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to introduce at an early date a non-contentious Bill dealing with the question of dirty flock and loathsome
  2114
  bedding which has recently formed the subject of representations to the Local Government Board?
  Mr. BURNS: I trust it may be possible to introduce a Bill dealing with this subject at an early date.
  Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: Are we to understand that it will be in the Autumn Session?
  Mr. BURNS: That depends upon circumstances which I cannot control.

  Appointments (Post Office).
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Postmaster-General what was the total number of persons, not at the time of appointment in permanent Government employment, who have been appointed since January, 1906, to positions in his Department with salaries exceeding £100 a year, and who did not previously to their appointment pass an examination by the Civil Service Commissioners; and what is the total amount of their salaries?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): All persons appointed to established situations in the Post Office are required to obtain certificates from the Civil Service Commissioners. There are a number of unestablished and not pensionable situations, such as sub-postmasterships, the holders of which are not required to obtain Civil Service certificates. The emoluments of some of these posts exceed £100 a year, but it would not be possible without much labour to give the numbers and the salaries of such persons, and I presume these are not the appointments which the hon. Member has in mind.

  Small Holdings (Loans).
  Mr. ROYDSasked what sums have been borrowed by county councils from the Public Works Loan Commissioners under the provisions of Section 62 of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, for the purchase of land and for any other purpose, respectively; and what are the terms on which such borrowings have been made as regards rate of interest and period of repayment?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The aggregate amount of loans granted to date is £1,059,818, of which £1,026,356 has been actually advanced. The rate of interest is in all cases 3½ per cent., namely, the minimum rate for the time being for loans out

  2115
  of the Local Loans Fund, as provided by the Act. The periods vary from five to eighty years according to the nature of the services for which the loans have been made, the bulk of them (more than four-fifths) being for eighty years for the purchase of land.
  Mr. ROYDS: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect stating in this House last Friday week that to the best of his belief no money had been advanced for this purpose?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: What I said was that I could not pledge myself, but I thought not.

  FINANCE BILL.

    VOLUNTARY CONVEYANCES (STAMPS).
    Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to remove the deadlock occasioned by the refusal of the Inland Revenue authorities to stamp voluntary conveyances, liable to ad valorem Stamp Duty for the first time under Section 74 (1) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, until the scheme for land valuations gets into working condition and the value of the property conveyed has been ascertained by the Government valuer?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Arrangements have been made to expedite the valuation of such properties as form the subjects of the conveyances referred to by the hon. Member, and it is hoped by this means to reduce to a minimum the necessary delay in stamping these documents.
    Mr. ROYDS: By what date does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that the scheme of land valuation will be in working condition?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not anticipate that it is possible to fix any date.

    IRELAND (TAXATION).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will say how what is called the true revenue of Ireland is now calculated; how the calculation is affected, if at all, by the fact that most of the money spent by the great spending Departments circulates among the population in Great Britain, and not in Ireland; and, remembering the excessive taxation of Ireland disclosed by the Financial Relations Commission, whether he can see his way to earmark the increase imposed by
    2116
    the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, and the growing amount thereof for the next ten years, for some specific Irish purpose, such as the promotion of suitable industries or the reduction of the debts due upon labourers' cottages and plots?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The calculation is made in the manner shown in the annual Financial Relations Return. The consideration mentioned in the second part of the question—whatever weight may be attached to it as regards the past—no longer arises now that the total revenue contributed by Ireland is considerably less than Irish local expenditure. The circumstances—more particularly since the introduction of old age pensions—are now wholly different from what they were at the time of the Report of the Financial Relations Commission, and, as my right hon. Friend has shown on several occasions, more than the whole of the revenue derived from Ireland by the additional taxation imposed by the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, will be devoted to specific Irish purposes.

    TAXATION (COMMODITIES).
    Mr. JOHN WILLIAMSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state approximately the amount of Imperial taxation now levied in the form of duty upon 20s. worth of commodities usually consumed by the families of working men earning ordinary wages; and whether he will in his next Budget reduce the amount of such taxation with a view to increasing the purchasing power of working men's wages?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am afraid I cannot give the information for which the hon. Member asks.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the admission of the Irish Government that many in Ireland are justly in receipt of old age pensions who would not have got them but for the evidence of the Census Returns, whether he will have the rules relating to old age pensions in Ireland so adjusted to the facts there that the persons certified by pension committees to be entitled to pensions and now denied pensions solely because their names are not in the Census Returns, though they have always resided in Ireland, shall be given pensions and not made to suffer longer for an omission for which they are not responsible?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The instructions to pension officers scheduled to the Old Age Pensions Regulations direct them to have regard, for the purpose of determining the age of any person, to "any evidence which appears sufficient for the purpose," and it would therefore be obviously impossible to make them more comprehensive. The duty of deciding upon the evidence rests in the first instance with the local pension committee, and in the event of an appeal, with the Local Government Board. The pension officer acts upon the decision of the committee in all cases in which it appears to be supported by sufficient evidence. In other cases an appeal is lodged and he is guided by the result of the appeal. I do not see how this procedure could be altered consistently either with the provisions of the Act or with the public interest.
  Mr. GINNELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that this involves that those who are not in the Census Returns are suffering injustice? When the pension committee repeatedly certify that the applicant is seventy years of age and is entitled to a pension, how long is it to be withheld?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The decision of the local pension committee is subject to appeal to the Local Government Board, who judge of the sufficiency of the evidence and give the Grant or reject the pension.
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether the experts who first estimated the amount required for old age pensions in Ireland on the basis of the present population instead of the population of seventy years ago, have estimated the yearly aggregate amount that will be payable by the ratepayers and also the amount that will be payable by the Treasury in Great Britain and in Ireland, respectively, under the Government scheme of contribution pensions to persons who have had to accept poor relief; and, if so, what those amounts are, and what is the percentage of the present population to be so pensioned in each country?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir.
  Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution passed by the Milford old age pension subcommittee, county Donegal, together with a list of persons within their area, who, in the opinion of the sub-committee, have been unjustly deprived of their pensions,
  2118
  asking that these pensions may be at once restored with arrears; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The resolution and list referred to have been received by the Local Government Board, who informed the sub-committee, in reply, that it is not open to the Board to reconsider their decisions.
  Mr. SCANLANasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that Mrs. Bridget Johnson, widow, Laragan, county Sligo, has been deprived of her pension by the Local Government Board on the ground that she is not qualified in respect of age; whether the Local Government Board, in arriving at this decision, had no evidence against her claim beyond the fact that her name did not appear in the Census Returns of 1841 and 1851; whether he is aware that the parish priest, the Protestant rector, the local members of the board of guardians, and the local pension committee are satisfied that she is over seventy years of age, and that the local pension committee, Collooney subcommittee, granted her a pension of 5s. per week; whether the Local Government Board are proceeding solely on negative evidence; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board were not satisfied that Mrs. Johnson had reached the statutory age. She stated that she was born in 1838, but produced no evidence in support of her statement beyond a certificate of her marriage in September, 1864. The onus of proof that the statutory age has been attained rests upon the claimant, and if Mrs. Johnson has any further evidence to produce, it is open to her to make a fresh claim.

  Old Age Pensions Act (Amendment).
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state when he proposes to introduce the Bill to amend the Old Age Pensions Act; and if he will include in that measure a clause to exclude the savings of members of registered friendly 'societies from the calculation of the income of a claimant for a pension?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is proposed that this Bill should be introduced after the Recess. As regards the latter part of the question, I presume that the hon. Member has in mind the sick pay and other allowances made by friendly societies, and in that case I may refer him to the reply

  2119
  which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for the Tottenham Division on the 22nd ultimo.

  Inland Revenue Department (Appointments).
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked what is the total number of persons, not at the time of their appointment in permanent Government employment, who have been appointed since January, 1906, to positions in the Inland Revenue Department with salaries exceeding £100 a year, and who did not previously to their appointment pass an examination by the Civil Service Commissioners; and what is the total amount of their salaries?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The total number of persons is 325, including 200 clerks to surveyors of taxes who were established in 1908, and the total amount of salaries is £87,629 per annum.
  Mr. BYLES: Is there any good reason why these various appointments referred to in this and many previous questions should not be put up for public competition?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Very often much better results are obtained by not putting them up to competition.

  India Office (Appointments).
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Under-Secretary for India what was the total number of persons, not at the time of appointment in permanent Government employment, who had been appointed since January, 1906, to positions under the India Office with salaries exceeding £100 a year, and who did not previously to their appointment pass an examination by the Civil Service Commissioners; and what was the total value of their salaries?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The number of persons was eleven, and the total value of their salaries on appointment was £1,895. All the posts in question fell within the terms of Section 4 of the Superannuation Act, 1859, as "situations for which professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the public service are required."

  Irish Language (Kenmare District).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland when do the Commis-
  2120
  sioners of National Education propose to send one of their organisers to the Kenmare district to instruct the teachers in Irish, with a view to introducing it for bi-lingual instruction in the schools of the district or as an extra subject, as the case may be?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Commissioners of National Education inform me that their Irish language organisers do not instruct teachers in Irish. In localities where they may have to spend a week or more they arrange to give lectures on Saturdays, at which teachers are given an opportunity of attending. No such arrangement has yet been made in Ken-mare district, but the matter will be considered when the other engagements of the organiser permit.

  Appointments Under the Crown.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Solicitor-General what is the total number of persons, not at the time of appointment in permanent Government employment, who have been appointed since January, 1906, to permanent positions under the Crown by the Attorney-General, with salaries exceeding £100 a year, and who did not previously to their appointment pass an examination by the Civil Service Commissioners; and what is the total amount of their salaries?
  Mr. SOARES (Lord of the Treasury): Two officers have been appointed by the Attorney-General (the late Sir John Walton) since 1906 to permanent positions under the Crown who were not at the time of appointment in permanent Government employment. Their salaries amount to £420. The Civil Service Commissioners satisfied themselves as to the qualifications of these officers, and thereupon granted to them certificates under Section 7 of the Order in Council of 4th June, 1870.

  Orange Demonstration at Bessbrook, Armagh.
  Dr. O'NEILLasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that, on the night of the 11th July, a crowd of Orangemen in Bessbrook, county Armagh, repeatedly discharged firearms outside the house of a Catholic, where a young girl named Brady was lying dangerously ill; whether he is aware the the girl died early on the morning of the 12th July, and that Sergeant Ballantyne knew of her serious con-

  2121
  dition, yet made no effort to put a stop to the discharge of firearms upon the streets and roads in the village; and whether he will take steps to have Sergeant Ballantyne removed from Bessbrook to another district?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member appears to be misinformed. The Inspector-General informs me that on the night in question there was no crowd of Orangemen in the village of Bessbrook, and that, so far as the police are aware, no shots were fired either on the public road or in the vicinity of the house referred to. As I have already informed the hon. Member, no complaints of annoyance by the discharge of firearms or otherwise have been received from any person in the locality. It is not proposed to remove the sergeant to another station.
  Mr. MOORE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is a fact that 12,000 persons assembled at Bessbrook on 12th July, that there was no breach of the peace or complaint by any party, that the meeting unanimously denounced the Government, that this is part of an organised campaign of persecution by a person called Rodgers against a sergeant who was merely doing his duty?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am glad to say that there was no trouble on the occasion referred to. Of course, there may be other facts within the knowledge of the hon. Gentleman which are not within mine.

  Irish Census Return, 1861.
  Mr. SCANLANasked whether all or any of the papers in connection with the Irish Census Return of 1861 have been lost or destroyed; whether frequent applications have been made for information from the Census Return of 1861; and, if so, whether any investigation has taken place as to the responsibility for the loss of such papers, and, if not, what steps the Government propose to take in reference to this matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the question of the late hon. Member for South Belfast on this subject on 29th September last, to which I have nothing to add.

  National Education (Ireland).
  Mr. KERR-SMILEYasked the Chief Secretary whether he can hold out any hope of the Government remodelling the national education system in Ireland so as
  2122
  to give the people the same control over the schools as is now enjoyed in England and Scotland?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The answer is in the negative.

  Labourers' Holdings (Ireland).
  Mr. KERR-SMILEYasked the Chief Secretary whether he proposes to make provision in the Labourers Bill, which he has promised to introduce, whereby labourers who desire to do so may be enabled to purchase their holdings on reasonable terms; and whether he is aware that there is a feeling among labourers in Ireland in favour of such provision being made?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on this subject on 4th April last, to which I have nothing to add.

  Land Purchases, Ireland (Overdue Instalments).
  Mr. GINNELLasked how many purchasers under the Land Act of 1903 are now in default with one, two, three, four, and more instalments respectively overdue; against how many of them have legal proceedings been taken; whether the ratepayers have suffered from any of these defaults; and, if so, from how many and to what aggregate amount?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Report of the Irish Land Commission for 1909–10, which will shortly be presented to Parliament, contains a list of payers of annuities under the Land Purchase Acts, who, on 1st July, 1910, were in default in respect of two or more instalments, and gives the nature of the proceedings pending in each case. On 1st July last the arrears in respect of annuities under the Act of 1903 only amounted to £4,588, due by 587 payers, out of a total of £951,388, collectable from 76,048 payers—that is, less than ½ per cent. As regards the remainder of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the explanation which I gave in Debate on 24th June, 1909.
  Mr. GINNELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the county councils are furnished with the list of payers of annuities who are in default?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. Member knows what is done in these cases. They are not furnished with the lists of defaulters because there are several lists which have

  2123
  ceased to be accurate lists owing to the payment of the arrears. It is not considered desirable to furnish the lists of defaulters.

  Cheshire Royal Engineers.
  Viscount VALENTIAasked the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has been come to with regard to the Cheshire Royal Engineers (Railway Battalion), the establishment of which corps is 532 of all ranks, 60 per cent. of which must be Special Reservists, for the enlistment of whom no sanction has so far been received; does he consider the present state of the battalion with a strength of 213 of all ranks satisfactory, having regard to the fact that previous to 1908 the strength of the then 2nd Cheshire Royal Engineers Railway Volunteers was 716 of all ranks, with 245 reservists attached, the whole enlisted from the employés of the London and North Western Railway Company, from which source an equally strong Territorial battalion could be enlisted?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): The whole question of the organisation and duties of railway troops in time of war is still under consideration. It is not, therefore, possible at the present time to permit this battalion to recruit up to its former strength.

ACCESSION DECLARATION BILL.

  QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
  Mr. HENRY TERRELL: As a question of Privilege, I should like, Mr. Speaker, to call your attention to a circular I received this morning—as I believe did every Member of the House—which I submit is a gross infringement of the privileges of this House. The circular is issued by a body calling itself the Protestant Alliance, and is in the following terms:—
  "Important.
  "MR. ASQUITH'S ACCESSION DECLARATION BILL, 1910.
  "Dear Sir,
  "The committee of the Protestant Alliance hereby notify the present Members of the House of Commons, that any Member recording his vote in favour of Mr. Asquith's 'Accession Declaration Bill, 1910,' on Wednesday, July 27th, or in any way seeking to alter the existing Accession Declaration, such action will be met by the sternest opposition on the part of the Protestant Alliance.
  "It has been publicly stated that the Government intends to rush the said Bill through Parliament at all costs; such procedure is a disgrace to a party which poses and professes to represent the voice of the people, and hon. Members will yet learn to their cost that such action will be repudiated by the nation.
  "The voice of the people has never been appealed to on this question, and the committee of the Protestant Alliance submit that such appeal ought to have been made. It is nothing less than an open breach of faith with the electorate and the nation.
  "Members of either party who support this Bill to destroy the Protestant Constitution, will be strenously opposed at the next election.
  "Signed on behalf of the Protestant Alliance,
  "H. FOWLER,
  "Secretary."
  I submit, with great deference, that to threaten the Members of this House as to the way in which they should exercise their discretion in voting for or against any particular Bill which is about to come before the House is a breach of the privileges of this House. Threatening them particularly by an irresponsible body of persons, who may or may not be electors, increases the gravity of the offence. If Members of this House are to be circularised in this way by any association or body of persons, they will cease to be representative of the people, and will merely be dummies put up to answer the whip of those associations or bodies who are unable to exercise the ordinary electoral influence at a General Election. I submit it is an insult to this House to issue a circular of this kind, directly threatening Members.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have not had an opportunity of seeing the document before. The hon. and learned Member only came to me a few moments ago when my time was fully occupied, but I listened as carefully as I could while he read the circular. The worst expression which I detected in it was "sternest opposition." I am afraid it would be pressing the privileges of this House a great deal too far to say that any body of electors who threatened a Member or Members with the "sternest opposition" was guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House. Each party lives on stern opposition to the other, and each in turn would excommunicate the other party if a threat of stern opposition was a breach of privilege. I think the hon. and learned Member is seeking to press the privileges of the House too far, and has not made a primâ facie case.
  Several other Members took and subscribed the Oath.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
The PRIME MINISTER moved: "That the Proceedings upon the Second Reading of the Accession Declaration Bill, in Com-

2125
mittee on the Civil List Bill, on Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Census (Great Britain) Bill, and on the adjourned Debate on Consideration of the Lords Amendment to the Small Holdings (No. 3) Bill, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted
under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon and proceeded with at any hour, though opposed."
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 140.

Division No. 134.]

AYES.

[3.55 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Gill, A. H.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Agnew, George William

Ginnell, L.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Glanville, H. J.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Griffith, Ellis J. (Anglesey)

Muldoon, John

Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

Guest, Major

Munro, R.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

Barnes, G. N.

Hackett, J.

Muspratt, M.

Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Neilson, Francis

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Barton, W.

Hancock, J. G.

Nolan, Joseph

Beale, W. P.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Boland, John Plus

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Bottomley, Horatio

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

O'Doherty, Philip

Brady, P. J.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Haworth, Arthur A.

O'Dowd, John

Bryce, J. Annan

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hayward, Evan

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hazleton, Richard

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Healy, Timothy Michael (Louth, N.)

O'Shee, James John

Byles, William Pollard

Helme, Norval Watson

Palmer, Godfrey

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Parker, James Halifax

Chancellor, H. G.

Henry, Charles S.

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Chapple, Dr. W. A.

Higham, John Sharp

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Clancy, John Joseph

Hindle, F. G.

Pointer, Joseph

Clough, William

Nobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Clynes, John R.

Hogan, Michael

Power, Patrick Joseph

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Holt, Richard Durning

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

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

Horne, G. Silvester (Ipswich)

Pringle, William M. R.

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hughes, S. L.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Johnson, W.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Reddy, M.

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Cowan, W. H.

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Rees, Sir J. D.

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Joyce, Michael

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Crean, Eugene

Kelly, Edward

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Crossfield, A. H.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Cullinan, J.

Kilbride, Denis

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lambert, George

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Dawes, J. A.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Delany, William

Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Leach, Charles

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

Devlin, Joseph

Lehmann, R. C.

Samuel, J. (Stockton)

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Scanlan, Thomas

Dillon, John

Lewis, John Herbert

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

Donelan, Captain A.

Lincoln, Ignatius T. T.

Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

Doris, W.

Lundon, T.

Shackleton, David James

Duffy, William J.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lynch, A. A.

Sheehy, David

Edwards, Enoch

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Elverston, H.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Falconer, J.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Soares, Ernest J.

Fenwick, Charles

McCallum, John M.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Ferens, T. R.

M'Kean, John

Strachey, Sir Edward

Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Munro

M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

Summers, James Woolley

Ffrench, Peter

Mallet, Charles E.

Sutherland, J. E.

Field, William

Manfield, Harry

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Marks, G. Croydon

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

France, G. A.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Tennant, Harold John

Furness, Stephen

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Gelder, Sir W. A.

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

Toulmin, George

Gibbins, F. W.

Menzies, Sir Walter

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Gibson, Sir James P.

Millar, J. D.

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Gilhooly, James

Molloy, M.

Verney, F. W.

Vivian, Henry

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

Wadsworth, J.

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Winfrey, Richard

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Wing, Thomas

Walters, John Tudor

Wilkie, Alexander

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Walton, Sir Joseph

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

Younger, W. (Peebles and Selkirk)

Waring, Walter

Williamson, Sir A.

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Falle, B. G.

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Fell, Arthur

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Arbuthnot, G. A.

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Nield, Herbert

Ashley, W. W.

Fletcher, J. S.

O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

Bagot, Captain J.

Forster, Henry William

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

Baird, J. L.

Foster, J. K. (Coventry)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

Gibbs, G. A.

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Balcarres, Lord

Gilmour, Captain J.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Baldwin, Stanley

Glover, Thomas

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

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

Gooch, Henry Cubitt

Proby, Colonel Douglas James

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gordon, J.

Quitter, William Eley C.

Branston, H.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

Grant, J. A.

Ridley, Samuel Forde

Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

Gretton, John

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

Rolleston, Sir John

Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Rothschild, Lionel de

Beresford, Lord C.

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Royds, Edmund

Bird, A.

Harmsworth, R. L.

Sanderson, Lancelot

Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M. (Bootle)

Boyton, J.

Hickman, Col. T.

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Brackenbury, H. L.

Hillier, Dr. A. P.

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Horner, A. L.

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Brunskill, G. F.

Hunt, Rowland

Stewart, Gershom (Ches., Wirral)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkcudbrightsh.)

Burgoyne, A. H.

Jewett, F. W.

Talbot, Lord E.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Terrall, H. (Gloucester)

Cator, John

Kimber, Sir Henry

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Kirkwood, Capt. J. H. M.

Thynne, Lord A.

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Kyffin-Taylor, G.

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

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

Lawson, Hon. Harry

Tryon, George Clement

Chambers, J.

Llewelyn, Venables

Valentia, Viscount

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lloyd, G. A.

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Clyde, J. Avon

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Cooper, Capt. Bryan (Dublin, S.)

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

White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

Cooper, R. A. (Walsall)

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Lonsdale John Brownlee

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Craig, Norman (Kent)

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Craik, Sir Henry

Macmaster, Donald

Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

Dairymple, Viscount

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Mitchell, William Foot

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Dixon, C. H.

Moore, William

Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Morpeth, Viscount

Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Earl of Ronaldshay and Mr. Arnold Ward.

Duncannon, Viscount

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

Newman, John R. P.

IMMATURE MEAT PROHIBITION.
Mr. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask leave to introduce a Bill to prohibit the sale of immature meat.
The Bill is one of very considerable importance. I am sure that if hon. Members knew of the evils which arise from the consumption of immature meat, and from the slaughter of calves immediately after their birth, they would very soon put a stop to the practice. It is a fact that a large number of calves are slaughtered immediately on birth, and then sold to the poor people of the country as food. How many of these calves are
2128
slaughtered yearly it is impossible for me to say, but I think it is the absolute duty of the Board of Agriculture that they should make full investigations into the subject. Doctors do not quite agree as to whether this food is necessarily unwholesome. The veal which is consumed by well-to-do and fairly prosperous people in this country is probably some four or five weeks old; but hon. Members will agree that it is extremely improper that poor people should have these carcases of calves, slaughtered immediately they are born, when the carcase is a mere fœtus, sold to them for food. It is extremely wasteful, and it is nothing

2129
short of a swindle on the poor people of the country. I ask leave to introduce a Bill.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cathcart Wason, Dr. Addison, Sir John Barlow, Mr. Falconer, Mr. Glover, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Arthur Lee, Mr. Lonsdale, Mr. Walter Long, Mr. Jeremiah MacVeagh, Mr. Munro Ferguson, and Mr. Wilkie. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 22nd November.

ACCESSION DECLARATION BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The PRIME MINISTER: I need hardly say that in rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill it is not introduced by the Government with any party purpose. Indeed, no Government who knew its party interests would interfere spontaneously on its own initiative with such a question as that which is involved in this measure. Our only object has been—an object the immediate prosecution of which was forced on us by the unhappy demise of the Crown—to relieve the new Sovereign, at the opening of his reign, of the obligation of making in public a Declaration which gives legitimate offence to millions of his loyal subjects in all parts of his Dominions. We anticipated that any such proposal, in whatever shape it was put forward, must inevitably give rise to a considerable amount of misunderstanding, and, indeed, of angry hostility. But let me say at once, as we are now considering the Second Reading of the Bill, that I distinguish broadly between the hostility to it which springs from a belief that the present form of Declaration cannot safely be modified in any way without impairing the safeguards of the Protestant Succession, and the criticisms which have been quite legitimately put forward in various quarters by those who agree with us in condemning the present form of Declaration, but who are not satisfied with the particular formula which we propose to substitute for it. The former class of opposition is, of course, in the strictest sense of the word, Second Reading opposition, because it goes to the root and principle of the Bill. The other, important as it is, we fully recognise is directed, not against the
2130
principle of the Bill, which is that the Declaration ought to be modified in such a way as not to offend the religious susceptibilities of our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, but is rather in the nature of Committee criticism as to the best mode in which that object can be most effectually accomplished. Let me address myself for a very few moments, in the first instance, to the opposition which is really germane and appropriate to the Second Reading discussion, namely, the opposition of those who maintain, as the authors of the document read a few moments ago maintain, that without this Declaration in its present form, with its present denunciatory and repudiatory clauses, the Protestant Succession to the Throne of this country is not secure, or, at any rate, that the security for it is materially and substantially impaired.
I am persuaded that those who maintain that point of view are for the most part, I do not say altogether, in a state of complete ignorance as to the real state of the law. I can hardly think that ignorance exists now in the mind of any hon. Member in any quarter of this House, but it does exist undoubtedly outside, and therefore I think it is right, at the risk of recapitulating some of the things said on the evening when this Bill was first introduced, to point out that this Declaration is not only not the safeguard, but is not even a safeguard for the Protestant Succession. Since the Bill was introduced it occurred to me that it would be convenient to summarise and put together and circulate in the form of a White Paper the various statutory enactments now on the Statute Book which affect the religion of the occupant of the Throne. Hon. Members who have studied that document will observe, in the first place, that the Protestant Succession to the Throne is amply secured by the express terms of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights enacts:
"That all and every person and persons that is, are, or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the See or Church of Rome, or shall profess the Popish religion, or shall marry a Papist, shall be excluded, and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown and government of this realm."
That is an express disability imposed by Statute on any Roman Catholic succeeding to the Crown. Let me point out that this disability in the Bill of Rights, which is distinguished from the Declaration with which we are now concerned, is followed

2131
by an express statutory sanction, because the Act of Parliament goes on to provide that "In every such case the people of these realms shall be, and are hereby, absolved of their allegiance, and the said Crown and Government shall go to the next in succession." Therefore, unless the Sovereign for the time being is a person who is not a Roman Catholic—I am speaking now only of the Bill of Rights—not only is he incapable either of inheriting or continuing to enjoy the Throne, but ipso facto, if he is in possession of the Throne, the whole of his subjects are absolved from their allegiance to him. What more adequate or explicit safeguard of the Succession can be conceived than that? It is true that the framers of the Bill of Rights in the next Section, by way of what they conceived to be additional security, added that every King or Queen who should sucseed to the Imperial Crown of this Kingdom should make, at the times described, the Declaration which is now in question, and which, as I pointed out when I was introducing this Bill, is a Declaration framed many years before in the time of Charles II., and in the excitement produced by the Popish Plot, for the purpose of excluding from Parliament and public offices members of the Roman Catholic Church. There is no reference of any sort or kind to the Sovereign or occupant of the Throne. The peculiarity, certainly, in the Bill of Rights, which cannot escape observation, is that when Parliament imposed on the Sovereign the necessity of making this Declaration at the commencement of his reign, it provided no sanction and no penalty if the Declaration was not taken. It is an express statutory obligation, but what precisely would happen if the Sovereign did not comply with it has never yet been ascertained, and the Act of Parliament certainly throws no light upon that problem. That is the effect of the Bill of Rights, and if the matter rested there it would, I submit to the House, be perfectly plain that without this Declaration, to which no sanction is attached, you have in the earlier provisions of the Bill of Rights the provision that the Sovereign shall not be a Roman Catholic, and, necessarily and complementary to which, if he is a Roman Catholic, his subjects are thereby absolved from allegiance to him, and there is the amplest possible security for the Protestant Succession to the Throne. But the matter does not rest there, for Parliament went on to provide in the
2132
same year, 1689, the form of Coronation Oath, which required the Sovereign to swear that he would, "to the utmost of his power, maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant Reformed Religion established by Law."
That was legislation which took place at the time of the Revolution. To pass on a dozen years, we reach the time of King William and Queen Mary, as she was then. She had no offspring and the Princess Anne as next in Succession. Although she had had a number of children they died in infancy and childhood, and it was reasonably anticipated that she also would come to her end without any offspring of her own. It was therefore necessary to provide for the settlement of the Crown upon some other branch of the Royal Family. As we all know, the Electress Sophia and her descendants were selected as being, not only the next in kinship, but as being Protestant in religion. That Act of Settlement which established that Succession to the Crown re-enacted, in regard to the persons who would thereby be brought into succession, the provisions to which I have already referred in the Bill of Rights. Section 3 of the Act after the recital that "It is requisite and necessary that some further provision be made for securing our religion," made this further provision, "That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown shall joyn in communion with the Church of England as by Law established." That is at this moment the law of the country. "Joyn in communion" is the phrase used in the Act of 1701. It is hardly necessary to point out that that does not mean, as some people seem to imagine, that a person should from time to time, periodically or occasionally, take the Holy Communion. It does not mean that at all. "Joyn in communion," as everybody acquainted with the English language of that period will know, just as in the expression which is so familiar to us, means have fellowship or membership with the particular religious body to which reference is made. No doubt it was in that sense that those words were used in the Act of 1701, and they have always been so interpreted.
You have in those two Acts of Parliament, two great constitutional and fundamental Acts, the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, first, the provision that the Sovereign shall not be a Roman Catholic, the provision next if the

2133
Sovereign is or becomes a Roman Catholic the subjects are absolved from their allegiance, and then there is the provision that the Sovereign shall "joyn in communion" with the Church of England as by law established. Is anything wanting to secure the Protestant Succession to the Throne? I come now, and I must refer to it in passing, to the Act of Union with Scotland. The second article of that Act of Union states, "and that all papists and persons marrying papists shall be excluded from and forever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the imperial Crown of Great Britain and the dominions thereunto belonging." It goes on to provide, "and in every such case the Crown and government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person being a Protestant as should have inherited and enjoy the same in case such Papist or person marrying a Papist was naturally dead," according to the provisions of the Bill of Rights. Therefore Scotland is incorporated with England by reference to the Bill of Rights, and the same disabilities are extended to the occupant of the joint Throne of England and Scotland which had been already provided for the Throne of England. Although it is really not germane to the matter we are discussing to-day, that Act of Union further provides, for securing the Protestant religion and the Presbyterian Church government of Scotland, that the Sovereign shall take an oath that he will "inviolably maintain and preserve the foresaid settlement of the true Protestant religion … as above established by the laws of this Kingdom." That oath is always taken by the Sovereign immediately upon his Accession, and was taken by our present gracious King, I think, on the very day he succeeded to the Throne.
Those are the statutory enactments which affect this matter, enactments which, I think, everybody who applies his mind with anything approaching impartiality at all must admit render this Declaration, even if it were very differently worded from the form in which it is, totally unnecessary as a safeguard for the Protestant Successsion. That Succession is amply secured by the provisions, much more explicit and stringent, sanctioned by the two Acts of Parliament to which I have referred. I have always thought myself, and I have expressed the opinion more than once in this House, that the logical and natural course would be to abolish the Declaration altogether, for I believe it to be of no value as a safeguard
2134
to the Protestant Succession, to which I attach the very greatest importance. On the other hand, there is abundant evidence to show that it causes grave offence on an occasion of great solemnity, when it is most important and most natural that the loyal hearts of His Majesty's subjects should beat as in unison, and that it causes great offence and estrangement, and great soreness to a very large number of those loyal hearts. It may be said, "Why did not the Government propose to abolish it?" I think what has happened in connection with the Bill which we have introduced is quite sufficient to show that a proposal to abolish this Declaration would have met with an even more hostile reception and opposition than any proposal to modify the form. I am perfectly certain that it would. Although personally I should have been very glad if it had been possible to take that course, yet, on the other hand, we should have been open to a great deal of misconstruction, and we should have probably had some difficulty in carrying our measure into law. At any rate, we propose to take the more moderate course of removing from the Declaration such language and such aspects of it as were legitimately objected to by our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, at the same time making it a simple affirmation of the Protestant faith of the King, as he is required to profess that faith by the law of the land.
Having dealt with those who object to any change in the law at all, and therefore legitimately oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, I come now to deal—and I hope in a friendly spirit—with those who recognise the necessity for a change and yet arc critical as to the precise methods which we have adopted by the proposal in this Bill. I will say at once that the Government do not regard the form of words which are inserted in the Schedule of this Bill as having anything in the nature of what I may call sacramental authority. I do not claim to be in any sense inspired or that this is anything else than an honest attempt to deal with a problem which has baffled almost everybody who has hitherto attempted to practically grapple with it. I should be very sorry indeed, assuming that the House would be willing, as I believe the vast majority of the House are willing, to remove from this Declaration everything that could possibly give offence to our Roman Catholic fellow subjects—I should be very sorry to make it a matter or principle or anything more than a friendly interchange and discussion as to

2135
the precise form any substituted Declaration should take. There are one or two points which I think we ought to regard, I do not say as vital, but as of very grave importance. The first is, whatever substitute you adopt for the existing Declaration should not be negative and repudiatory, but that it should be affirmative in form. As I have endeavoured to point out, you cannot have any real security or safety to the Protestant Succession by the particular form of language used; but, on the other hand, if you choose to renew, with the omission of this or that vituperative adjective, the negative or repudiatory form which has hitherto survived you frustrate, or largely frustrate, the object you have in view, because our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects will continue to resent that in the first obligatory act of the Sovereign, that he must in his new Parliament select for express public repudiation some of those religious dogmas and practices which they regard with the greatest reverence and which are dear to their hearts.
I cannot help thinking that the general sense of fair-minded Protestants will go with me when I say that it is far better to avoid in any substituted form of Declaration a repudiation of specific Roman Catholic doctrines, or even of the Roman Catholic faith generally, and to state that the Sovereign is that which the law requires him to be in affirmative form. It follows from that that the Sovereign should state in his language generally that he is a Protestant, that his faith is the faith of Protestants, and further that he is prepared to maintain the various enactments to which I have already referred, and which secure the Succession of Protestants, and of Protestants only, to the Throne of this country. Let me look for a moment at the form of Declaration that is in the Schedule to this Bill. It has, I know, encountered no criticism or objection from Roman Catholics, and I gather that they are satisfied with it. It does not in any way offend against the rules which I have been endeavouring to indicate as the rule which ought to guide our action in this matter. It has met with criticism from various points of view; it has met with criticism from those who are in favour of a change in the form of the Declaration, but who are not satisfied with this particular method of arriving at the result. There were some who object to the use of the word "Protestant" in
2136
the Declaration at all. It is quite true, I think I am right in saying, that the word "Protestant" is not to be found in the Book of Common Prayer, and is not to be found in the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, and is not to be found in any canons of that Church. But it is, as I have already observed, to be found in the Coronation Oath, which requires the Sovereign to promise that he will maintain the Protestant Reformed of Union with Scotland. It is found, as I have already, pointed out, in the Act of Union with Scotland. It is found, again, in the Act of Union with Ireland, where the Church of Ireland, as it then was, which by that Act was united to the Church of England, is described as the Protestant Episcopal Church. Curiously enough, as I discovered only a day or two ago, it is to be found again, where perhaps you would least expect it, in an Act of the reign of the late Queen Victoria, 3 and 4 Vic. cap. 33, which permits clergymen of the Episcopal Churches of Scotland and of the United States of America, under certain conditions, to officiate in the Established Church of England and Ireland, and where the Scottish Episcopal Church is described as the Protestant Episcopal Church in Scotland, and the Church of the United States as the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America.
This sensitiveness at the use of the word Protestant shown in some quarters in these days is of entirely modern growth. The great Anglican divines of the seventeenth century, High Churchmen like Bishop Andrewes, Bishop Jeremy Taylor, and Archbishop Laud himself, gloried in the name of Protestant, and were not ashamed or reluctant to use the term "Protestant" as a term descriptive of the Church of England as opposed to the Church of Rome, and even some of the non-Roman communities of the time. I do not wish on this occasion to go into any antiquarian discussion, but I believe as a matter of history that the objection to the use of the word "Protestant" is of later growth than the Tractarian movement. If it was not invented, it was fomented by the promoters of that movement. It was never a part of the tradition, so to speak, of the High Church party in, the Anglican Church. Therefore I find it very difficult to understand why there should be, at any rate on the part of the great majority of English Churchmen, any resentment, or even any reluctance, to the application of the word

2137
"Protestant" to the Church to which they belong. Further than that—and this is an objection taken in an entirely different quarter—it is said: "You may describe the Sovereign as a person who declares himself a member of the Protestant reformed Church by law established in England, but does that give us any real security that he is not in some sense or, at any rate, to some extent a Roman Catholic in belief?" I should be very sorry to think that that was possible; but let me point out that as regards the specific doctrines singled out for reprobation and anathema in the Declaration at present required, namely, transubstantiation, the invocation of the Virgin and of the Saints, and the supposed authority of the Roman Pontiff to dispense with the obligation of the oath, whatever else may be ambiguous or dubious in the formularies of the Church of England, everyone of those doctrines are explicitly repudiated in her Articles. Article XXII. declares that the Romish doctrine of the invocation of the saints "is a fond thing vainly invented." Article XXVIII. declares that transubstantiation "is repugnant to the plain word of scripture, over-throweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions." Article XXXVII. declares that "the King's majesty hath the chief power in this realm... and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction," and that "the Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England." I will not go into the question how far the Thirty-nine Articles are technically binding on members of the Church of England—it is a question on which I have a very strong opinion—but they are certainly binding on the clergy, and I cannot imagine anybody describing himself as being a faithful member of the Church of England, or, to use the language of the Act of Settlement, as joining in communion with the Church of England, who either covertly or openly professed any one of those three doctrines which are singled out for special repudiation in one or other of the Articles.
It follows, I think, that the Declaration in the form in which it appears in the Schedule would adequately secure, so far as any form of words can secure—and I agree that that is very difficult—that the Sovereign should not be in heart, or by conviction, as he may not be according to the law of the land either by act, or by profession, a Roman Catholic. The
2138
Declaration as it stands does no more—absolutely nothing more—than require the Sovereign to say that he is in heart and in faith what the law requires him to be. There is nothing new about it, absolutely nothing.
Having said so much in explanation of the Declaration as it stands in the Schedule, let me now refer to one or two criticisms which have been made, and see whether it is possible to meet them. This is, more or less, a Committee point, but it is so important that I think it is only right I should deal with it now, as the House ought clearly to understand what the attitude of the Government in regard to it is. We are perfectly willing to consider any suggestion that will meet with anything like general concurrence. Let me summarise the objections which, so far as my observation has gone, have been made to the form of Declaration which we propose. In the first place, it is objected to from what I may call the Anglican side, and I confess I think not without some force, not so much because of the fixing of the emphasis on the Protestant Reformed Church of England, but because of the use of the words "by law established in England." I am told that many Churchmen regard that as an ultra-elastic statement, because it seems to point, not to the continuous identity of the Church from her earliest existence in this country, but to some historic change which took place by which the Church became established by law in this country. That is an objection which is sincerely and honestly held by many members of the Church of England who are otherwise quite prepared to assent to a change in the form of Declaration. Then I come to another class of criticism which finds favour, I believe, with a number of my hon. Friends who belong to the various Nonconformist Churches in England. I believe they have two objections. They object, in the first place, to the special reference to the Church of England, the only object of the Declaration being to secure that the Sovereign is a Protestant. They object further, and perhaps more particularly, to the reference to the Church as being the Church established by law. The Sovereign must be a member of the Church of England; the Church of England is undoubtedly established by law. The Act of Settlement, which requires him to be a member of the Church of England, refers to it as the Church established by law, and the Coronation Oath, which requires him to maintain the

2139
Protestant Reformed religion, refers to that as the religion established by law. At the same time, I feel the force of the sentiment that, if you can avoid it, it is not desirable to bring into a form of Declaration of this kind anything which seeks to re-identify or re-affirm the identification of the Sovereign with one particular form of Protestantism as compared with another.
The third objection, and I think this is still more strongly felt by many of my hon. Friends from Scotland—and as a Scottish Member I do my utmost to bring myself into union with them—I believe the Presbyterians of Scotland, at any rate some classes, although I do not think the feeling is so widespread in Scotland as might be imagined—but some very highly respectable Presbyterians in Scotland object to the Church of England being singled out as the simple and sole representative of the Protestant religion. Their point of view, as far as I can understand it, and I try to understand it, is this: They say, "It is quite true that when the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement were passed the Sovereign was required to be a member of the Church of England, and is still so required. He was not then King of Scotland. But when you come to the Act of Union, although the requirement was not in any way modified or relaxed, he was required in the strongest possible terms to preserve and to take an oath that he would preserve the Presbyterian form of religion then established in Scotland." They say, further, that, although it might have been perfectly appropriate and natural prior to the Act of Union to require the Sovereign to declare himself to be a member of the Church of England, since the Act of Union that necessity no longer exists, and to make it for the first time a new obligation upon him, would give legitimate offence to his Presbyterian subjects in Scotland.
I think I have summarised fairly the criticisms which have been made against the form of Declaration we propose. I am very anxious if I can that we should not have a controversy about a mere form of words, because I believe the general sense, the overwhelming sense, of the large majority of the House is in favour of modifying this Declaration, so that it should cease to be offensive to our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, but at the same time in such a way as will not raise up new occasions of soreness among the
2140
various Protestant communities of this country. We have given anxious consideration to the matter, and I am going to make a suggestion, and only a suggestion, in order to see—as I think I am quite entitled to do in a matter of this kind, which is not in any sense a party matter—how it is received and entertained in various quarters in the course of the Debate. My suggestion will be that the Declaration should run as follows:—
"I do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments to secure the Protestant Succession to the Throne of my Realm, uphold and maintain such enactments to the best of my power."
I do not make that suggestion hastily or inadvisedly. I have good reason to believe that it would commend itself to those who are high in authority in the Church of England. I believe I have the best reasons for saying that they will not in any way object to the substitution of that simpler form for the words which appear in the Schedule, "I am a faithful member of the Church by law established in England." It would remove the objection felt by many Anglicans to the words as they at present stand, and, in the opinion of many high authorities, would not go beyond the necessities of the case or do any injustice to the Anglican community.
On the other hand, I think it would also meet the objection which has been taken by many of my Friends on this side of the House. It meets the Nonconformist objection in singling out the Church of England and the reference to the Establishment, and it meets what I am bound to regard as even of greater importance, it meets the Scottish objection. It does not single out the English Established Church as though it stood in a position of priority or primaty in regard to the representative character of its Protestantism compared with the Presbyterian community in Scotland. I venture to think that if the House will consider the matter—of course it is not necessary to consider the form of words to-night—we shall be able to enter upon the Committee stage to-morrow. It is a very simple matter to decide. I am assuming that the Roman Catholics will not object to the clause because it does not in any way affect them; it is merely a change affecting Protestants. But if, as I have

2141
endeavoured to show, it would meet the criticisms which have been offered to the Government form by the English Nonconformists and the Scottish Presbyterians, if it would remove, as it certainly would, all that is offensive out of the Declaration as regards Roman Catholics, if it would express in an affirmative as against a negative or repudiative form the Sovereign's profession of faith by a promise to be a faithful Protestant—that is to say a Protestant at heart as he has to be a Protestant by law—and to maintain the Protestant Succession and all the enactments that support it, then it seems to me that would solve the whole difficulty with which we are here confronted, and provide a way of escape to which all parties would give a cordial assent. We have no amour propre in this matter. We have done our best. Others have before struggled with the same task, and with no greater success. We have done our best to provide a formula. We have listened, and listened patiently and sympathetically, to the criticisms which have been made, and if this new and simpler form should meet with general acceptance, the difficulties in the way of this Bill passing into law will thus entirely disappear.
Mr. AGAR-ROBARTES: I beg to move "That the Bill be read a second time upon this day three months."
It shall be my endeavour to oppose this Bill with a sincere desire to avoid any animosities and bitter discussion, and in the most temperate language that I can use. I trust that no words of mine will wound the religious convictions of those who disagree from me, or that I shall unduly trespass on the susceptibilities of those who belong to the Roman Catholic Church. But I feel it my duty to ask this House to refuse a Second Reading to this Bill, which has been introduced by the Prime Minister with his invariable lucidity of phrase and diction. I feel convinced that any impartial Member, or any impartial Second Chamber would readily acknowledge and admit that we who oppose this Bill have great grounds of complaint against the present Government. In the first place we were assured over and over again by right hon. Gentlemen on that bench that no contentious or controversial legislation would be introduced until the paramount question—the question between these two Houses—was finally decided. I venture to say that it is impossible to find any Bill which is more
2142
contentious and which is more controversial than the Bill which is before this House. It has been objected to throughout the country. A storm of protest is proceeding at present from Lands End to John o' Groat's. We on this side of the House were also assured by the Prime Minister, in December last, that there was only one question, one question of vital importance, and that the choice of the electors was to decide finally and for all between the supremacy of the Peers and the supremacy of the people. I noticed that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary took up that cry and became eloquent upon it. I also noticed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his endeavour to ram home this vital and essential point, became more forcible than before. As for the Lord Advocate, his endeavour to ram home this vital matter was more like a revulsion of nature than an ordinary transaction of human life. Hence forth I shall conclude that there is nothing with less vitality than a vital point, nothing so insecure as the securities offered, and nothing so elastic as the statement of a Cabinet Minister. Not only have the Government no mandate to introduce controversial legislation of this sort, they have actually an injunction not to do so. We also complain—I think with good reason—of the change of tactics. Surely there is no reason for the Government to introduce a Bill of this sort, so highly controversial, teeming with technicalities, and try to rush it through this House in three days, especially when this Bill touches what I can only describe as the most cherished convictions of the large majority of this country. It is surely apparent that the dream the Government are indulging in that they should rush this Bill through the House of Commons without opposition is turning to-day into a nightmare. For with extreme facility in changing their opinions they ask this House to swallow the Bill at one gulp. Apparently the signs of popular revolt are having their effect. Already Cornwall is roused, and even faithful Scotland is fretful. Scotland in the past has ever been a harbour of refuge for beaten Ministers. It would be a pity if in the future they have to go for safe seats to Ballyshannon or Connemara. It is clear they are quickening their pace for the simple and sole reason that they fear an autumn campaign on this question. They wish, therefore, to avoid a full and free discussion of this measure in this House. Really, it seems bad that they who perorate long and loud

2143
on the virtues of trusting the people, to-day fear the people. Their haste is a sufficient condemnation of their Bill. It will not bear the glare of publicity. Their speed throws a lurid light on the weakness of their case. Before I go into details I should like to protest against what I can only describe as a conspiracy. There appears to be a determination between the two Front Benches to push this Bill through the House of Commons—why and wherefore I do not understand. Even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long), who, the rumour has reached me, when it served his turn, could beat the Orange drum with the best of them, to the glorious and immortal memory of the Boyne, voted for the First Reading of the Bill. He now remains silent. Now those choice spirits that he used to urge on to harass others have turned round to worry him, and he sits doing penance for the disingenuousness of bygone days.
The Press throughout this campaign is maintaining a conspiracy of silence. The only news, apparently, that reaches us in the Press is that the Pope is pleased when he hears that it is the intention of the present Government to tear to tatters the time-honoured Declaration, and in its place to institute a Declaration which I only describe as an insult to the intelligence of those who value the existing formula. I should like to point out why this Bill is considered to be no safeguard to the Protestant Succession. We cannot believe that this Bill is worth the paper on which it is written. Personally, I do not know the person who drafted it, but I suspect it was the Lord Chancellor, whoever he was he has plunged into the task with levity and with carelessness, and I can congratulate him on having offended every section—the High Church party, the Low Church party, the Presbyterians, and the English Nonconformists. The Prime Minister has stated that he intends to give way on a certain point. His argument is apparently that the Protestant Succession is ensured, and is secured by statutory enactment. If that statement means anything it means that the Declaration and also the Coronation Bill are superfluous, and I believe that is the view of the right hon. Gentleman himself. I do maintain that that is not the view of the large majority of this House or of the large majority outside this House. I quite admit that it is laid down by statutory enactment that the King
2144
"may" not be a Roman Catholic. What we wish to see is that the King "can" not be a Roman Catholic. I hope to point out that it would be quite possible for a Roman Catholic to subscribe to the Schedule in this Bill and still remain a Roman Catholic.
The real point at issue is this. Those who framed the Declaration knew from experience the evils of a Popish King, and their endeavour to frame this Declaration was to prove not what the King is, but what the King is not. That is the whole point. The whole object of the Declaration was to repudiate the doctrines of Rome and to prevent a Roman Catholic from coming to the Throne. I venture to say that many people realise to-day that it is just as important that the Sovereign should entirely repudiate all connection with Rome, and should also disavow the doctrines of Rome. I believe it is even more essential to-day than it was when the Declaration was framed. It is an invalid argument to us to appeal to the Bill of Rights when at the same time you are destroying the safeguards of that Bill—when you are taking out the lever which starts all machinery into motion. The Declaration, as we all know, was introduced to ensure that the King would not be a Roman Catholic. It was introduced, not that he should make an affirmation of his own faith, but rather that he should make a repudiation of Roman Catholic doctrines. Therefore I submit to this House that a mere profession of faith is absolutely valueless. I make this statement based on the following: It is said—and I have no reason to disbelieve it—that the Pope can give dispensation to any oath given to a heretic, provided that the oath is not a denunciation of the Roman Catholic religion. I am personally anxious, if possible, to avoid theological discussion. I have no doubt that if we get into theological matters hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway will rise up and answer, and possibly answer each other, or possibly contradict themselves. Therefore I shall fall back upon the precedents of history. I want to show by the precedents of history that a profession of faith is not a sufficient guarantee for a Protestant Succession.
5.0 P.M.
I will take, in the first place, the case of Charles II. It is a well-known fact that Charles II., five years before his death, was in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. He was never tired of professing his Protestantism, but, on the other hand, he

2145
could not and would not take the declaration against Transubstantiation. Therefore we maintain that this Declaration, offensive as it is acknowledged by everybody to be, is an effective and an effectual test. If further evidence is required, I would ask hon. Members to refer to Macaulay's History. He said:—
"Ever since the reign of Queen Elizabeth the Oath of Supremacy had been enacted from Members of Parliament. Some Roman Catholics, however, contrived so to interpret this Oath that they could take it without scruple. A more stringent test was now added. Every Member of Parliament was required to make the declaration against Transubstantiation, and thus the Roman Catholic lords were for the first time excluded from their seats."
I think these two precedents from history clearly prove that some oaths are binding; that a mere profession of faith and a mere affirmation, is not binding upon Roman Catholics; but, at the same time, it is impossible for Roman Catholics—and it is acknowledged to be impossible—to take our existing Declaration and to remain Roman Catholics. I have no doubt I could give other instances, but I have purposely taken the case of a man who was King of England to point out to the House that it is quite possible to have in the future a King of the character of Charles II. I should be the last person to suggest for one moment that there is any danger at the present time of having a Roman Catholic King upon the Throne. I do not suggest for a moment that that is likely to occur in our lifetime, but I maintain it is the duty of this generation to hand on to future generations that which they have obtained at the cost of great bloodshed and sacrifice in the past on the part of their ancestors, who, in many cases preferred their religion to their lives. The whole point of the situation is this: The Declaration is not a sort of dogmatic pronouncement of Protestant faith. The whole object is to exclude a Roman Catholic, and therefore, if we wish to secure the Protestant Succession we must have a Declaration negative in character. I am quite aware there are many people who desire to see the words "superstitious" and "idolatrous" cut out of our existing Declaration. These are words that date from a day when men used more outspoken phrases than they do now, or, as I should say, when people called a spade a spade. At the same time those who wish to see these words cut out are not prepared to sacrifice the essential parts of the Declaration. That was the view of the late Lord Salisbury and also of Lord Spencer, speaking on behalf of
2146
the Liberal party in 1901. It was the view of Lord Crewe and of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The same forces were at work in 1901 that are at work to-day. The agitation started with the desire of rousing sympathy. We are told the two offensive words should be cut out. As a matter of fact, if these two offensive words are cut out, you cut out the whole value of the Declaration. Lord Salisbury, in 1901, quickly discovered the plot that was on foot, and on the Third Reading of the Bill in the House of Lords he made this very significant statement:—
"We now know they do not wish these offensive words withdrawn, unless at the same time there is withdrawn the declaration for the security of the Protestant Succession, which we never for a single moment indicated that we had any intention of dispensing with."
But that is exactly what the Government are proposing to do to-day, and that is exactly what the Prime Minister is attempting to do by his Bill. He is attempting to do what was repudiated by Lord Salisbury and every Peer in the House of Lords, with the exception of Lord Halifax and one or two Roman Catholic Peers. In the same Debate Lord Crewe, who has great weight with the Government of the day, objected so much to the striking out of the essential parts of the Declaration that he said that not only would he have nothing to do with it, but that he would refuse to sit upon a Committee that had that object in view. He said:—
"If I supposed we were called together to promote a brand new Declaration stating in terms of theological subtlety the religious opinions which the Sovereign of England ought to hold, I for one should not be able to accept the invitation to sit upon the Committee, and I venture to think my Noble Friends behind me would also decline to serve."
That is a significant statement, coming from one who, nine years afterwards, is prepared to dabble in what he repudiated in 1901. I should also like to quote the words of the late Archbishop of Canterbury. In 1901 he made a statement:—
"The omission of a Declaration against the supremacy of the Pope, I think, is a very marked thing at this time. When the Declaration which we have from the Bill of Rights was drawn up, the supremacy of the Pope had not been declared as it has been since, and Roman Catholic doctrine which we object to has become very much more seriously dangerous to the political and national life of this country than it was in the time when the Bill of Rights was passed."
I sincerely hope when this Bill reaches the House of Lords that the mantle of Elijah will fall upon the shoulders of Elisha, and that the present Archbishop of Canterbury will move an amendment having for its object the repudiation of

2147
the temporal power of the Pope. Let me point out how necessary it is that we should have a denial of Transubstantiation in the Declaration. It is felt by a number of people that it is important that the Sovereign should himself state that he does not believe in that doctrine. We all know there is a large school of thought outside the pale of Rome who favour that doctrine. In fact, it would be quite possible for the Pope to say of this school of thought, which is so ably represented by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) in this House and by Lord Halifax in another place, "I have many sheep, although they are not of my flock." The point I wish to emphasise is that if the Government intend to force their Bill through the House, altering certain phrases, they are destroying the whole Declaration. I think it would be much better if the Government came down to this House straight away and said, "We do not consider this Declaration to be necessary, and therefore we intend to abolish it," instead of trying to palm off a false coinage on the unwary.
Talk as you may about toleration, disguise it as you will, your methods are transparent. It is easy to talk of toleration, but it is not so easy to practice as to preach it. I would remind hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite that only a short time ago they who are now crying aloud for toleration by their votes excluded many citizens from one of the chief posts of citizenship in our schools because of their religious belief. With regard to the Bill now before the House I contend the question of toleration does not touch the point at all except in one way, and in that way it is an argument against the Bill. To-day we have in the United Kingdom, it will be admitted by everybody, toleration as that word is understood in its widest sense. No man is persecuted for his religion; every man is allowed to follow the dictates of his conscience. Roman Catholics driven from other countries flock here, to a land of toleration, and live unmolested in our midst. We can hardly say the same thing of Protestants, who are in semi-concealment in Spain. It must be obvious that the temporal and political power of Rome is the very negation of religious liberty and toleration. Therefore I appeal to any hon. Member who wishes to advance the cause of toleration—I appeal to him in the name of toleration in the interests of civil and religious liberty—to slam, bolt,
2148
and bar the door against the temporal power and authority of Roman Catholicism.
The Sovereign who owes allegiance to foreign authority outside these Islands cannot be allowed to exercise such authority, especially when that authority claims to be an infallible authority. Surely it is only natural and just that we should maintain our civil rights by asserting the principles that this is a Protestant country. There is a distinction, broad and open, between religious toleration and the defensive policy of excluding Roman Catholics from the Throne. If anyone votes for this Bill thinking it is advancing the cause of toleration he is ranging in opposition sentiment against sense. There are many other objections to the Bill.
When the Bill was introduced the Government raised the sectarian test. Their Bill demanded proof that the Kings of the future should be members of the Church of England, which naturally narrowed and confined the issue. They have apparently given way on that point, or at any rate it is supposed they will. But it is rather a significant fact that if this Bill which is being hurried through the House of Commons had been passed in its original form, the Test of Membership of the Church of England would have excluded in days gone by no less a person than William of Orange, who was a Dutch Calvinist, and therefore could not describe himself "as a faithful member of the Church of England," and it would have excluded no less persons than George I. and George II., who were Lutherans. I think that is a rare comment upon the Government's policy in trying to rush this Bill through. It obviously shows they have not given forethought to the measure, and that they have acted in such a hurry-scurry that they would by their action put upon the Statute Book a Bill which would exclude not only the Nonconformists of England, but also the Presbyterians of Scotland. I entirely dissent from the view expressed by the Prime Minister that the statutory enactment should be Church of England. It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, that the Act of Settlement states that the King must join the Communion of the Church of England, but Presbyterians have joined the Church of England, and that certainly does not make them "faithful members of the Church of England." No doubt the Prime Minister can pass this Bill through the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman is master of many

2149
legions in this House, but even if he does pass this measure without amendment, oblivious of the storm of protest aroused throughout the length and breadth of the country, although he may gain a transient popular favour with the Irish party opposite, there are hundreds and thousands in the country who will not forget or forgive the Government who have rooted up the work of the Protestant Succession.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I rise to second the Amendment which has been so ably proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Agar-Robartes). I think the House will understand me when I say that I never rose to speak with a greater feeling of responsibility than I do at the present moment, because I know that I am voicing not only my own convictions, but also the convictions of those who sent me here, as well as the convictions of many hundreds and thousands of people outside this House, who have, as yet, had no means of making their feelings known to the Government. Feeling that responsibility, I propose, in the few observations I am going to make, to avoid on the one hand the ordinary rhetorical devices of party controversy, and on the other hand any undue language of bitterness. I wish to put quite simply one or two additional arguments against the Bill which is now before the House. I think the House will agree with me when I say that there is a certain spirit of conservatism in this matter, and I think it is a worthy spirit which permits us to ask, when any great change is proposed, that the burden of proof as to the necessity of such change should lie on the shoulders of its advocates. For that reason, and in the interests of fair dealing, I should like to examine the arguments addressed to the House by the Prime Minister in support of this proposal. The right hon. Gentleman has placed before us his arguments in a speech upon the First Reading, and in his speech to-day. Let me try and summarise those arguments. The right hon. Gentleman favours the claim, and objects to the present Declaration upon three particular grounds. In the first place he says the present Declaration had its origin in intolerance; secondly, he says that in practice it is unnecessary, because circumstances have changed, and he claims that we have sufficient statutory safeguards; and in the third place he says it is in language inexpedient, because of the insult conveyed in singling out one particular faith for denunciation, and he objects to
2150
the actual words in which that denunciation is couched. I think that is a faithful summary of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments. I think the arguments of the Prime Minister can be met, and I propose to meet them.
Let me take this first suggestion that the existing Declaration had its origin in intolerence. I do not attach a great deal of importance to that, because it appears to me, relatively speaking, to be a matter of little moment whether the Declaration, as originally put in King Charles's Test Act, was or was not conceived in intolerance, and was or was not the actual production of Titus Oates, for which I can find no historical warrant. All that does not touch the point because, as the right hon. Gentleman himself says, the Declaration is now used for a purpose quite other than that for which it was originally framed. Why is it so used? Because deliberately, solemnly, and with set purpose, the men who framed the Charter took the Declaration from its original meaning out of its original context, and divorced the connection in which it had previously been inserted in the Statute Book and incorporated as part and parcel of that great Charter of our liberties. Therefore I do not attach the same importance which the right hon. Gentleman does to the statement that this Declaration was conceived in intolerance. Nor can I believe that it is in practice unnecessary. The right hon. Gentleman says circumstances have changed. It is quite true that they have changed since the Revolution. We have advanced very far now on the road of civilisation since that time, and any man who denies that proposition is a fool. What the right hon. Gentleman overlooks is that in one point, and it is a most essential factor as regards the position of the claims of the Church of Rome, we have changed not one iota since the day when the Bill of Rights came wet from the pen of its authors. Creeds may wax and wane, Churches may come and go, but she remains unchanged and unchanging through the centuries, the same yesterday, to-day, and to-morrow. That is why the right hon. Gentleman is wrong when he attaches so much importance as he does to changing circumstances.
Let me say a word with regard to the suggestion as to the existence of sufficient statutory safeguards at the present moment. My hon. Friend opposite has dealt critically with that point. Now let me summarise the answers I would give in

2151
the shortest possible way. There are three safeguards. First of all, there is the provision in the Bill of Rights and in the Act of Settlement which excludes a person professing the Popish religion. I agree that these words constitute an absolutely personal bond, but they provide no test as to whether a Sovereign is, or is not, in communion with the Church of Rome. Such a test was considered inexpedient by those who framed the Declaration. The Government apparently recognise this, and there is a large body of opinion in the country which still thinks the test is necessary to-day. I shall have a word or two to say later as regards the efficacy of the test which the Government propose to supply. In the meantime let me say that, as regards the efficacy of the existing test, there has been no controversy at all, even from its bitterest opponents. It was well said by one of the high dignitaries of the Church of Rome that these words constitute an absolute bar against any Catholic, because no man could speak those words and remain a Catholic. From the point of view of efficacy, the old Declaration fulfilled all that was required of it. Nor do I think the right hon. Gentleman's second safeguard, that is the existence of provision in the Act of Settlement that the Sovereign is to join the communion of the Church of England as by law established, is an adequate safeguard, or provides any adequate test whatever. I join issue entirely with the Prime Minister as to the construction he places on the words "join in communion." I can hardly believe that the framers of the Act intended that those words should bear the meaning which the right hon. Gentleman has attached to them. I do not believe that they necessarily imply membership of the Church of England as by law established. In this matter I have history on my side. George I. and George II. both took this oath, and both according to the terms of the Act joined the communion of the Church of England as by law established, but they were both Lutherans. The Prime Minister referred to the Coronation Oath as being an adequate safeguard. May I point out that all the Sovereign does in that case is to swear to maintain the Protestant religion? The right hon. Gentleman said that could not be considered as an entirely effective test, because any Sovereign might quite well swear with the utmost honour to maintain the Protestant
2152
religion in the country, without necessarily himself professing it at all. As a matter of fact that is what has happened in Saxony at the present day. The King of Saxony swears that he will maintain the Protestant religion in Saxony, but it is well known that he is a Roman Catholic, but none the less he very faithfully and adequately, and more than faithfully and adequately, discharges the duties imposed upon him by his high office. Therefore, there is no foundation for the Prime Minister's suggestion that because a Sovereign swears to maintain a religion it is an effective test as to his profession of that religion.
I pass from the argument of intolerance, and I come to the suggestion that the Declaration is inexpedient, because of the insult contained in it to one particular faith. The right hon. Gentleman says, why single out Catholics? Why not Buddhists and Mahomedans as well? I will give a simple answer which has already been foreshadowed by my right hon. Friend opposite. Of all the Churches in the world Rome alone in the past has been the aggressor in matters political as well as in matters religious, and of all the Churches of the present day Rome alone to-day maintains undiminished her claim to temporal as well as to spiritual jurisdiction. We should know where we stand in this matter. It would be different if the Vatican would tell us to-morrow, once and for all, that he repudiates any claim to temporal jurisdiction. Any repudiation short of that really fails to settle the point. Is that repudiation likely to be given? The Prime Minister knows, and every hon. Member of the House knows, that it is not likely to be given. This very claim to temporal jurisdiction is defended and maintained at the present day. I have here an instance which I will lead to the House because I think it expresses in a few sentences the position. It is a statement of Rome's position in regard to the matter of temporal jurisdiction, and. her reasons for holding that position. I quote from a volume of essays on religion edited by Cardinal Manning, to which I think he contributed the preface. In describing the temporal power of Rome he says:—
"The election of a prince in a Christian community, inasmuch as temporal government deeply concerns the spiritual welfare of the people, cannot be put in the category of a purely civil act. If, therefore an heretical prince is elected or succeeds to the throne, the Church has a right to say, 'I annul the election,' or 'I forbid the succession.' The Vicar of Christ, by virtue of his supreme responsibility and consequent sovereignty

2153
may depose the Godless King and absolve the people from the Oath of Allegiance. To depose Kings and Emperors is as much a right as to excommunicate individuals, and to lay kingdoms under an interdict. These are no derived or delegated rights, but are of the essence of that Royal authority of Christ with which His vicegerents on earth arc vested."
Mr. JAMES HOPE: Who is the author?
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I cannot say, but the essays, I understand, were prepared under the superintendence of Cardinal Manning. I have read that because it states in the clearest and tersest form precisely what this claim to temporal power on the part of Rome is, and here is where I join issue entirely with the right hon. Gentleman. No Declaration can be satisfactory to us which does not express a clear repudiation of the doctrines which make such a claim as that possible. This negative assertion is far more important to us than any dogmatic difference as to the precise type of the Sovereign's Protestantism. A Protestant Church brings us no political danger, it represents no foreign Power, and it brings a menace of no political pre-eminence in this country. That is why we are resisting the right hon. Gentleman's action in the removal of this real living safeguard of an expressed repudiation in order to devise a form of Oath which shall, as he said, be more tolerable to Roman Catholics. I confess that a test which is to be more tolerable is to my mind in some respects a contradiction in terms, because, looking at it from the point of view of the spiritual test, apart from the mere verbiage in which that test is incorporated, all tests are of necessity intolerable. The higher the test the less tolerable it is, and the measure of its tolerability from the point of view of the spirit of the test is the measure of its efficacy.
I quite agree there is a large body of opinion inside and outside this House who, whilst they are just as anxious as anybody for an expressed repudiation, think the precise epithets in which the repudiation is at present couched are unnecessarily aggressive, and had the Government merely proposed the excision of those epithets I have no doubt they would have commanded a much larger measure of support than they do at the present time. I ought to add that if they had done that logic ought to have compelled them to alter the Thirty-nine Articles and the Westminster Confession of Faith, both of which contain language with regard to the doctrines repudiated by this Declaration of a more robust character than the language
2154
of the Declaration itself, and I may add, without offence, of a much less robust character than the language employed by the Church of Rome with regard to those who do not profess their doctrines. That is not what the Government have done. If, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, it had been a mere modification, the Government might have commanded a good deal of support, but it is not a modification at all; it is an abolition root and branch and the substitution of a new form of words which, I venture to say, considered as a religious test, are wholly illusory, and, as a political profession, appear to me to he entirely unmeaning. The hon. Gentleman opposite has dealt with these words from the point of view of a religious test, and I beg to endorse the arguments be submitted. Really, the practices of some Members of the Church of England at the present moment make it at least open to doubt whether a professed adherence to that Church is really equivalent to the repudiation of the doctrines which are struck out in this Declaration.
I invite the House for a moment to look at the second part of the Declaration, which has not received any attention at all in the country so far as I can make out. When one comes to look at that there are some extraordinary passages. For instance, what does all this mean about "true intent of the enactments … and maintain the said enactments to the utmost of my power"? These expressions smack of the Jesuit. Imagine a casuistical fox let loose in that verbal hen-roost. He might construe that language to mean anything or nothing. What do the Government mean by "uphold and maintain the said enactments"? How can a constitutional King be said to uphold and maintain any enactments? A constitutional King has no concern with an enactment except when a Bill repealing or altering enactments which are already law come up before him. Do the Government suggest—it is almost incredible—that at some future date when a Bill is passed altering or repealing these enactments referred to, and it goes to a Sovereign on the advice of his responsible Ministers, that this Oath compels him to refuse to approve of those enactments? Is that proceeding according to constitutional law? The words appear to me to be quite unmeaning, and I cannot resist the conclusion that the Government are making for a pretence. Perhaps the most important argument of all, because it cuts

2155
at the root of the whole question, is that which was stated in the earlier stages of these Debates by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Exeter, and I know by the hon. Member for one of the Salford Divisions (Mr. Belloc)—I mean the point of view that you ought to have no tests at all for Kings. That is a point of view which I can hardly think commands a very large amount of support in this House, and which I am quite sure does not command a large amount of support in the country. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford, who is always quite frank, made his position with regard to this matter very clear. He lives in the expectancy, if I understood him aright, of a sort of religious Armageddon, in which that ancient foundation which he called the Faith, meaning the Church of Rome, of which he is a distinguished adherent, would meet and defeat all our war in creeds.
Mr. BELLOC: I never said defeat.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I gather the hon. Gentleman lives in the expectation of that. I do not want to misrepresent him, but, at all events, he looks forward to a day when there will be a great struggle between the Church of Rome and other creeds. Immediately after having said that, he went on and asked that we should hand over one of the strongest weapons we have at the present time in our hands. He asks for equality in the name of religious liberty. I do not want to say hard things, but I cannot help saying the conception of religious liberty is, I believe, quite alien to the doctrine and to the practice of the Church whose cause the hon. Gentleman was advocating. I do not say that without having some little authority. Let me give one or two sentences from various sources which I think clearly expressed the view I have put forward. Here is a sentence from a Bull of Pope Gregory XVI., 15th August, 1832. That is going a long way back, but I will bring it up to date in a moment. Let us see what he has got to say and what the original position of the Church of Rome was with regard to civil and religious liberty and freedom of conscience:—
"From this polluted fountain of indifference flows that absurd and erroneous doctrine—or rather raving—in favour and in defence of liberty and conscience."
And he goes on to call it
"A most pestilential error."
2156
Here is another quotation from the "Rambler" in 1851, a magazine of which Cardinal Newman was one of the contributors. Here is a leading article:—
"You Protestants,"
says the writer,
"ask if he (a Roman Catholic) were laud in the land and you were in a minority, if not in numbers, vet in power, what would he do to you? If it would benefit the cause of Catholicism. he would tolerate you, but if expedient, he would imprison you, banish you, fine you; possibly he might even hang you. But be assured of one thing. He would never tolerate you for the sake of the glorious principles of civil and religious liberty."
Let me give one more. Here is a quotation from "The Relations of Church and
State," published by the Rev. E. J. O'Reely, one of the theological professors at Maynooth, who, I am led to understand, was one of the first theologians from the Roman Catholic point of view of his day:—
"I freely admit this doctrine of the liberty of conscience for all is convenient for Catholics who have to do with Protestant Governments; but, for all that, the principle is one which is not, and never has been and never will be, approved by the Church of Christ."
I come now to the present day. Only the other day in the island of Malta we had some exhibition of what value the Church of Rome attaches to the principles of religious liberty. The Archbishop of Malta wrote expressing his deep disapproval of freedom of religious worship in the island. Hon. Members know as well as I do what is the position of affairs in Spain. I do not want to say hard things about the Church to which the hon. Member belongs, but I do say that for him to come here and ask for equality in religious liberty is to ask for it in the name of something which that Church does not accept, but which it expressly repudiates.
I think I have made the position clear; I have done my best to follow the right hon. Gentleman and to present a reasoned answer to the arguments he put forward. The only thing I have to add, and I speak on behalf of myself and those who think with me, is that we shall present the strongest opposition to the proposals which he has brought forward that is within our power. We shall endeavour to secure their rejection, and if we are defeated in that we shall endeavour to secure their radical alteration for the reasons which I have given: that they do not contain, as we think they ought to contain, an expressed repudiation of the doctrines which we think always have been and always ought to be alien to everyone who holds the

2157
sovereign of these islands. That is the reason why we are opposing the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. We believe in so doing we are fulfilling the traditions which have been handed down to us by those who went before us, and that we are discharging the obligations and fulfilling the responsibilities and duties which we owe to our posterity in the years that are to come.
Lord HUGH CECIL: I am afraid that after the reference made to me by the hon. Member for the St. Austell Division (Mr. Agar-Robartes) I shall speak under circumstances of some suspicion, and it is possible everything I say will be regarded as being merely an artifice of a Jesuit friar. It is an entire misconception to suppose that the High Church movement is a movement, as a whole, for approximation towards the Church of Rome. I think the hon. Member who has just spoken (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson) was perfectly warranted in saying that the attitude of the Church of Rome is profoundly unfriendly to liberty of thought, and would be utterly intolerable to all sections of the English people as a consequence. If you take such a document as the recent Bull issued by the Pope no person with any insight into English temperament could doubt that to set up amongst us a system of subservient episcopacy and enslaved priesthood, of ignorant laity, of an elaborate organisation for the suppression of all discussion of dogma, a system for putting pressure on booksellers, an organised espionage on those about to take orders and all that that means, and lies behind it, would be no less intolerable to High Churchmen than to any other section of the Church of England. It is true that, in relation to the Sacrament, there is an undoubted movement in the Church of England which has modified to some extent the current of customary teaching of that Church in respect of this. But in regard to the attitude of the Church of Rome as a great religious body affecting civil life and State organisation it is an entire misconception to suppose that High Churchmen have made any approximation at all to the position of the Vatican or its teachings. I should be the first to say that any measure which made it at all easier to reconcile this country to the Church of Rome would be a measure which deserves resistance.
I thoroughly agree with the Prime Minister when he says the safeguards of
2158
Protestant Succession are not to be found in the Declaration, and that the Declaration, as it stands, is wholly useless for that object. I do not forget the danger to which an hon. Member called our attention in speaking of the Sovereign who might profess to be not a Roman Catholic but yet might actually be one. It would be absurd to deny that danger, because Charles II. was such a Sovereign. It is worth observing that he did not, in fact, do much harm to Protestantism, but the fact that he had to keep his religious convictions secret prevented him doing anything against the Protestant religion. Does anyone suppose that Charles II. would have hesitated to make the Declaration? He did many things far more atrocious than that. He undoubtedly consented to the death of a great number of Roman Catholics whom he confidently believed to be innocent, because it suited his political purposes. I do not suppose a man of that kind would have hesitated to take any Declaration. Of course he repeatedly received the Communion of the Church of England which if he had any convictions at all he believed to be an entire mockery. The Declaration is of no use against an unprincipled secret Roman Catholic like Charles II. I go further and say if you are looking out for safeguards for the Protestant Succession a more moderately worded Declaration is more effective than a more violent one. My hon. Friend spoke of this Declaration as being a strong weapon—a lever to set the whole machinery in motion. Has he ever contemplated what the machinery is that would have to be set in motion? Nothing would happen automatically if the King was to refuse to take the Declaration—Kings would go on just as before. The Declaration need not be taken for many months after the accession, and the only thing that can happen is that a Motion may be made in the two Houses of Parliament to declare the Throne vacant. That is the only thing to be done. It is an obvious consideration and one that has been left out of sight, that a Sovereign is not like a subject. You cannot bring him before a court of law and prosecute him for having done wrong. If he breaks the law there is only one remedy, and that is to depose him by Parliamentary action. Does any hon. Member really suggest that he would be prepared to move a Resolution declaring the Throne vacant if the Sovereign refused to make the Declaration? It is really inconsistent to vote against this Bill unless hon. Members

2159
are prepared to take that course. I would ask would any one rise months after the Sovereign had been accepted as King and move that the Throne be declared vacant in the sonorous terms of the Declaration of 1689—a Declaration which alleges no fewer than thirteen grossly illegal acts as the foundation for extreme measures? It is quite obvious such a thing is impossible. I do not believe any Member of either House would do such a thing. It is plain that unless hon. Members are prepared to take the extreme course of declaring the Throne vacant when the Sovereign refuses to make the Declaration, the Declaration is of no value whatsoever.
An hon. Member appears to think it would be impossible to make such a Resolution, but I think he will agree with me it would be much more possible if a moderate Declaration was not made than if an extreme one was refused, because if the Sovereign refused a moderate one, it might reasonably be argued that his only ground for refusing it was that he was a Roman Catholic at heart. What plausible argument could be made if the Sovereign declined the present Declaration? Many religious persons who dislike bringing sacred matters into public disputes, who dislike particular phrases of the Declaration, but have regard to the feelings of loyal Roman Catholics without being in the least Roman Catholic themselves, would shrink from taking the present Declaration. I doubt whether the present Prime Minister—ardent Protestant as he is—would like to take it. How can you prove from the mere circumstance of a Sovereign refusing this Declaration that he is at heart a Roman Catholic? Not only does the substitution of a more moderate form of words not diminish the safeguards, but it positively increases them. It gives you a slightly better case for declaring the Throne vacant if the Declaration is not made. Unless you can declare the Throne vacant it does not matter.
I believe the argument breaks down at a point not yet sufficiently scrutinised. Much attention has been given to the chances of a Jesuitical Sovereign who takes the Declaration with a secret reservation in his own mind. No attention has been given to the much more probable defect in the machinery that the refusal to take the Declaration does not vacate the Throne, but requires the action of Parliament to supplement it. I am
2160
anxious to see the Declaration modified, but I confess I do not attach overwhelming importance to the matter. I do not like the form of words that appear in the Bill. The use of the word "Protestantism" is, as the Prime Minister said, sanctioned by very high authorities—not only statutory, but by the authority of a great many eminent divines. I do not dispute that there are connections in which the word might be used with great propriety. But the truth is that "Protestantism" and "Protestant" are words which belong to a category which render them unsuitable as a general description of a religious faith or Church. They belong to the same category as Trinitarianism, Episcopalianism, and Paedo Baptistism, and other kinds which describe particular points of view. Protestantism is not a religion, but a particular aspect of many religions. All those words have their use. If I am asked, "Are you a Unitarian?" and I say "I am a Unitarian;" or "Am I an Anabaptist?" and I reply, "A Paedo Baptist;" or "Am I a Roman Catholic?" and I answer, "A Protestant," the words would be used with perfect propriety in that sense. But when you speak of our ancient Trinitarian Church these words are inappropriate as being not sufficiently descriptive. People have sometimes imagined a traveller coming from another sphere, from another planet, and being able to speak English and asking such a question. If you describe the Church of England to him as a Protestant Reformed Church. it would only convey to his mind that the Church of England disagreed with somebody and had once been worse than it was now. Well, I think that is a spirited account of my religion. No doubt it is perfectly true. The Church of England—Protestant and Reformed—is a great deal besides, and to select those two epithets out of a great number which might be selected appears to me to unduly limit its character and present it in an un-attractive light. I have always felt that people have an inadequate sense of what charity requires towards other bodies of Christians when they teach the word "Protestant" as a distinctive label of their belief. Take the case of two brothers, one of whom was very disreputable or even had been sent to prison. Suppose the other thought it necessary to put on his visiting card "John 'Unimprisoned' Smith." That would he rather an uncharitable proceeding, because it would show the circumstance which is the shame of his brother. I think it is rather a pity

2161
that the Church of England should choose as her distinctive title a name that indicates that a fraternal Church has fallen into grave and serious error. The worse you think of the Roman Catholic Church the less you ought to constantly label your own Church as disagreeing with it.
6.0 P.M.
I know that is so so long as you regard it from the fraternal point of view. But there are a certain number of people who regard it from a different standpoint. I do not know whether that is the attitude of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, and I hoped to hear from my hon. Friend the
Member for St. Austell some interpretation of that difficult passage about the beast in the Apocalypse. I trusted that he would be able to show that it was the Pope and not the present Prime Minister, as some of my hon. Friends on this side are, I think, inclined to believe. I was disappointed that he did not go into that matter, and failing that extreme point of view I think it is rather a pity that he should single out for the Church of England a name which means nothing except that the Church of England differs from the Church of Rome. I do not want to detain the House at any greater length. The form which has been laid upon the Table of course requires further consideration. I do not in the least object to the word "Protestant," if it is used to express that the Sovereign is not a Roman Catholic, and the word is, of course, enshrined in the Statute Book, but I do think that while we are jealous to preserve the Protestant Succession, while we are careful to see that no inroad is made on even the clothing of that great idea—for I cannot regard the Declaration as more than the clothing of it—we ought to be careful not to draw in religious controversies which are not concerned with the Declaration and its purpose. I do not myself sympathise with the Nonconformist objection about "established by law," and I do not sympathise with the Scottish objection about speaking of "the Church in England": but still, honestly, I think, the Government are quite right to have regard to those objections, because whether they are well founded or ill founded it is a pity to mix up this controversy with other controversies. Similarly, I hope they will have regard to the objection which some people feel to choosing the Church of England out of many to describe the Protestant Church to all the world. So modified, I think, the
2162
Declaration would be a great advantage and would not give rise to alarm or to any reasonable apprehension that some future Sovereign might become a Roman Catholic, or that there is any danger to the essentially Protestant character of the British people. At the same time we should get rid of a Declaration which seems to me to be harshly and even irreligiously worded, and which is justly offensive to many loyal subjects of the King, and which appears to me to be not an effective but a pretentious and a sham safeguard to the Protestant Succession which we are all agreed should be preserved.
Mr. MOORE: On 28th June we were told by the Prime Minister that we ought to give time for discussion and for making up our minds until we could fully consider the form of the Bill. He told us that it was surely better with a form of words like these which were carefully chosen to have them before you in black and white, and to be able to study them at leisure and come to a conclusion about them, and thereupon an appeal was made that we should reserve our judgment. The form of words which he described as carefully selected is that which contains the expression "Protestant Reformed Church as by law established," and the Prime Minister told us then that it was absolutely vital that those words should remain in terms part of the Declaration. He said:—
"The insertion of the words 'Protestant' and 'Reformed.' which are not found in that Section, seem to us to give strength and additional definiteness to the Protestant character of the Declaration. If it is said that these words are unnecessarily introduced. I reply again that both in the Bill of Rights and in the provisions of the Act of Settlement, that language is employed. The Church of England is described, and some people in these days do not like to see it so described, as the Protestant Church and as the Reformed Church. At least, the religion taught by the Church of England is described as the Protestant and Reformed Religion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1910, cot 851.]
He said really it was impossible to get out of that language, and accordingly we took it from the right hon. Gentleman that that was a carefully selected form of words, that it would be impossible to get out of it, and that the discussion had better be delayed until we had the form in black and white. It is surely, however, somewhat embarrassing to those who have come to debate them to-day to find the right hon. Gentleman getting up in his place and absolutely rejecting the words which he told us on a previous occasion were carefully selected, and that it was

2163
impossible for the House to get out of them. Why was that done? The answer is perfectly plain. There was an inspired paragraph in all the papers to-day that the Nonconformist Members on the Government side of the House had held a meeting yesterday, with the Member for one of the Divisions of Norfolk in the chair, and that it was intimated to the Government Whips that unless the words "Protestant Church as established by law" were omitted, fifty Members below the Gangway opposite and seventy Members below the Gangway here would not be able to support the Second Reading. That is now why we are discussing a different Bill from the one upon which we were asked to reserve our judgment because it contained a selected form of words. I have always looked upon the fifty Members of the Radical Nonconformist party as a very broken reed when it came to any question of defending Protestant interests. I wonder how many of those Gentlemen won seats at the election before last by saying that the Unionist party had put Rome on the rates. That was their cry when they were dealing with the Education Act of the Unionist Government, and they obtained seats by it. But what was the first thing that the Radical Protestant party—the Gentlemen who are unable to support the original form of Declaration in this Bill—what was the first thing they did when they had a majority? The Chief Secretary for Ireland brought forward a measure putting Rome upon the rates in Ireland and endowed a Roman Catholic University. Two hon. Gentlemen opposite supported us, one of the hon. Members for Yorkshire and the hon. Member for Walsall. Sir Robert Perks, who was a prominent Member of the House, and who had assisted us before, was unfortunately called away during that Session, and we did not get the benefit of his support, but it so happened that he was made a Baronet before the Session closed in which it was necessary to put Rome upon the taxes and the rates in the form of a Roman Catholic University in Ireland.
The next thing is that the relief of Rome should be put in the Statute Book, for that is the beginning and the end of the tendency of the Government and the party opposite, of which this legislation is part. Therefore I do feel that it is impossible for us to count very much upon hon. Gentlemen opposite who shout so loudly, and who move such fierce Resolutions and invariably succumb when it gets
2164
to a Second Reading Debate or a critical Division. But I should like, as the constitutional point has been raised by the Prime Minister and the Member for Oxford University, to have a matter considered which, on the construction of the Act of Settlement, goes absolutely to the root of the whole policy of the Government. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University asked the House to consider what could be done if the Sovereign refused to take this Declaration. He suggested there would be a remedy by an hon. Member attempting to ask the House to pass a Motion, in effect, impeaching him—though technically that is not the correct word—but that a course should be taken under which he should be deprived of his Throne by some Declaration of that sort, and he pictured the hardihood of any Member who would do that. But it seems to me that exactly the same principle would be applied under the Act itself if the King, having succeeded to the Throne—having, as the Noble Lord said, been in possession of it, having become popular, and made the people contented with him—were to suddenly join the Roman Catholic Church. Exactly the same thing would have to be done now, and it would be necessary for some Member of this House to get up and say that under the Act of Settlement he had forfeited the Throne. There is no difference between the one case and the other, and from the Irish point of view, I should like this to be considered. Hon. Members will remember that when the Bill of Rights was passed this Declaration had to be taken by the new Sovereign, and they are also aware that in those days on the death of a Sovereign Parliament automatically ceased to exist, and it was the death of the old Parliament. When a new Sovereign came to the Throne a new Parliament had to he summoned, and unless he was crowned before the new Parliament met, it was provided by the Bill of Rights that "The King do, on the first day of meeting of the first Parliament next after his or her coming to the Crown, unless Coronation happen earlier, make, subscribe, and repeat this Declaration," and the meaning of that was that there could be no legislation, and therefore there could be no Royal sanction until the King, on the first day of the first Parliament, had made this Declaration. Therefore, it was part of the Constitution—and this is another proof of the wisdom of our forefathers—to put the Declaration of the King before he could

2165
possibly exercise the kingly function by giving his assent to an Act of Parliament. Has the Government considered whether this Parliament we are now sitting in is the first Parliament of His Most Gracious Majesty whom God preserve, who has come to the Throne? Is it the first Parliament or not? We have all taken the Oath of Allegiance to him. It has been taken at that Table by hon. Members to-day. The Statutes which we pass in this Session will be described as being passed "in the reign of His Most Gracious Majesty George V." If that is so, and this is the first Parliament, then I say that the Sovereign as laid down by our Constitution is unable to give any assent to any legislation, including this very Bill, until he has made himself constitutionally the King by making this Declaration on the first day of this Parliament. This very Bill is entitled the first of George V. I want to know if this is the first Parliament of His present Majesty? Under the Act of 1867 Parliament does not go out on the death of the Sovereign, and it is suggested that that has altered the whole position, but from beginning to end there is no mention in that Act of this test which is put on the Sovereign. As our fathers left this the King had to make this Declaration before he could even give his sanction to a London and North-Western Railway Bill, if there was such a thing in the time of the early Georges. I do not think hon. Members meet the whole argument when they say that they do enough on this question of the Declaration when they preserve the Protestant Succession. 'The Sovereign does not preserve the Succession. He may continue it, but he does not maintain it. It is the Estates of England which maintain it, and he cannot interfere with it. The real reason why it is necessary to have a Protestant King is because there are many matters of administration beyond merely preserving the Succession. If James II. had been a promising King would he have appointed Roman Catholics to English bishoprics? The King is the fountain of honour and the head of the Army. Every officer in the public service holds under commission from His Majesty. It is a very different thing if the fountain of honour and the head of the Services is a Roman Catholic or a Protestant. it goes far beyond the mere question of Succession, and yet the Prime Minister says he is quite content, and all reasonable men ought to be content, if the Succession alone it preserved. It seems to me that if we had a Roman Catholic King
2166
—which Heaven forbid!—at the head of the Services the administration would certainly be entirely different, and we should all feel it. It is not a mere matter of Succession at all. It is a matter of the administration of the country, and it is secured by this test which the King has to take before he can assent to any legislation. He cannot change his mind, because under the Act of Settlement, if he becomes a Roman Catholic he goes out; but there are such things as a disguised Roman Catholic, such as Charles II. It was to meet the case of the disguised Roman Catholic that this identical personal Declaration was devised.
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Charles II. was not a disguised Monarch when he came back after the Restoration.
Mr. MOORE: I do not think any Member with the most profound knowledge of history can say at what time Charles II. drifted over. He was certainly attended on his deathbed by Roman Catholic priests, and it appeared to be admitted that he died a Roman Catholic. There was no doubt about James II. at all. But this test would always hit a disguised Roman Catholic if left in its original form before this Government, which is so anxious to defend Protestant interests, came along and made it easy for a disguised Roman Catholic to adopt it. I come back to the constitutional point. If the Bill of Rights has not been observed, can the King, as a constitutional Sovereign within the Constitution, give his assent to this or any other Bill? If he cannot, it seems to me that the Government have entirely mistaken their course. They might wait till the Coronation or they might make a declaration that this was not the first Parliament within the meaning of the Bill of Rights or the Act of Settlement, and bring in a Bill of Indemnity if necessary. They might avoid the difficulty that way, but they cannot get over it by taking the short cut of securing the Royal Assent to a measure which he is constitutionally unable to give.
Sir IVOR HERBERT: The hon. Member has very ingeniously tried to divert the Debate from the channel in which it was running to a new constitutional question. He has raised the constitutional point as to whether His Majesty has not been guilty of an infringement of the Constitution at this early period of his

2167
reign by not having, in some mysterious manner only known to the hon. Member, met Parliament and taken the oath. My recollection is that the Act lays down that the Declaration shall be made on the first occasion of his meeting the first Parliament after the demise of the Crown. The only occasion on which the King meets Parliament is on the occasion of his opening Parliament after it has been duly prorogued. I can only look upon this argument of the hon. Member as devised to take us away from the consideration of the real question at issue, which is whether or not we shall alter the Declaration which is prescribed for the King to take. It is very generally admitted that there are grave objections to the present Declaration. I think that will be admitted by many people who hesitate even to make a change, because they do not quite see in what way that change is to be made effective. The hon. Member (Mr. Agar-Robartes) pointed out that the amended form which my hon. Friend suggested would be quite ineffective, because any Roman Catholic could, and would, take it. I am a Roman Catholic, and I can honestly state that I could certainly not declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and it must be the opinion of the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill that I might go as far as that, but that I certainly would hesitate to go to the length of the old Declaration against transubstantiation. We all know that the hon. Member is young, but is he so innocent of the depth of the depravity of human nature as to make a statement of that kind? If I was going to make a false statement of my religious belief, can anyone suppose that I would hesitate for a moment as to the length I would go? If I was the kind of person who would make a false declaration of that kind, knowing it to be false, I should also be the sort of person who would not hesitate to be hanged for a sheep as well as for a lamb, or to be damned for one Declaration as for another.
I believe the Protestant Succession is far more deeply rooted in the hearts of the people of this country than many in this House imagine. I am an out-and-out supporter of the Protestant Succession. I am, and always have been, against disability imposed for religious reasons. I am opposed to religious tests. But this disability which is imposed upon the King, and which prevents him from conforming
2168
to the religion to which I belong, is part of a series of enactments, all of which, taken together, have made that which I hold to be the greatest blessing which this country possesses. If one looks at this from the historical or constitutional point of view, one cannot take the single isolated fact that the Protestant Succession is necessary. One must look at the whole surrounding facts of the time of the great Revolution. There was a very radical change made then. We made a change from the system of legitimacy by Divine Right to a system of limited monarchy by the right of the people and a covenant was entered into between the King and his people. It is no time now to discuss all the terms of that bargain. To my mind it was a very good bargain for this country, and I am not going to quarrel with the Protestant Succession because it happens to have been one of the terms in the bargain which gave me free popular Government. Free popular Government was impossible till you did away with the condition of things under which the King held his title by a right which had nothing to do with his people and which was a supernatural right. As soon as that was done away with we were able to advance to that condition of things which we have now under which the fullest civil and religious liberty is possible. I might perhaps recall what were some of the main provisions of that very Act of Settlement which established the Protestant Succession. In the preamble of that Bill there is a statement of what were the ancient rights and liberties of the people, and it proceeds:—
"And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties,"
Then it goes on:—
"That it be enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed art the true, ancient, and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this Kingdom."
That is what I hold, and I am not going to quarrel with an Act which gives me that merely because the King is not of the particular religion to which I belong. I feel I have gained a far greater advantage in that than in any possible advantage I might gain by being of the same religion as the Sovereign. But there is another point which follows from what I have just said about the abolition of the Divine Right and which bears upon something which fell from my hon. Friend who opposed the Bill with regard to the attitude taken up by

2169
the Holy See. As long as the King held his title by some right which was supernatural, as long as he held it independently of his people, so long was there a reason for the claim put forward by the head of the universal Christian Church in Christendom—that was the position of the Pope to interfere with that Sovereign, and so long was it possible, and it has frequently happened, that a Sovereign with a very doubtful title found it convenient to go to the head of the Christian Church in order to obtain through his spiritual authority a reinforcement of his very doubtful title. It was the condition of things which was perpetuated through the Tudor and Stuart times, having existed previously in the mediæval period. But that became impossible when the King, by agreement entered into freely with his own people, accepted his crown from the people on terms dictated by them, and under the limitation which they imposed. The Prime Minister in introducing this Bill laid stress upon that limitation very clearly and very precisely. It was that, if at any time the holder of the Crown conforms to the Roman Catholic religion he thereby automatically ceases to be King, and his subjects are relieved of all allegiance to him. That indicates the relationship between the King and his people.
Those are the reasons why I think all Catholics would adhere to and would accept freely the Protestant Succession. It is part of a general scheme under which they enjoy comparative freedom and under which they may obtain complete freedom, because we still know that there are disabilities attached to the Catholic religion which do not attach to any other. There was one point which was made by an hon. Member which I should have been rather 10th to touch upon if he had not mentioned it himself, because it is an ad captandum argument which has more weight among the uninstructed than it is likely to have in this House. As I understood him he seemed to defend the old form of Declaration on the Accession as a sort of reply to the strong denunciation used from time to time by the Pope. Well, that seems to me a very feeble argument. I cannot conceive that any person would be affected by it, or would say, "If you call me a heretic, I call you an idolator." Such arguments as those may produce an effect on 12th July in a place where there is excitement about a pending election, but I do not think they carry much weight with this House. Certainly
2170
I should be sorry to think that they would produce the heated and possibly forcible discussions which would take place in the place I have suggested. There is one reason why I would ask all hon. Members who have not perhaps fully made up their minds on this subject, to consider the necessity and the desirability of not going into theological questions in a Declaration of this kind. As the Noble Lord said, in the brilliant speech to which we listened just now, we are a little too apt not to be charitable towards those who differ from us in religious belief. But when the King is called upon to condemn the belief of a very large proportion of his subjects, he is called upon to do that which is weakening the foundations of the Empire. The Empire does not rest upon Protestants alone. I say so although I have every reason to appreciate what Protestants have done, and to respect those who hold Protestant doctrines. But the Empire is held together by the united efforts of many who are not Christians, and also by all the great body of those who call themselves Christians, though dogmatically there may be, and often are, differences between them. I would ask hon. Members to think what would be the effect of this Debate in Canada, where we have a proportion of the population amounting to 42 per cent. or more who are Catholics, and the larger number of whom are people who differ from us in race and language, but are united with us only in their loyalty. That loyalty rises in their hearts with gratitude for the way they were treated when they first came into the Empire. Until recent times, when these things have been discussed so fully in the daily Press, it was unknown in these countries—it was unknown certainly in the days of Her late Majesty Queen Victoria when I was in Canada—that there was such a Declaration. Happily the case had not arisen owing to her long reign, and the people did not know that there was in existence such a Declaration which was required from the Sovereign. But that is well known now. I appeal to hon. Members who only a few nights ago were recommending to us various means of keeping this Empire together. I did not agree with them in the arguments they used then, but I am prepared to recognise that they sincerely desire to see the Empire united together. Now, we have not to deal with theoretically binding the distant parts of the Empire by methods which have yet to be proved, but we can by a single act show

2171
that as between our Catholic French-Canadian fellow-subjects and ourselves there is no difference in the mind of the Sovereign at the time of his Accession. That, I think, is of great importance to the unity of the Empire. I would therefore ask hon. Members, when coming to a decision upon the matter placed before them by the Prime Minister, to remember that besides the form in the Bill we are technically considering, there is also an alternative form of expression which I am very glad he has put before us, because I know it will certainly be more acceptable than the original one among my Welsh Nonconformist Constituents, with whom, on the question of this Declaration, I am in full agreement. I ask hon. Members, when they are making up their minds upon the question now before the House, to consider whether they cannot by their vote on this occasion do that which we here in this House daily pray for—that we may unite and knit together all persons and estates in closer love and charity one towards another.
Mr. WALTER LONG: A great deal of responsibility must attach to those who take part in a Debate of this character and consequently realising that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious to speak, and that we have only a limited time at our disposal, I shall intervene for only a very few minutes. I desire to say a word or two on behalf of that section to whom the Prime Minister referred in his speech, who do not object in toto to a change in the Declaration, but who desire an alteration, who so expressed themselves on previous occasions and who find themselves now in a very considerable difficulty. I think I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman whose words we listened to a moment ago (Sir Ivor Herbert) that even if we do disagree in the line adopted in argument or in our votes, at all events, so far as I and those who think with me are concerned, our attitude is not due to want of charity towards those who differ from us here on religious questions in this House or out of it. I do not fail to appreciate his concluding words, in which he reminded us that people in different parts of the Empire will watch with interest what we are doing, and that it may have an effect on the growth or a lessening of their affection for the Mother Country. For my part, if the House will forgive me for referring for a second or two to my own
2172
personal views, I have been most anxious to see my way to vote for a Bill which would settle this question in a manner generally satisfactory, but I do submit to ask the House to read this Bill, short Bill though it is, but yet one of very far-reaching effect and grave importance, a second time, changed as it has been by the announcement made by the Prime Minister to-day, to pass it in Committee to-morrow and to send it away for discussion elsewhere on Friday, is really to make a demand on this House which I say with all respect to the Prime Minister and the Government no Government ought to make.
What is the position we are in who are anxious for an Amendment and who are not satisfied with the Amendment proposed by the Government? We have to end the Committee to-morrow, and what would be the procedure which will precede the Committee procedure? Every Member of this House knows that nobody can put an Amendment on the Paper until the Bill has been read a second time. It follows from this that when our proceedings conclude to-night, at whatever hour we may finish our business, behind the Chair there will stand a crowd of gentlemen fighting with one another, decently fighting, perhaps I ought to say battling or jostling with one another, to get first to the Clerk's table in order to hand in their Amendments. Until to-morrow we shall have no opportunity of judging the various Amendments which will be proposed in various quarters. I may be told, "If you are ready with any alteration, if you have definite views as to the alteration you want, you have no difficulty in putting down your own Amendment, and it will be on the Paper to-morrow." I am informed that there are two or three Amendments, one coming, I believe, from the other side of the House, which seems to me to be much better alterations of the existing Declaration than the one proposed by the Government. I do not want to go into the argument for the maintenance of a definite Declaration, and for two reasons. One is, they have been given, I venture to say, wholly admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for one of the Divisions of Down (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson) and they have been given by others who spoke in the Debate to whose views in that respect I subscribe. But I do want to deal very briefly, if the House will bear with me, with the suggestion made by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford (Lord Hugh Cecil) in that

2173
delightful speech to which we listened a little earlier. He told us that the retention in the King's Declaration of any language—and in this, of course, he has been preceded by the Prime Minister—whether it be affirmative of the Sovereign's belief in the Protestant faith or a Declaration of his opposition to the Roman Catholic religion, whatever form you choose to adopt, has no real hearing on, and still less is it the means by which you are going to secure the Protestant Succession. The Prime Minister, in his speech, told us that there seemed to be some little ignorance in this House as to the real bearing of this question. Undoubtedly there is a great deal of ignorance among the people outside it. I question whether the numerous pressing demands upon the Prime Minister's thoughts and time have not prevented him from really testing and ascertaining what is the opinion of the people of this country and upon what that opinion is founded.
I believe that a great majority of our fellow-countrymen who, as Protestants, attach great importance to the retention in the Oath of some declaratory words, inoffensive, of course, avoiding all that could be offensive, and far more so anything that could be insulting to those who now complain, but emphasising clearly and distinctly the fact that the new Sovereign is by his faith and in his heart determined to oppose that particular form of religion which the majority of the people of this country believe is more hostile to their own faith and more dangerous to the State than any other form of religion. Then why do they attach importance to the existence of these words? Not, Sir, I believe, for the reason given by the Prime Minister; not because they have not examined the facts and history of the matter; not because they believe that this in itself is the security for the Protestant Succession. I believe they know the point at stake as well as, I will not say the Prime Minister, but as well as many other people. But they do regard these words as the outward and visible sign of that profession and determination on the part of the Sovereign. For this reason they attach to them very great importance. What is the change that is being made? We who believe that there ought to be an alteration, as we believe that the language is needlessly offensive, approached the consideration of this in earlier days from the point of view of those who believed that the offensive words were simply the two words "superstitious" and "idolatrous." I confidently
2174
submit to the House that that was, in all the earlier stages of this controversy, the ground that was taken up and the argument invariably used. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I do not say that as the question has gone on it has not undergone a change, and that the ground of objection has not been widened, but in the earlier stages the objection which was raised or which was brought to our notice more explicitly and with the greatest force was that based upon the inclusion in the Declaration of words which are needlessly offensive to our fellow-citizens here and in other parts of the Empire. We believed that the only change that is necessary was one which would take out those particular words, but when the thing was carried further, and when it was pointed out to us that it was not only those two words to which objection was taken, but it was to the general description given by the language now employed, I for one would have been prepared—and I am prepared now, in my desire that there shall be, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman said at the conclusion of his speech, peace and concord among us all, if we can get it—to go further and say that the Declaration might be still more altered. But in recasting it what position do we find ourselves in now? I listened to the speech of the Prime Minister, in which he told us, if I understood him aright, that the Government meant to adhere to this Bill, that they would accept any Amendment which was likely to be generally supported throughout the House, but that they adhered to the structure of the new Declaration—that is to say, it is to take the form of an affirmation of Protestant faith, and not of the repudiation of any other doctrine. That makes our position impossible and intolerable. I am afraid that those of us, of whom I am one, who would have been glad to see an alteration made, and who would have made a great effort to support an alteration, going further even than we had originally contemplated, will by this action on the part of the Government be forced into the Lobby with those who object to any change at all. I profoundly regret this position on the part of the Government. I would have been very glad if it had been possible for a great majority of this House, for all outside and within, to have been in agreement on the settlement of this question; and I believe myself—I may be wrong, and I apologise for troubling the House even with the opinion, but I give it because I hold it very strongly—I believe

2175
if there had been more time given for the consideration of this question, and fuller opportunity given for those out of this House to inform themselves as to what it was proposed to do, and to make up their minds as to the way in which they would like it to be done, that it would have been possible, after the fuller time given for consideration, to find phraseology which would have met with general support. That, however, is denied us, and we are told that we must vote practically for these words, that the Government will regard any Amendment such as I have indicated as wholly destructive, and that therefore if we vote for the Second Reading we vote for it with our eyes open, and knowing that we cannot by any possibility get into the Bill any Amendment which would carry out our wishes.
The Prime Minister told us he believed—and the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford pointed in the same direction—that there is no necessity for a Declaration at all, and that the Protestant Succession is secured by the law. I believe that the Prime Minister's declaration is accurate, and that it is in the law that the security for the Protestant Succession is to be found. But the logical conclusion of that would be to avoid putting any words into the Sovereign's mouth at all, to avoid the adoption of language embodying any form of Declaration. But if you do deliberately intend to have words to put into the Sovereign's mouth on the occasion of his Accession a declaration as to his opinions, then why are we asked without any previous notice to adopt this form? How long has this question been before the House? The Bill was introduced a month ago, and how many Members of this House in any quarter of it and, far less, how many people outside of this House a week before the Bill was introduced, could have foretold with any degree of accuracy what its contents were going to be? We had it before us only for a month, and we have as I have already ventured to say, enormous difficulty in not having adequate time for its discussion. The result is that we find ourselves in a position of extraordinary difficulty. For my part, I had hardly made up my mind when I came down to the House. Indeed, I had not made up my mind as to what line I would take, and I hardly like to commit myself now to a definite declaration; but that is the position, as it seems to me, having approached
2176
this question, I believe, honestly and, I believe, with the single desire to find some way of voting for an alteration which would give general satisfaction. Yet, notwithstanding this strong desire, I can see no course open to me, in face of the declaration of the Prime Minister, but to vote against the Second Reading. If I am compelled to give such a vote I do it with profound reluctance and because of the manner in which I feel that the Government have used their power and their great strength in trying to force the support of those who differ from them, and who would have been glad to have considered their differences in a friendly desire to find a solution for them, and because they have treated us, in my judgment, most unfairly in forcing upon us, as they have done, at the end of the Session, and giving but a few moments for the discussion and consideration of one of the gravest questions which this House has ever been asked to settle.
7.0 P.M
Mr. EDWARD WOOD: The discussion this afternoon has made it quite clear that there are various schools of criticism of the Bill brought forward by the Prime Minister. There is a small class which I believe would agree with the Prime Minister, and would be glad to see the whole of the Declaration got rid of and repealed. There is another and even smaller class which would prefer that the Declaration should be left unaltered, except, if possible, to make it stronger by additions. A third party are in favour of some change. For my part I think there is much to be said in support of the view that we should get rid of the Declaration altogether. I think a great many of us are prepared to agree with the Prime Minister that the Declaration, in view of the fact that it relates to a condition of things that has long passed away, and in view of the comprehensive restrictions found in the Act of Settlement and Bill of Rights, is now unnecessary. I would also remind the House that there is another equally potent restriction to ensure the Protestant Succession, in that it is compulsory upon the Monarch when he is crowned to receive Holy Communion according to the rites of the Church of England. I think all Roman Catholics will agree that it is impossible for any Roman Catholic to comply with that condition. Further than that, I think the whole point practically returns to where it was placed by my Noble Friend the

2177
Member for Oxford University, when he said that if the Sovereign is dishonest, no Declaration which you could frame is worth the paper on which it is printed. Though the Government might have chosen the simpler course of proposing to get rid of the Declaration altogether, yet they are prepared, and I daresay from their point of view quite rightly, to adopt the more difficult course of trying to change it.
The alteration proposed by the Prime Minister this afternoon will very materially assist the passage of the Bill. He has tried to meet the main objections which have been urged on different sides of the House. He has, I think, met the objections of those hon. Members who found themselves unable to agree with the words: "The Church of England by law established." He has also, I think, met the objection of those of whom I am one, who would have objected to the description of the Church of England as the "Protestant and Reformed Church." As the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University pointed out, there is a sense in which the Church of England is Protestant and Reformed, but we do not regard that as the true constitutional or historical description of the Church to which we belong. The actual criticism which the Prime Minister has not met is the criticism of those who wish to have in the Declaration some specific statement against Rome. For my own part, I am completely at a loss to understand why the Roman Catholics should object to the majority of the electors of this country saying that they do not want a Roman Catholic King. I can perfectly well understand Roman Catholics saying that they regard it as highly offensive to have singled out certain of their doctrines for abuse. I believe, however, that the Roman Catholics themselves would feel that there is a very true distinction between that, and merely stating, as a matter of fact, that we do not want a Roman Catholic King. Perhaps, as the Debate goes on, we may hear some further expression of opinion which may perhaps lead the Prime Minister to reconsider the matter. I believe it would be perfectly simple, with goodwill on each side, to meet that point. It is with these feelings that I shall vote for the Second Reading of the Bill. Though the change proposed by the Prime Minister requires to be carefully considered, yet I think it goes a very long way to remove the legitimate objections that were urged against the Schedule as it originally appeared.
Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University said he did not believe that anybody would get up in this House and propose a Motion for the old Declaration. I think there are not wanting Members of this House who would get up at any moment and declare anything that suits them. I would remind the Noble Lord of the fact that James II. did not take the Oath, and in Scotland that was one of the indictments on which he was deposed, while in this country he went away and left the Throne vacant. The objections to the Bill in Scotland are very strong, and based on historical facts, and Scottish Members have received a great many protests against it. Some—a very few—object to any alteration whatever, but a great body are quite prepared to see the offensive words struck out of the Declaration. They feel that it is only just to Roman Catholics that these offensive words should disappear. We can quite sympathise with ultra-Protestant feeling in Scotland, because Scottish men suffered in the seventeenth century, and their sufferings have been burnt into every Scotchman, so that, even 200 years after, they are vivid in his mind. Still, we live in very different times from what they were then. Two hundred years have passed, and the whole position is altered. I think Macaulay said, and said very well, as bearing on the question of the great Revolution, that:—
"It finally decided the great question whether the popular element which had ever, since the age of Fitz-waiter and de Montfort, been found in the English polity, should be suffered to develop itself freely and become dominant. The strife between the two principles had been long fierce and doubtful. It had lasted through four reigns."
There is no doubt it has become dominant. At that time the French kings and French people partly influenced Scotch-men, but all that has gone now. No one could imagine danger from France in view of the recent history of that country, and the Romish Church has dwindled and dwindled until it is almost impossible to imagine the reinstatement of the Romish Church in this country or any part of it. I would point out what was done by the Scottish Parliaments. The House should remember that the Scottish Parliament had a separate Oath, and they did what the English did not do—they deposed their King. They brought an indictment against the King, and they actually deposed him. They have an Oath of their own, and, so far as I can make out, I do not think the Scottish people ask for any alteration at all. The

2179
Scottish Oath which exists at present contains no offensive remarks on the Romish Church. The Protestant religion in Scotland is managed by the Kirk Session, Presbyteries, and General Assemblies, and they are all fully protected by the Oath which His Majesty the King has already taken. So far as Scotland is concerned, we feel that there can be no danger of the Protestant Succession or of the Presbyterian Church being in any way damaged by the Declaration, whether it is going to be altered or not. Macaulay said of the Scottish people:—
"The greater boldness of the Scots was in accordance with their well-known character of turbulence and independence."
The Scottish people are still independent, but they are giving up their turbulence, unless it is considered that an example was afforded the other night. But can anyone imagine that the turbulence would not be fully to the front again if there was any danger of the Presbyterian Church being attacked or destroyed? Notwithstanding the strong feeling existing in Scotland she takes up a separate position, and has a separate Oath. Although, of course, she is mixed up with the present Declaration, her position is perfectly secure, and I cannot see that there can be any possible danger to her or her religion. There was, no doubt, a strong feeling, and a feeling with which one can sympathise thoroughly, against the exclusion of any other part of the Protestant religion besides the Church of England. However, the Prime Minister promises to reconsider those words, and that ought to satisfy all reasonable objection. At all events, it satisfies me, and even at the risk of incurring displeasure amongst some of my Constituents, I feel that I am bound, in consideration to all those subjects of the King who are offended, and naturally offended, by these words, to vote that they should be so modified. I think, if the Covenanters of 1688 did not demand an offensive Declaration, their heirs and successors should be content at all events with what their forefathers were content with. I think, after what the Prime Minister said, and with the concession he proposes to make, I can see my way to support the Bill.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I can promise I shall not detain the House very long, and I only speak because if I gave a silent vote on this occasion it would be thought that I wished to evade some of the responsibility which all of us must have in a matter
2180
like this, and that I was unmoved by what I admit to be the great pressure of public opinion. Like everybody else I have been overwhelmed by letters on this subject, and I do not in the least doubt those of my Friends who say that there is an overwhelmingly strong popular feeling against any change. They have a perfect right to say that, and I feel the more bound to express my own conviction that some change is, in my opinion, desirable. Let me say before I come to that point that I entirely agree with the criticisms passed by my right hon. Friend upon the management of Government business in this respect in the speech which he has just made. I must frankly say that to press a measure which does excite, rightly or wrongly, such extraordinary interest in all parts of the country, through the House in two or three successive days to bring it in for effective discussion after the Appropriation Bill is passed, and to allow no interval between the Second Reading and the Committee stage is very unusual, is very extraordinary, and I think a rather regrettable abuse of Parliamentary power. Having expressed that view I do not mean to dwell further upon it. I agree entirely with all that fell from my right hon. Friend on that point.
I now address myself to what I take to be the main point at issue. I do not propose to touch upon the Roman Catholic side of the question at all or the arguments they address to us. I think we must regard ourselves in the main as a Protestant Assembly, determined, so far as the majority of the House is concerned on both sides, to maintain the Protestant Succession, and desirous of maintaining the Protestant Succession, I believe, in perfect harmony with the views even held by many Catholic Members of this House. All we have got to do is to consider how the Protestant Succession can best be preserved by means of the Declaration. The Prime Minister addressed his argument earlier in the afternoon, though not strictly a logical view, to show that, in his view, we should lose nothing if we abandoned the Declaration altogether and trusted entirely to the statutory provisions which, as he said, gave substantial sanction to the Protestant religion which we require from our Sovereign by turning him out of the Throne if he becomes a Roman Catholic or marries a Roman Catholic. I do not dwell upon that part of the argument, because we are all agreed we had better obey the tradition which

2181
requires from the Sovereign a Declaration of his own personal relation to this question of creed. The only point, therefore, is does the new form, which avowedly gives no offence to Roman Catholics, does it or does it not weaken the security for the Protestant Succession? That is not only the main question, but it is the only question. There really is no other question at all.
I think the very ingenious arguments we have just heard from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. M. Henderson) gets rid even of what I may call the national prejudices which may have existed on this subject, because he has proved, at all events to his own satisfaction, that that Declaration is purely an English invention, and the bad language is purely an English usage, and that, so far as our country is concerned, his country and my country, they have, if we look at the question historically, carefully abstained from ever saying anything offensive of a religion which did not happen to be theirs, and that we have shown North of the Tweed a toleration of other beliefs than our own which might be happily imitated in the South. As he has eliminated all questions of national and international import there literally remains only the one question, which I have already stated to the House, namely, how are we best to preserve the Protestant Succession and does this Declaration in its new form weaken the Protestant Succession? I have listened to every speech that has been delivered either on the First Reading of this Bill or on the Second Reading of this Bill, and I have read a certain amount of that wealth of literature which has been poured out by both sides on this question during the last few weeks. Really nobody has ever been able to explain to me how it makes it more secure having a Protestant Sovereign to insist upon his condemning two particular Roman doctrines rather than insisting that he should say he is a sincere Protestant. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the St. Austell Division (Mr. Agar-Robartes) attempted to deal with this, but really only advanced one argument. He said that Charles II. had been five years a Roman Catholic before his death. I am not quite sure whether that is an authentic record. I thought it was generally supposed that he was admitted to that Church shortly before he was in articulo mortis, although no doubt he had strong Roman Catholic sympathies for many years.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: We never experienced them in Ireland.
Mr. BALFOUR: What was the hon. Gentleman's argument? He said he was quite certain that Charles II. would have taken the amended form of Declaration but that he would never have taken the original form. There was no opportunity of asking Charles II., and as far as I have been able to form any idea of the character of that distinguished Monarch, I think, if it would have suited his purpose, he would have had no more difficulty in dealing with the Declaration in one form than he would have found in dealing with it in another. I think his genius would have risen to the heights of the occasion if they had been alternatively presented to him. In the Declaration one specifically selects, and in language which I believe Roman Catholics think theologically inadequate, to condemn two doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. What do you do when you declare yourself to be a faithful Protestant? You declare yourself to be a Christian who disapproves of the whole doctrine and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church—far wider, and it is just as strong. The whole origin of the word "Protestant" is based upon a repudiation of what we Protestants consider the errors of Rome. That is its historical origin in the main, and it is the true and substantial meaning ever since. It is the meaning which our forefathers gave it when they put it into Acts of Parliament. It is the meaning which theologians of all sections of Protestants, whether Episcopalian or non-Episcopalian, Presbyterian or any of the other Protestant sections, gave it, and it was the sense in which they all used it, and consistently used it, generation after generation and century after century.
There may be other objections, but I cannot imagine anybody seriously saying you are more likely to let in a Roman Catholic Sovereign if you only require him to say that he is faithful Protestant than if you require him to select two special doctrines for special condemnation. Can anybody answer that argument? I can truly say I have never yet heard an answer. With all the desire to understand exactly where the objection comes, I am so far utterly unable to apprehend it. If anybody could show me within the smallest degree that the Protestant Succession was in danger by this qualification I should vote against the Government without the smallest hesitation, because I am not one of those who.

2183
think that all the difficulties of religious strife are over, that the seventeenth century saw the end of them, and that the eighteenth century saw the beginning of that indifference, which has spread, and continued, and is likely to spread and continue as enlightenment grows amongst civilised countries. I do not take that view. If any man tells me lie thinks that in the future there are dangers which may follow from Roman Catholicism, I do not deny it. I think there may. If anybody tells me, as some hon. Members have told us this afternoon, that Roman Catholics have never abandoned their exclusive attitude, or, as we should say, their intolerable attitude, that they have never given up the right when they think it expedient of enforcing their doctrines by every means in their power, again I agree. But that is not the point. The point is, Do you weaken Protestantism and the Protestant Succession by these words? How you can weaken the Protestant Succession by requiring the Monarch to declare that he is a sincere Protestant utterly passes my power of understanding. Therefore I look with the less misgiving from a Protestant point of view on the proposed change. I think everybody ought to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill who wants even to leave out the language which my right hon. Friend, and, I believe, most other Members, desire to see eliminated from the Declaration in its present form, because they belong as I belong, and as I have long belonged, to the number of those who think the Oath ought to be so altered as to give the least possible offence to any portion of His Majesty's subjects. I think we ought to go into the Lobby in support of the Second Reading; but I agree that differences may subsequently arise on the Committee stage, when those who prefer the negative, which is the old form, to the positive, which is the new form proposed by the Government, may find themselves in different Lobbies. I shall wait until I have heard the discussion in Committee before I decide which of the many alternatives presented to us is the best; but at present it seems to me perfectly clear that I am bound to vote for the Second Reading, because I think there ought to be a change, and I believe that everybody in this House who agrees that there should be a change, whatever he thinks that change ought to be, is also bound to vote for the Second Reading. Whatever the ultimate decision may be, if
2184
it is no worse than the decision which the Prime Minister announced this afternoon, if it embodies no greater danger to the Protestant Succession than the words which he has suggested this afternoon carry with them, I think the Protestant Succession is as safe as Acts of Parliament, Oaths, and Declarations can possibly make it.
Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is with a great deal of hesitation that I would urge perhaps even upon the attention of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that there is one additional point in the matter under discussion which makes some extra appeal to those who are of his nationality and mine. It is really in regard not so much to the substance of the declaration as it is proposed to be amended by the Prime Minister, as to one of the arguments on which he based his case for amending it. In the course of his speech the Prime Minister gave it as his settled opinion that the words in the Act of Settlement, "Whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown shall join in communion with the Church of England by law established," must be taken as necessarily establishing that the Sovereign should join in communion with the Church of England, and must ipso facto be exclusively a member of the Church of England as well. Without any appeal to national or international prejudice, I think there are a large number of members professing the Protestant religion, who in England do not belong to the English Established Church, or in Scotland are Presbyterian, who really would dissent with all deference from that reading of the Act of Settlement. It is not upon our own individual opinion we venture to question it, but after having received very reliable opinions as to what construction can properly be placed upon the Clause. For that reason there are a large number of inhabitants north of the Tweed, and I doubt not there are a considerable proportion south of the Tweed also, who believe that hitherto the Sovereign has been, within the limits of the Reformed Church, perfectly free to choose to which branch of the Reformed Church he should belong.
I believe, for my own part, that that opinion is really backed up by the facts of history. The Act of Settlement was passed while William III. was still alive, but I believe that William III. was not a Member of the Established Church, though

2185
he joined in communion with it. William III. was a Dutch Calvinist, and I believe it is equally true that the early Georges were Lutherans. I asked my Noble Friend {Lord Hugh Cecil) how that could be reconciled with being a member of the Church of England, and his opinion seemed to be that their sense of Lutheranism was perhaps not particularly dominant in them at the time. At the same time I think it can very fairly be maintained in contradistinction to the opinion of the Prime Minister that at present, under the law, the Sovereign has for the last two centuries been perfectly free within the limits of Protestantism to choose the particular branch to which he shall belong. For that reason we think not only that it ought to be secured to him, as it will be, by the amended form of this Declaration, but that it should be recognised in argument as well that he should have that liberty, and that for the future if he should naturally wish to be a member of the Church of England no other Protestant should be unwilling or should grudge the fact that it was so; while, on the other hand, should his natural bent incline him to one or the other branches of the Reformed Church, he should be equally free in his adhesion to it.
One reason why this aspect of the case has appealed to my fellow countrymen north of the Tweed is, perhaps, that they attach supreme importance to being given free will upon a subject of this kind. A considerable number of years ago, in the Presbyterian churches they habitually used the form of Common Prayer used in the Established Church in England. Unfortunately, however, Archbishop Laud saw fit to send to Scotland a notice that they were to do so, and then, though they had been doing it of their own free will before, a celebrated case occurred in which the Book of Common Prayer was used as a missile and not as a means of devotion. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "A stool."] Thereafter the use of it was discontinued. If only the opinion be voiced that the Sovereign shall be quite free within the limits of the Protestant reformed faith, that objection on the part of many Presbyterians to the form of Declaration, as here amended, will fall to the ground. In that respect I think the majority of us differ from the view expressed by the Member for North Down (Mr. Mitchell-Thomson) and others, who wish to retain the Declaration in anything like its old form. Many of us may disagree with Roman
2186
Catholics, both as to many of their doctrines and as to their attitude to religious liberty and freedom of conscience and intellect. I have been the recipient of many extracts dealing with Roman Catholic doctrines and the attitude of Roman Catholics towards the Reformed Church, which extracts remind me more of some of the expletives in highly-coloured detective stories than any other form of literature with which one is naturally acquainted. But that is really no reason at all, as appeared to be believed by the Member for North Down, why we should adopt the same attitude in return. The fact that you believe other people are intolerant towards you is no reason whatsoever why an attitude of intolerance should be adopted towards them. I would also adopt most fully the view which has been expressed with regard to the possibility of the Sovereign disregarding his Oath if he wished to be a Roman Catholic. Indeed, the case is, I think, even stronger than has been put. Two hundred years ago there still lingered a certain amount of belief in bad language in the shape of oaths, incantations, and exorcisms, which really does not exist at all in the present day; and even if there had been any validity at all in damnatory clauses 200 years ago they would have lost that validity, and their force would have evaporated at the present moment.
One other argument which has not yet been mentioned is that if the Roman Church in the course of years becomes, as there has been a tendency in past years to become, less tolerant than previously and more obscurantist, there is really less danger of Roman Catholicism upon the Throne or becoming dominant in England than would otherwise have been the case. The more intolerant a Church becomes, the more it would bind the intellect in fetters, the less likelihood there is that that Church will acquire greater power in the United Kingdom. To a certain extent that evolution is going on in the Roman Church to-day. One hundred years ago the infallibility of the Pope was not a canon of faith with them. In fact, there was a Roman Catholic catechism, one question of which was: "Do you believe in the infallibility of the Pope?" and the answer was, "No; that is a calumny of the Protestants." Since 1870 there has appeared a new edition of precisely the same catechism, from which that question and answer have been discreetly omitted. It reminds me, by way of

2187
analogy, of a History of England written by a late Member of this House, in which a certain reference to Free Trade formerly printed was afterwards omitted. It is without the least doubt the case that the less tolerant a Church becomes the less likely, instead of the more likely, it is at the present day to proselytize in anything like large numbers. Therefore I say, if only the opinion as regards the freedom of the Sovereign within the limits of the Protestant Reformed Church is agreed to or voiced, not the least apprehension need be felt about this alteration, either as it is proposed to be amended by the Prime Minister or if it were put in the negative form.
On the other hand, I think that possibly too much importance has been attached by my Noble Friend (Lord Hugh Cecil) to the two words "Reformed" and "Protestant." It is perhaps stretching the niceties of toleration rather far to suggest that "Reformed" is offensive, because the implicit inference is that the other Church is unreformed. As regards "Protestant," I think there is really no objection to the word at all. It is quite true that at this stage of history "Protestant" cannot very well be regarded as a descriptive term; nor can "Axminster" as applied to a carpet; but everyone knows quite well what article is intended by the term "Axminster," and practically everyone knows exactly what is intended by the word "Protestant." I gather that should the Sovereign ever wish to abandon the Protestant religion, it would not be a matter of interpretation for a Court of Law, because a Court of Law could have no jurisdiction in such a case. It would really be, as the Noble Lord has said, a matter of interpretation for the two Houses, on a Motion, and they would put upon the word "Protestant" the interpretation that everybody, as a matter of fact and without too much refinement, knows does attach to it at the present moment.
Perhaps I might join in the appeal for a little more time for considering the actual form of the Declaration in Committee, or before the Bill passes its final stages. I think that more than a day could very well be asked for that. Probably no one who before might have objected to this Declaration on the score of the insertion of the words "as by law established in England" would be unwilling to vote for the Second Reading. To that extent I
2188
think we may congratulate the Prime Minister on his concession this afternoon. At the same time may we be allowed to say this action presents a rather peculiar little case in political psychology. In the first place, he has introduced the Bill, and says he has introduced it largely because it is not necessary—with regard to the Declaration. In the second place, he says that it did not need alteration, and he therefore proceeds to alter it. Apart from the question of psychological motive which has induced him to do so, I think, although some of us may think that a negative form of the Declaration may or may not be slightly better than a positive, yet there is nothing to prevent us who may have objected to it before, and belonging to other branches of the Reformed Church, from voting for the Second Reading, and showing our willingness to do away with words needlessly offensive to our fellow subjects among the Roman Catholics.
Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I do not rise for the purpose of offering any further argument in favour of this Bill from the Roman Catholic point of view. I think that point of view is very well known, and has been thoroughly explained to this House. I rise for the purpose of answering in one word an appeal which I understood to be made particularly to these benches by the Prime Minister. In his explanation of the Amendment of this Bill of what he is prepared to concede in Committee he hazarded the opinion that there would be no objection to it from the Catholic point of view. He is perfectly right in that surmise. There is, so far as I know, not the slightest objection to these proposed alterations from Catholic Members of this House. Indeed, I would go further, and say that I cannot conceive that it would be, under any possible circumstances, the duty of Catholics to interfere in the drafting and phraseology of this Bill in reference to the Protestantism of His Majesty the King. That is entirely a matter for hon. Gentlemen in this House who are Protestants. It is a matter which I think it would be extremely unbecoming for Catholics to enter upon. Having said that much, I would like further to make this appeal to hon. Gentlemen sitting on both sides of the House. I would ask them to remember that the introduction even of this Bill, much less its passage, has already had a very wonderful effect in Ireland in bringing people of all classes and all religions together

2189
who have been hitherto estranged. I would ask hon. Gentlemen, especially on this side of the House, to remember when they listen to speeches of those hon. Gentlemen who represent extreme Protestantism in the North of Ireland that there is amongst the Protestants of all parts of Ireland a most extraordinary movement in favour of this Bill. Only the other day there was a meeting of gentlemen in Dublin, and those who composed a committee formed at that meeting were Protestants who favoured this Bill from different parts of Ireland. Unfortunately, I have not here by me at this moment a list of names of the men who made up that committee, but had I that list I would have no difficulty in showing that Protestants of all classes, and representing every shade of opinion in Ireland, have come together and expressed their opinion in favour of this Bill. When speeches are made from north of Ireland constituencies against this measure I would ask hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House to be kind enough to remember that it does not by any means represent the Protestant feeling in Ireland. Protestants in Ireland are largely, I would say overwhelmingly, in favour of this Bill. Their attitude has been very warmly welcome by Catholics in Ireland. There is, I believe, because of this very effort to remove those grievances, a better and happier feeling between men of all religions in Ireland to-day than there has been for many long years.
I have no complaint to make of the hon. Gentlemen the Member for North Down. In the speech he made he represented his point of view, but I did regret to hear him going through the ordinary line of argument, and making the same ordinary attacks which are usually delivered upon the Catholic Church. I do not think there is in this particular the slightest necessity for attacks to be made upon any religion or any Church whatever. I certainly do not think there is a Catholic in this House or outside of this House who, in asking for a removal of what is a sore grievance, has desired to say one offensive word against the religion of any man in this House, in this country, or in this Empire. I do appeal that this Debate, and the proceedings generally on this Bill, may be conducted, as they quite easily can be conducted, in a mutual spirit of toleration, and free from those vulgar attacks upon religion which unfortunately sometimes are made outside of this House, and which are entirely unworthy of the character
2190
and reputation of this House. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen to remember also that this is not a matter which affects even Ireland principally, though of course we there are more Catholic than anything else. It is a matter which affects, and which deeply affects, the strongest portions of your Empire in every part of the world. I have been all through Australia, in New Zealand, in Canada, and the other parts of the world where the British flag flies. I defy contradiction when I say that outside of this country there is in every portion of the Empire the strongest and the most pathetic feeling in favour of this Bill. Twice the Parliament of the Dominion of Canada has passed a Resolution begging this House to do what it is asked to do to-night. Only the other day the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, representing the great democracy of that country, absolutely unanimously passed a Resolution to present an Address to the King approving the alteration which is proposed. I ask hon. Gentlemen to believe me when I say that this act of justice will do more than anything probably during the last hundred years to make a good spirit of friendship and comradeship between men of all classes and all religions, not only in Ireland, but throughout the length and breadth of the Empire.
Mr. KYFFIN-TAYLOR: I apologise for speaking at this early stage after my recent election, which, however, was specially fought on the matter before the House. I venture to humbly put before the House my reasons and views, and those of my Constituents, who desire that no change whatever should be made in the Accession Declaration. I agree with those Members of this House who feel that there should be no change, and that the Declaration should contain an expression of repudiation of the central doctrines of the Church of Rome. We know that that repudiation will not be liked by our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. We also know that, however mild and inoffensive the words may be, they will still object to such repudiation. But it is apparently clear that, try how we will to soften these words, the mere fact that we desire a Declaration which will express our religious views strongly, as I think we should do, that no such form will be acceptable to our Roman Catholic friends. My reason for the repudiation is twofold. The spiritual doctrines of the Church of Rome are really the bases of its political faith.

2191
Furthermore, I am inclined to say that experience has proved that the actual Declaration in use, which does contain the repudiation of the doctrines, have proved effective, and experience has shown us that no one can take this Declaration unless it is absolutely certain that he be a Protestant. The Catholic Truth Society says:—
"It must be admitted that the test is effective. No Catholic can speak the word and remain a Roman Catholic."
I contend that this is an answer to the statement about Charles II., because if Charles II. had taken that Oath he would have ceased to be a Catholic. That is the very point. What we feel is that the safeguards which have proved satisfactory so long should be allowed to remain to-day. Other hon. Members have referred to what happened in Malta and Spain. I will not go into this in extenso, but I would like to say that what the authorities of Malta objected to was the fact that the Rev. John McNeill desired to hold a mission in a building called the Theatre Royal. The Archbishop, writing about a small privilege of this kind, said:—
"I can only signify my deep displeasure, and that of all my diocesans, at the sanction to hold this religious worship in this island."
In regard to Spain. What is it the Vatican objects to? It objects to a decree of the King of Spain that Protestant places of worship in Spain can in the future have a main entrance in the front street! The Vatican protests with all its power against a small privilege of this kind. The principles of the Vatican are that Romanist always demand toleration from us because on account of our principles we cannot refuse, but they always and everywhere refuse toleration to us because on account of their principles they feel obliged to refuse. What I and those I speak for believe is that the Church of Rome stands to-day exactly where it stood when this Declaration was drawn up. We dare not run the risk of a King coming to the Throne and owning allegiance to a spiritual power so absolutely hostile to the principles which we hold in this country. We say, Let this Declaration remain as a permanent invitation to the Papal Power to declare that from henceforth it is going to extend that toleration to us which we always extended to our fellow Roman Catholic subjects in this country. I would like to give another reason, and would draw attention to the state of the Church of England to-day. The first Statute that was passed in re-
2192
ference to this Declaration had nothing to do with the Bill of Rights or with the King. It was passed in 1672. Not being extensive enough, it was enlarged to its existing form in 1677. It was mainly passed with the object of promoting and maintaining the Protestant religion reformed by law. The point I wish to bring out is this, that that Oath had to be taken by bishops, peers, and Members of the house of Commons, and by other office-holders as well. It was abolished in the year 1829 so far as some of these persons were concerned. It is a significant fact that up to that year Humanism in the Church of England was practically non-existent—that is to say, that so long as bishops were obliged to take this oath, this Declaration against transubstantiation, Romanism in our Established Church did not exist. From that day its growth has been remarkable. Notwithstanding the remark of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University, I think a year or two ago the Royal Commission was able to report that a large number of the clergy of the Established Church were on the Homeward side of the line of deep cleavage between the Church of England and the Church of Rome. So long as you find in the Established Church clergy who, while they take the emoluments of that Church, teach the doctrines of the Church of Rome, so long we are entitled to protest that this Declaration shall not be altered by a single word.
Mr. BELLOC: I agree with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. Redmond) who spoke a while ago from the benches opposite that it might be as well on the whole if no other Catholic spoke in this Debate. As I had spoken on the First Reading of this Bill that would be another reason why it might be thought I should abstain from rising, and I had resolved to do so when I first came to the House, but as a matter of fact we are now discussing a new Bill. The Prime Minister suggested—and the course of the Debate has turned that suggestion into something more than a suggestion—that this is practically a new Bill for Debate, and anybody who has spoken, with whatever authority from the Catholic point of view on the First Reading, could not give a vote on the Second Reading of this Bill easily unless they explained that vote. Personally, I shall vote for the Second Reading not only for the Constituency that sent me here, but also for that unrepresented mass—a mass that must be unrepresented so long as you have

2193
single-Member constituencies—the mass of the Lancashire Catholics. But I shall not vote for the Second Reading with the same ready explanation to myself as I would vote for the Second Reading of the original proposal. The original proposal was that in place of picking out doctrines upon which men were divided, and which certain forms of religious belief, for what reason I cannot say, imagined to be particularly attached to Catholicism, whereas in fact they cover the whole of the Eastern Church and many more religions, including the Coptic, in place of that original proposal there is given us a proposal which says that the King shall declare himself what he is by constitutional habit and tradition and plan and actual statute law, and make him declare himself the Head of the Established Church in this country. In my humble judgment the masses of this country have ceased to care for these theological points so interesting to the middle classes. The masses cease to care for them, but they have a traditional respect for the Establishment, and they regard it as normal that the King should declare himself as the Head of the Established Church. But when it comes to making His Majesty declare himself attached, by the word "Protestant," to a point of view, to a transcendental philosophy, to a scheme of morals which have, as hon. Members well said, still a concrete meaning though much vaguer than they used to have—opposed as I am naturally to religious tests in any form save where religion is the subject-matter, as in the case of a school teacher or a chaplain in the Navy—opposed as I am to the existence of religious tests, as I am sure are all Liberals, I should have with some regret voted for the Second Reading of the first proposal, and I shall with more regret vote for the Second Reading of the second proposal, but I shall vote for it, because it is certainly the less of two evils.
There is one thing that should be emphasised by any Catholic speaking from the Catholic point of view before we go any further. We have heard two Members already, and I am the third of the Catholic Faith speaking on this subject, and I therefore should like to pay my respectful tribute to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for permitting so large a proportion of what is a small minority of your fellow-citizens to express their views upon this occasion. There is one thing that ought to be brought out at once: a large part of the Debate has turned upon theology, as if we
2194
were a Parliament trying to make laws for Bishops and for kirks. I submit that that attitude is not relevant to the Bill. It would have been far better, and it would have given a cleaner-cut Debate, and we should have had much more interest if less expressions of animosity against the Catholic Church had been made. I should regard such expressions quite philosophically in their proper place. The stronger such expressions are in their proper place the better for the morals of the world. Very little acquaintance with the culture of the world would teach hon. Members that the struggle has already begun in modern Europe between the Church and its opponents, and that these two are to-day the chief antagonists, and, although you may not have it here Yet, it is bound to come. That is so if you take European culture as a whole; and successful as the governors of this country have been in keeping out of those great European debates in regard to the Catholic Church the reflex of that great quarrel will ultimately reach these shores. In its proper place I welcome discussion and attack upon the Church. It clears the air and it affords the only chance in a country so overwhelmingly anti-Catholic of the Catholic point of view being stated. I welcome such action; but I submit the theological attitude which many Members have taken up in the course of this Debate does not affect the Bill. You might have the greatest love for the Catholic Church and the highest possible detachment, devotion and loyalty to it but that would not affect the subject of the Bill before the House. What we are concerned with here is whether we shall impose a test, the one last remaining test upon the one office and the highest in the State and in what form that test shall be imposed. It has been stated, and the old Declaration contains the statement that the Pope could tell a man before he tells a lie that it would not be a sin to do so. Under what system of morals is it conceivable that such a power could exist? In what canon or doctrine of the Catholic Church will you find even an adumbration of such a proposition? I must say that if in the confusion of the moment in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries any such doctrine was bandied about, if anyone permitted these exaggerations then they sound extraordinarily foolish to-day. In the Catholic theology Christ Himself could not have permitted you a sin of that kind. How then could the Vice-Regent, His repre-

2195
sentative on earth, if he be His representative, permit it? How can he go to a man and say, "You may break one of the great canons of the law next Thursday and I will let you off." Wherever such a supposition arose, or however it came about, it is historically a falsehood. That power does not exist, never has existed, and could not exist.
There is another point. A great deal has been said about toleration, and it is said, and said with a certain hint, though a false hint, that because the Church of Rome was herself not tolerant, therefore it was logical and right, and even common sense, that the ordinary rules of toleration should not be extended to her. I waited for, but did not hear, that famous historical inaccuracy which always comes out in debates of this kind, and which is attributed to a man who never said it, Veuillot, that Catholics claim liberty on the Protestant principle, but refuse it to Protestants on the Catholic principle. Toleration means this, that when in the State you cannot get what is certainly desirable—a united philosophy—that when you have a body of men already fixed and rooted in tradition and having the claim to be citizens within the State, you have no right to extirpate such a body. You have no right of authority to constrain a man in such a body who sincerely and bonâ fide agrees with it upon a matter of opinion. You will not find any theological treatise to excuse tyranny of that sort. You will find tyranny exercised by civil magistrates, both among Catholic and among other nations, but you will not find the Catholic doctrines more intolerant than the proposition I have laid down, and I marvel that educated men should imagine or believe that toleration should consist in having a vague idea that after all anything may be true. It is perfectly true that the Catholic Church alone says "What I say is true is true." It does not say "It may he true or it will be true on next Tuesday or Wednesday. "It says, "What I say is true is true." The foundation of mathematical science and the foundations of economic science are denied, and the very denial of them is often the gate to intellectual eminence to-day. But it so happens that there is in this world a philosophy which says, "What I say is true is true; not half true, but altogether true," and to accept such an altitude is conviction. It is intolerance to say to another man. "Your position is a hereditary position. You hold the traditions
2196
of a fixed and long-existing body in the State. You belong, therefore, to such and such a religion, but I forbid you or restrain you from practising the tenets of which I disapprove. When you say that the Catholic Church is intolerant because she does not change in authority, you do not understand the first meaning of the word "toleration" or the word "authority." I have said that theology ought not to have been introduced in this Debate. I have dealt with the question as briefly as I could, and I would just like to say shortly what seems to me to be the point before us. There ought to be no proposals for any test whatsoever. Nevertheless, there are two good reasons why if we are to have a proposal of this kind it is the milder proposal which we ought to vote for. First, we owe a duty, even in the House of Commons, to reality, and it is our business to remember something of what is going on outside. It is not true to say that there is a vast popular movement in the country against any change in the Oath. What is true is that this is a good stick to beat the Government with, and it offers a good chance for a rising politician to advertise himself. It is true that you can fill the Free Trade Hall in Manchester and pass resolutions denouncing this change; it is also true that you might fill the same hall to overflowing with Irish Catholics, who would come to the opposite conclusion. What I say is that outside all this opinion there is a vast majority of working men who are profoundly indifferent to the whole agitation. I have been told that there is a strong movement in Scotland, and I daresay there is, in favour of something rude being said about the Catholic Church; but I think it is quite untrue to say that there is a widespread and rising popular opposition to, this proposal. What is more important is the opinion of a powerful, well-organised minority that can decide an election. That point, I think, has explained more than one speech this evening. When the overwhelming majority of the country want a thing done or not done, they are of little effect—though they still have the House of Lords. When a small organised minority want a thing, then the politicians are afraid. I am ashamed to think, but I do think, that a little of the support in favour of this evident act of justice has come from men who are not themselves very much in favour of it but who have to remember that there is a Catholic vote in their constituencies. I hope more sincere principles will obtain.

2197
After all, we do represent those masses even under the party system. We represent their indifference to these theological squabbles. We must also remember that we represent here only the British Isles, but we are acting now for the whole Empire. Does anyone believe that if all these different parts of the Empire were represented, if we had chosen men from the various Colonies to meet the Government and the Opposition of the day, they would allow an Oath like the old one to stand? You might get the fanatical Orange clique, a few up-country Boers, and a much small number in New Zealand and Australia to support the old Oath, but the vast majority of them would regard it as fantastic and archaic nonsense. Under the circumstances I think it is plainly our duty as Liberals to accept the second best of two bad things, and vote for the Second Reading.
Mr. F. B. MILDMAY: I am inclined to agree with what the last speaker said in regard to the feeling of the country on this question. Notwithstanding what hon. Members have said in the Debate, I still think there is a substantial majority of the Members of this House in accord with the proposals contained in this Bill. A great majority desire that the Protestantism of the Throne should be amply safeguarded. On this side of the House we are very strong about that. May I also say that we earnestly wish to give effect to that desire without hurting the feelings of those with whose religious opinions we cannot agree? The hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool (Mr. Kyffin-Taylor), in a maiden speech, admirably voiced the opinion of those who have just elected him, but with all due deference to him, strong adherent as I am to the Protestant cause, I think I may say that there are many of us who view with much misgivings the methods of warfare which were prevalent in that contest in Liverpool. We were somewhat disquieted by the violent appeals made to bitter religious animosity. Those appeals seem to me to set back the clock, and appear to me to be altogether an anachronism. The majority of us in this House have been looking for the dawn of a better day in Ireland. We have seen lately some symptoms of the dawn of the day when the bitter religious hatreds of the past will be forgotten, and when all in Ireland, in a spirit of mutual toleration, will be able to join together in promoting the welfare of the country. Are we going to stir up the embers of religious strife in
2198
England as well as in Ireland by refusing the Second Reading of this Bill? A vote for the Second Reading of the Bill would not pledge one to details, but a vote against the Second Reading would, I maintain, argue a desire to return to the intolerance of the Middle Ages. Do the opponents to the Second Reading of this Bill really maintain it is impossible to safeguard the Protestantism of the Crown without abusing those of whose religious tenets we do not approve and without characterising them as idolatrous? To me such action seems to argue a want of strength in the Protestant cause, and to single out a particular doctrine of a particular Church for vituperation seems a confession of fear of the strength of that Church. I have confidence in the strength of the Protestant cause, and will own to no such fear of the Roman Catholic Church. There is no stronger upholder in this House of a Protestant Declaration by the King than myself. Let him declare himself as strong a Protestant as he can. That word is not ideal, and I use it colloquially, as it has been used by other speakers. It is wholly unnecessary to require the King to go out of his way to hurt the feelings of a large number of loyal subjects by denouncing them as idolaters. There is something almost undignified in such vituperation as this. Nobody can deny that we can devise a form of Oath just as rigidly and as exclusively binding him to the Protestant Church without insulting the creed of those with whom we cannot agree.
I, in common with a great many other Members, have received a great number of communications in connection with this Bill. We have received a large number of printed postcards from our constituents. I should be the last man to under-value any representation which my Constituents wish to place before me, but I feel most strongly they have not gone thoroughly into the whole matter, and they are not seized of the whole of the circumstances of the case. Other speakers have shown that behind this Declaration are the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, which provide far stronger safeguards for the Protestantism of the Succession. The hon. Member himself stated that behind the Declaration there remains still stronger safeguards, and he suggested, if the Government were logical, and if they wished to minimise the strength of the Declaration, they ought to do away with the far stronger provisions of the Bill of Rights and the

2199
Act of Settlement. I am quite certain, if our constituents read the whole of this Debate, and make themselves fully acquainted with all the various circumstances of the case, they will approve our action in recording a vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. While I am not able, and certainly not willing, to abate one jot of my strength, and, if needs, of my militant attachment to the Protestant Church, it is with the greatest confidence that I propose to record my vote in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill.
Mr. MUNRO: I desire very respectfully to state the reasons why I propose to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. I have had such a number of communications from the Constituency which I have the honour to represent, and they are of such a character that I feel bound to take the course which I propose now to adopt. I do so for snore reasons than one. In the first place, I object to the manner in which the Government have dealt with this Bill, and, in the second place, I object to the matter of this Bill. As regards the manner in which the Government have dealt with the Bill, the proposition on which I take my stand is that it is unconstitutional, and certainly not democratic to legislate on matters of paramount importance unless the people of the country have had a full opportunity of expressing their views upon it. In this particular matter my submission to the House is that the people of the country have not had that opportunity. That the Bill is an important Bill I do not think anybody can dispute. Any measure which proposes to deal with the provisions of the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement is, on the face of it, an important measure; and when you consider that these provisions have been in force a couple of centuries, then the importance of the matter becomes still more apparent. That the Bill has not been before the country properly is, I think, equally beyond dispute, and in Scotland, in particular, that has been very fully recognised. But if Scotch people had not a full opportunity of expressing their views upon the Bill before it was introduced they have had an opportunity, of which they have amply availed themselves, since it was introduced, and, with all due respect to the hon. Members who speak about the lassitude which characterises the people on this side of the border with regard to the Bill, I am here to say that the provisions of the Bill are contrary to the expressed desires of the
2200
vast majority of the people of Scotland. In this, as well as in other matters, Scotland has deserved well of the Government, and deserves to have consideration, which has not been shown to her. So far as the measure itself is concerned, Scotland, in public meeting, by resolution, and by every other known means, has expressed her views with great clearness, and protests against a measure of this magnitude going through at the fag end of the Parliamentary Session.
When one comes to consider the contents of the Bill carefully I think the objections to it are rather strengthened than removed. The Bill as introduced was characterised by language which was vague, unconvincing, and invertebrate. No doubt an effort has been made to-night to alter the language of the Schedule to a certain extent, and again my point is that at the fag end of a Parliamentary Session a very material alteration should not be proposed and carried through without a due and fitting opportunity being afforded to the people of the country of expressing their views with regard to it. It has been said in many quarters of the House that this Bill is a measure of toleration. Toleration is certainly a very good thing, but, when you carry it to an extreme, it is another name for weakness, and in this connection weakness, I think, is another name for danger. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where is the danger?"] The danger has been fully appreciated on the other side if not on this side of the border. I hope I shall not in these circumstances be accused of intolerance if I ask the question, Why meddle with the existing Declaration? The language of that Declaration was most maturely and anxiously considered by very competent men. It has proved an effective instrument for the purpose for which it was designed. During two centuries it has been taken by Sovereign after Sovereign in this country without any substantial objection, and there has been no public demand of any kind for its modification or alteration. In these circumstances, the onus is clearly on those who desire to alter the present declaration to show compelling reasons why it should be done. My submission is that these compelling reasons have not been produced, and that accordingly the status quo should be continued. Viewed from the narrowest party standpoint, which I certainly do not suggest is the best one, this Bill will, I am assured, cost the Government thousands of

2201
votes in Scotland. It is bad business for that reason, but that is probably not the highest or the best ground to take. I submit, apart from that altogether, it is unconstitutional, for the reason which I have already stated, namely, that the people of the country had not a full or adequate opportunity of expressing their views upon it before it was introduced. From the national point of view, I submit it introduces a fresh danger in respect that the Bill contains no disclaimer of the doctrines of the Romish Church, and no disclaimer of the principles of equivocation or dispensation, which, I think, are the essential elements in the Declaration as it stands. For these reasons I propose, with much regret, but confident that my action will meet with the entire approval of those who sent me here, to go into the Lobby against this measure.
Lord EDMUND TALBOT: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down evidently attaches enormous value to the existing Declaration. He thinks that if it were changed serious results might follow. The only point I wish to make is this: that the effect, so far as there is an effect, in the existing Declaration, will be just the same with regard to the one proposed by the Government. After all, what is the effect? What is the value of the Declaration as it now stands on the Statute Book? It simply means this. It is true that no Roman Catholic can take the Declaration, but it can be taken by a non-Catholic with perfect sincerity, and, within six months, with equal sincerity, the person who took it might become a Catholic. In fact, it only binds the taker at the moment at which he takes it. If he does become a Catholic after having taken it, which he is perfectly justified in doing from his own point of view, then Protestantism is amply safeguarded because he ceases to reign, and the people of this country have no longer any necessity to bear allegiance to him. The effect of the new Declaration, as proposed in the Schedule, whether it be altered or not, as suggested by the Prime Minister is exactly the same. It is true that no Catholic can take the Accession Declaration any more than that a Catholic can take the one proposed in the Bill, and no Catholic could possibly obtain dispensation or leave from the Pope or any other ecclesiastic of the Catholic Church to entitle him to take the Declaration. There is only one difference between the two proposals—one is offensive and one is not; but the effect of both is precisely the same.
Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: I do not know whether the Noble Lord who has just sat down can be taken as an authoritative exponent of Roman Catholic theology and law. I do not suggest that I can be taken as such, but from what I have read on the subject I have always believed that a Roman Catholic could take the Declaration as embodied in the Bill of the Prime Minister to-day and to-morrow could get dispensation from the Pope for having done so.
Mr. KEATING: I challenge the hon. Member to quote any authority for that.
Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: I have always understood that the principal value, from our point of view, of the present Constitution is the fact that whoever makes that Declaration states, in language which some people consider too strong, that he does not believe in the central tenets of the Roman Catholic religion. I have also been told that having denied those central tenets he cannot get dispensation from the Pope for having done so. It has been stated time and again that no person could make that Declaration and at the same time be a Roman Catholic. The Noble Lord has told us that no person could make the proposed Declaration or the one suggested to be substituted for it by the Prime Minister and at the same time be a Roman Catholic. If I were certain of that I would vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. But from all I have heard—I do not pretend to be an authority on these matters—we have to depend very largely in regard to them upon information which we get from persons whom we believe to be experts—I believe a Roman Catholic would be perfectly safe in making the Declaration, and that he would be able to get dispensation from the Pope for having done so. Nothing which has been stated in the course of this Debate has altered my opinion on that point. There have been some speeches made to-night which require an answer. There was a speech made by one hon. and gallant Gentleman, who told us, as most Roman Catholics do tell us, that he accepts the Protestant Succession. This particular hon. and gallant Member went further, and said he accepted it because it was an accomplished fact, and, moreover, he was an out-and-out supporter of the Protestant Succession. I have never heard any Roman Catholic say that before, and I am very glad to think that there are Roman Catholics who are out-and-out supporters

2203
of the Protestant Succession. But at the same time I take leave to say that the hon. Member only accepts it in the same way as I would accept the fact. If I were playing golf with an opponent who was a better player than myself, I would accept the fact that, he was better; but if ever I improved my game to such an extent that I was able to beat him, I would no longer accept that position. In the same way I believe the hon. and gallant Member only accepts the Protestant Succession so long as he has no opportunity of upsetting it. But if hon. Members of that religion should increase in numbers to such an extent that they would be able to substitute a Catholic for a Protestant Succession, they would not fail to avail themselves of the opportunity of doing so. I admit that at the present time—and I hope for all time—the Protestant Succession is absolutely secured in this country; but I refuse to believe that if hon. Members ever got into such a position that they could successfully substitute a Roman Catholic for a Protestant Sovereign—I refuse to believe that they would still accept the Protestant Succession. They would say, "We have got to that position of strength, either in numbers or influence, that we demand to have a Monarch of our own religion." If they ever got to that position I dare say they would get what they wanted. But I hope that day will never arrive. For good or evil, 200 years ago this country of ours decided that we were to have a Protestant on the Throne. We have stuck to that resolution ever since, and I see no reason why, in regard to the Declaration which the Monarch has to make on ascending the Throne, we should alter the determination which our forefathers came to then.
We on this side of the House always find it very difficult, of course, to disagree with anything which the Leader of the Opposition says, but I must say that I disagree with him to-night in a good deal that he has said on this Bill. He stated that he could not understand how the Monarch, saying that he was a faithful Protestant, could make his Protestantism any weaker, or show any weaker Protestantism on the part of the Monarch, than if he used the language of the present Declaration, that is, by repudiating some of the central and most cherished tenets of the Roman Catholic religion. I think I can understand how the one is a more effective method of securing the Protestant Succession than the other.
2204
Supposing that the Sovereign made a Declaration that he was a faithful Protestant, and some interrogator, not content with that, asked him what sort of a Protestant he was. He might ask him if he was a Low Churchman, and the King might reply "No." Then he mght ask him whether he was a High Churchman, and he might reply, "I am afraid I am rather" Then the interrogator might suggest deferentially to the Sovereign that he believed in transubstantiation, which a considerable number of High Churchmen do. Then the Monarch might reply, "Yes, I do believe in transubstantiation," and if he did, then I say he is not the class of Protestant I should like to see on the Throne of this country. I believe there are also a number of other cherished tenets of the Roman Catholic Church which some Protestants believe, but that is not my point of view. Of course I know I am supposed to be, as some hon. Member said, a bigoted and intolerant Orangeman, but I take leave to believe that a very large section of good Protestants in this country, not necessarily bigoted Orangemen, do not want to see on the Throne of this country a person who professes, even so much of the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church as I have indicated. The Leader of the Opposition asked us what we thought the ordinary meaning was which anybody would put upon the declaration of a man that he was a faithful Protestant. He said he thought it meant that the man was opposed to all the leading and principal tenets of the Church of Rome. I think the right hon. Gentleman was wrong there, because, as I think has been clearly shown by the speech of the Noble Lord below me earlier in the afternoon, he himself believes in a considerable number of the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church and yet no doubt he calls himself a faithful Protestant. But I say that any man who holds any of these particular tenets which are set forth in this particular Declaration is not a fit and proper person to sit on the Throne of this country, seeing that 200 years ago we made up our minds that nobody who was not a proper Protestant should occupy that position.
I would like to recall the attention of the House to the fact that the Prime Minister said this afternoon that the sole and only object that he had in view in changing the Declaration was to do away with the necessity of the King making use of the insulting Declarations at the

2205
beginning and at a very important point in his reign. I say that if that is really the only and sole object which the Prime Minister and the House have in view in this matter that it is very easily carried out by removing the two words which up to a short time ago were the only words about the whole Declaration to which Roman Catholics raised any objection. It has already been stated in the Debate this afternoon that this agitation began after the death of Queen Victoria and shortly after the Accession of the late King Edward. It was then the only objection, or, at any rate the chief objection that was taken to the Declaration that the two words "idolatrous" and "superstitious" were used; and if the Prime Minister's object is to remove the offensive character from the point of view of the Roman Catholics that is quite easily done by taking those two words out of it, and by introducing two words such as those which were introduced into the Bill of 1901 dealing with the subject. But has he done that? No. He has swept the whole Declaration away, and he has substituted for it a Declaration which many of us believe to be absolutely valueless. We say, therefore, that he is to a certain extent proceeding under false pretences, because if the object he has stated is his real object it can be perfectly carried out by a much less drastic operation than that which he has put before us to-day.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the objection to the change which he proposes is caused by complete ignorance on the part, he hinted, not only of the House of Commons but of the public outside of the present law with regard to the Accession of a new king. I would like to say with reference to that that it is a very curious thing that such authorities as Lord Salisbury, when the Bill, of which I was speaking a moment ago, was introduced, and also Mr. Gladstone at an earlier date—those two eminent statesmen, whom I do not think anybody could accuse of being ignorant of this or very few other subjects—took an opposite view. Lord Salisbury certainly did not take the view which the Prime Minister takes, that the Declaration was superfluous, and that the Protestant Succession was quite as well safeguarded and assured without the Declaration as with it. On the contrary Lord Salisbury said, when there was a suggestion by some Members of the House of Lords, that the Declaration should be done away with, that
2206
had he known at the beginning of the discussion that such a proposal would be made he would never have introduced his Bill, thereby showing that he at least was fully conscious of the value of retaining some Declaration. I therefore maintain that if the Prime Minister really only intended to remove what he considers the insulting epithets he would have adopted the Bill, or something akin to the wording of the Bill, which passed the House of Lords in 1901.
The Prime Minister made no secret of the fact that he looked upon the Declaration as superfluous and useless altogether. Under these circumstances, it would have been braver and more straightforward if he had said he believed the Declaration to be meaningless and superfluous, and brought in a Bill to repeal it altogether. But he did not do that. He brings in a Bill which will substitute a Declaration the effect of which, many of us think, will be very disastrous to the country if at any time the conditions which existed in this country some 200 years ago ever recur. We Members who call for the retention of the Declaration in its present form of course are quite aware of the fact that at the present time, and so far as one can look into the future, there is no probability of the Oath ever having any effectual work to do. We do not think any Oath at the present time is necessary to safeguard the Protestant Succession, but we do not know what will happen in the future. It is, after all, only two centuries—and that is not a long time in history—since a condition of affairs existed which made it absolutely imperative that a Declaration should be put upon the Statute Book, and we have no guarantee that such a condition of affairs may not arise again in the future. The hon. Member for Salford the other day assumed the mantle of a prophet for a moment and told us he expected at some time or other in the history of the world there would be once more a tremendous conflict between the Roman Catholic Church and, I suppose, the rest of Christianity. I hope that will never happen, and I think it will not, but it is such an occasion as that that we are providing against when we insist on keeping on the Statute Book a Declaration which we think will be really effectual in case such a time should ever come in keeping a monarch of the Protestant religion on the Throne of this country.
9.0 P.M.
I hope the House will not be led away by any of these suggestions on the part

2207
of some Members who have spoken that we who are opposed to a change in this respect have any desire whatever to insult any fellow-subject of ours, no matter what his religion, may be. At this time in the history of the country such accusations as that ought not to be listened to. We have no desire to do that. I know perfectly well that many Members look upon us from the North of Ireland as a somewhat intolerant and bigoted set of men. Even my fellow-countrymen who ought to know better hold that view. I can assure the House it is not true. We have no desire to interfere with the religion of any man in the Kingdom. We desire to give the fullest liberty to everyone, but coming from Ireland, where the Roman Catholic Church is the predominant Church, we know a great deal more about that side of the question than the average English Member, and while I am willing to give to every Roman Catholic or every individual the fullest latitude in every way in exercising his religion, and while we look upon the Roman Catholic religion as good in many ways, we do not desire to address ourselves to this question at all from the religious point of view. But hon. Members must always remember, and some of them realise, that there are two sides to the Roman Catholic Church. There is the purely religious side, and there is the political side. The Roman Catholic Church from time immemorial has been almost as much a political machine as a religious machine. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I should have thought every Roman Catholic would admit that. It is from that point of view solely that we approach this question.
So long as the Roman Catholic Church arrogates to itself the claim to supremacy, not only in religious matters, but in temporal matters, so long as it claims to be supreme over Monarchs and Princes all over the world, we Protestants are determined that we are never going to allow ourselves to be under the yoke of Rome, and we are perfectly justified in maintaining this Declaration, which Roman Catholics themselves have admitted, and nearly all do admit, in spite of what has been said to-day, is the only efficacious and certain Declaration which yet has been produced, and which will ensure that, at any rate, the person who ascends the Throne of this country is at the moment of his accession to the Throne not a
2208
Roman Catholic. The Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) said very truly that the fact that the Monarch might prove conclusively by making the old Declaration that he was not a member of the Church of Rome, only bound him at the moment that he made it, and that six months or six weeks later he might go over to the Church of Rome. You cannot possibly bind a man always to be of the same opinion, either in religion or in anything else, but it is good enough for us because it is all that we can get. If a man satisfies us that he is, at the time he ascends the Throne, a good Protestant, we are content to take our chance of his remaining a good Protestant for the rest of his life. Probably a great many Members will vote for the Second Reading who have not finally made up their minds what attitude they will take up on the Amendments to-morrow, but I ask the House to reflect very seriously before they tamper with the Declaration which, in these two particular words, sounds, at the first blush, harsh and possibly insulting to the Roman Catholic religion, but which they must remember does not apply to any individuals, and which I can assure them is not intended to be insulting. It is intended for the one purpose only of securing that the successors to this Throne shall always be of the Protestant religion.
Mr. SILVESTER HORNE: I am in the somewhat peculiar position of one who came down to-day expecting not to be able to support the Second Reading of the Bill, but since the Prime Minister's announcement of his Amendment in Committee, I have the very heartiest pleasure in supporting the Second Reading. I do not remember that I have ever in my life exactly played the role of Balaam, but I certainly came down to curse, and remain to bless. I think the suggestion that the Prime Minister has made for the modification of the Declaration is one which will win him very hearty support from a large number of his usual supporters in the country who have been alienated by the precise form which the Declaration assumed, and I think it gives many of us an opportunity of saying how heartily we sympathise with those whose desire it has been all through that the Roman Catholic subjects of His Majesty should be relieved from what undoubtedly they feel, and I think personally they have every right to feel, is a slur and a stigma upon their religion. Personally, my objection to the old form of Declaration is

2209
just as strong as the objection which any Roman Catholic can feel to it. I think not only is it insulting to Roman Catholics, but it is insulting to Protestantism. I think that we insult ourselves when we insist that our King should use such words as "idolatrous" and "superstitious" in regard to what are the sacred convictions of those who belong, it is true, to another part of the Church, but which is none the less the same Church as that to which we belong ourselves. I want to say it as strongly as I can, because before I finish I should like to say how firmly we believe that nothing that is being done is going to weaken the Protestant Constitution of our country. Therefore, so far as I am myself concerned, I rejoice that the Prime Minister has courageously made up his mind that the old Declaration must be altered. Many of us feel that it is an exceedingly offensive thing to ask the King to make use of words which we ourselves could not use without a certain feeling of shame. I do not regard Roman Catholics as idolaters. I regard them as fellow Christians, and I am a great deal more sanguine of their ultimate destinies than they are of mine. In point of fact, there is no doubt whatever that this controversy which excites such very strong feelings is one which the nation itself, I believe, apart from the extreme Orange section, is determined shall be settled, and settled in a way which will be not only not offensive to Roman Catholics in time to come, but which will not be offensive to the King who has to make the Declaration, and I venture to add also not offensive to those intelligent Protestants who do not wish Protestantism to be presented to the world in the aspect of a faith which is not merely intolerant, but which uses contemptuous language with regard to those who differ from it. I agree with the hon. Member for the St. Austell Division of Cornwall (Mr. Agar-Robartes), who said that it was the custom of our forefathers to call a spade a spade. It is quite true that they not only called it a spade, but they affixed a very strong adjective to the word spade. We do not object to call a spade a spade, and we have not the remotest objection to the Declaration that the King is a Protestant being put as strong as possible, but we do believe that it will strengthen Protestantism and not weaken it if it is relieved from any imputation that it is associated with a narrow and bigoted attitude towards
2210
those who belong to another branch of the Christian Church. I am personally a member of an Association of Christian Churches, including the Roman Catholic Church, the Presbyterian Church, and various other Nonconformist Churches, whose practical object it is to secure better international relations between this country and Germany. How can I for a moment take part in the work of that association with members of the Roman Catholic Church if it is known that I am prepared to recommend that the King, on the occasion of his Coronation, shall stigmatise their faith as idolatrous and superstitious? I shall do nothing of the kind.
I do not hold, as I need hardly say, any brief for Roman Catholicism I venture to think that I have done as much as a propagandist of Protestantism as the latest recruit of the Battle of the Boyne; but at the same time I am not going to be seduced by any language that may be held in the extreme Protestant section in this country into trying to identify Protestantism with a particularly narrow school of Protestantism which I think has had its day, and will in the twentieth century cease altogether. I think there is a strong case for the Declaration. I do not agree with some of my own colleagues that the time has come when that Declaration could with advantage be dropped. In point of fact, from the legal point of view, there is no more case for the Coronation than the Declaration. I believe it is an accepted fact that the Coronation does not add one jot or tittle to the legal position of the Sovereign. The Coronation is simply in the nature of a national and religious Proclamation in connection with the Accession of the King, and just in the same way it is perfectly true that the Declaration does not add one single jot to the legal enactments by which the Protestantism of the Crown is secured. The absence of the Declaration would not weaken the Protestant Succession by a single iota, but all the same it is the Declaration of the British Sovereign on behalf of the British Empire and in the face of the world. The world knows nothing whatever of the provisions of the Bill of Rights or the Act of Settlement. Even Members of Parliament knew so little of the provisions of the Bill of Rights that the Government thought it necessary to circulate a White Paper containing the terms of that measure. It therefore seems to me to be absolutely right, proper, and advisable that the Sovereign on the

2211
occasion of his Coronation should make a distinct and deliberate proclamation of the position he holds. He makes the Proclamation on behalf of the Empire and in the face of the world. Personally, and I think I can speak for many of my colleagues in connection with the Free Churches when I say so—I do not think that any positive language he can hold in regard to Protestantism can be too strong to indicate the general view of the masses of his subjects; but we utterly repudiate those clerical and sacerdotal claims which involve, and logically involve, the use of certain coercive measures in order to establish spiritual authority in this country. We want to see the King of England what the King of England has been for many a long day, a free and intelligent Sovereign under his own constitution alone—free from any external authority, civil or ecclesiastical, and refusing to become the creature of Rome. On that point we are all absolutely united so far as Protestants and Nonconformists are concerned.
There is another point on which I wish to say a word. We objected to the original form of this Declaration because we do not think the Coronation of the King is a suitable or opportune time for him to insist publicly on the fact that he is in any sense whatever the ecclesiastical monopoly of a single denomination. We venture to think that the King of England belongs to us all, and that the less he emphasises his differentiation from his subjects and the more he emphasises his unity with them the better it will be for all of us. We think that the form of Declaration which the Government originally proposed was a form which could not be used by the King without, at any rate by implication, separating himself from the vast majority of his Protestant subjects throughout his Dominions. We think that the Coronation of the King is the most unfortunate of all times for him to lay any emphasis of that kind, and therefore we took the line that we did. I hope there will be no attempt to say that the change which has been made in the form of the words of Declaration is a triumph of one particular branch over another branch of the Protestant Church. We have only one object in the matter and that is to secure that at the Coronation the religious unity of this great Protestant realm shall be maintained and emphasised, and I believe that the Government will find that they have taken an exceedingly wide view with regard to
2212
the modification of the Declaration, and I shall take it that the modification means that they are heartily agreed that to promote the religious unity and harmony of the British people is not to subtract from the integrity and dignity of the British Empire.
Major DALRYMPLE WHITE: I myself fully believe that the Prime Minister was quite correct this afternoon when he told us that there was an almost universal feeling in this country in favour of removing a form of words which were offensive to the deepest religious convictions of a large section of our fellow-countrymen, the Roman Catholics. But that is a widely different thing from entirely sweeping away a Declaration which, rightly or wrongly, hundreds of thousands, I might almost say millions, of people regard as a weapon of defence against an invasion, so to speak, of these realms, either spiritual or political, by the supreme head of the Church of Rome. I know that in Lancashire there is a very general feeling that there should be not only a positive Declaration, but that there should be a negative Declaration. Therefore I do trust that the Government will see their way to introduce some amended form of words, something like those in the proposal put down on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock Burghs (Mr. Rainy), which I trust the hon. Member for Kilmarnock will move in Committee tomorrow. I think that the Prime Minister and many Members make a mistake when they imagine that the objections to the present Government proposals come only from a few organised Protestant societies. I think it is far more than that; I think they are deep down in the heart of a very large number of our countrymen, and I should like to emphasise on that point what was said this afternoon by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Walter Long) with regard to the way in which the Government have brought forward these proposals. I myself do think that it is unfair to Members who not only wish but are pledged to remove this form of words, which is offensive to Roman Catholics, that they should at the same time be put in a position of casting aside what they have maintained, assuming that they wish to obviate any possibility at all of the Crown in future not having the same safeguard as it had in the past against the denomination of the Church which is not the State Church of England. There

2213
fore I do trust that the Government will be able to meet the views of, I am sure, a very large number of people in this country, who, while wishing perfect fairness and justice for their Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen, yet at the same time do believe there should be some repudiation of that faith on the part of the Monarch of this realm.
Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I feel that I owe in some small degree a duty both to myself and to my Constituents in intervening for a few moments on this occasion. I occupy a peculiar position. I represent the most Catholic Constituency in the whole of Ireland, and I am myself a Protestant born and bred, the son and grandson of Protestant clergymen. Therefore I am able to approach this question in a spirit of detachment. I wish to speak completely historically on this question. In the first place, I think that this House is doing an enormous act of justice to itself as an assembly of hon. Members in sweeping away the Declaration for which the new Declaration is to be substituted. It was not mentioned in the Debate, but there can be no doubt that that Declaration was instituted and established and devised in the very worst period of all English history and by the very worst men. We must recollect that it was instituted in 1678, while the man who instituted it, to whom it was mostly due as much as anything can be due to any individual, was Titus Oates. Titus Oates, as we can prove most distinctly and categorically, began the circulation of his stories in August, 1678, and this Bill was produced in Parliament and run through in October, 1678. While it was being run through Titus Oates was being examined by the Privy Council and examined at the Bar of this House. Meantime men were being arrested, tried and executed in reference to the allegations which were made; and the most awful thing of all was this, that while the men who were in charge of the Bill were quite willing to inflame the passions of ignorant people with these stories, they did not believe them themselves. King Charles II., who signed the Bill making that Declaration, openly gibed at all ideas of a Popish plot, and Danby and Shaftesbury admittedly did not believe one word of it, and the man who tried prisoners as a judge, prisoners who were unable to defend themselves by counsel as they were not allowed, the man who browbeat and cross-examined them and sentenced them to death has
2214
left on record a complete exposure of non-belief in all this Popish conspiracy. It is all very sad though very interesting. First of all the men who had it in charge, Danby and Shaftesbury, and then their judicial agent on the bench, Francis North, afterwards Lord Guilford, the great grandfather of the famous Prime Minister who lost this country America, did not believe in it. How was it brought on? English people are so very much matter of fact and have so little sentimentality about them that they take things as they are and they sometimes forget to look into the past or to realise that by the past they can judge more admirably of the present. The Parliament in which that Declaration was produced was called the Pensionary Parliament. We generally call it the Pension Parliament. It is no exaggeration to say that nine-tenths of the men of that Parliament were bribed. Some of them were bribed by the King, some of them were bribed by the King of France, and some by Ministers. They were the corrupt Parliament which passed this corrupt and shocking Declaration. I come from that for one moment. I asked the Prime Minister to-day was there in all England one single individual who was under any obligation, legal or otherwise, to make that Declaration except the Sovereign himself. Of course his answer was that there was not.
In former times, as we are aware, Bills that were in the slightest degree altered from their original conception had those alterations placed in brackets. All the securities of the Crown under the Bill of Rights have been made in the event of the King enjoying the Communion of the Church of Rome, and his subjects, in that event, were released from his rule. I asked the Prime Minister a day or two ago a question which he said I was quite as competent as he to answer—a suggestion which I deny. I asked, "Suppose the King actually refused to make the Declaration, where is the sanction?" He told us to-day, as a constitutional lawyer, that there was no sanction and no binding authority whatever upon the Monarch, and nothing would happen, and nothing could be done. The atrocious Declaration, for it is atrocious, has not been binding on any Member of the House of Commons or on anyone in a general sense for many years. It has been abrogated in the case of high officials, and the King is the only person who is under any obligation to take it. The circumstances under which any Act is passed should

2215
always be considered. It is a most strange thing that when the Declaration was passed so great was the popular outcry, so great the disposition of people in this country to believe a lie, that the records of the Popish Plot have left their impress on our language. The word "sham" and the word "mob" in the English language owe their origin to the stirring up by the pretended plot of popular ignorance and passion, which went hand in hand with prejudice and superstition. It is a wise rule which provides that the name of the Sovereign should not be brought into Debates, but we can speak of sovereigns who have passed away, and we can say, now that his late Majesty is no longer with us, what we think of his memory. Documents speak of departed kings as of "blessed memory," and the late King deserves the application of that description to his character. He was a peacemaker, and he is of "blessed memory."
Nothing was more repugnant to the feelings of King Edward than the making of this Declaration. Lord Herries, a Catholic nobleman who passed away a few months ago, stated publicly that he was in the House of Lords, close to King Edward when he made the Declaration, and he never saw anyone so embarrassed and so confused as the late King, who ran over the language of the Declaration as if it really hurt not only his own feelings, but the feelings of everyone around him. That is not generally known.
Another illustrious person who hated the Declaration was Queen Victoria. When she was only eighteen years of age, and a girl, it was necessary for her to take the Oath. But we have very curious indirect evidence of how she regarded it. In the Regency Bill of 1840 this Declaration was not incorporated as necessary to be made by the person who became Regent. The reason of that omission was that Queen Victoria desired that if she passed away her husband should not be compelled to make the Declaration as Regent. There is not the slightest doubt that the Declaration was excised largely because Queen Victoria did not like, in the event of her death, that a near and dear one should be compelled to make so atrocious a Declaration. I am bound to say that the observations to which we have listened have been characterised by moderation, but none the less by intense conviction. Every one of the arguments used by the hon. Member for Down
2216
could have been used without the smallest difficulty as arguments against Catholic Emancipation. I wish, as an Irish Protestant, and a faithful Protestant, to protect the reputation of my fellow religionists, and to prevent them from being imported into this discussion as favourers of this Declaration. A day or two before I left Dublin I received a requisition from Irish Protestants against the Declaration which had been promoted by the hon. the Rev. Benjamin Plunket, a son of the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin, who was, I suppose, the best beloved Irish Protestant clergyman there has been ever since the time of Dean Swift, and who, with Lord Shaftesbury, got up a memorial which they sent round to Protestants asking them to sign it as a protest against this Declaration. This and other actions of the kind have done much to cement the bonds of union between Catholics and Protestants. I have never been a backbiter of the Leader of the Opposition, because I have said more terrible things to his face than I have ever said behind him. Let me break the record for once to say how nobly the Leader of the Opposition has risen to the occasion; he showed the kindness, the humanity, and the sympathy which may exist between men and men, and how small are the points of difference compared with the points of agreement. His speech was one of broad sympathy and enlightenment, and was a reflection of the very noble speech delivered by the Prime Minister to-night. It is a great privilege and an enormous favour given to me, even in some small way, to take a part and support, by my vote, in the advance of the great cause of human liberty, freedom of conscience, and equal rights between man and man.
Mr. NEIL PRIMROSE: In the peroration of the hon. Member who has just sat down he said that he was going to vote for this proposal because he hoped thereby to advance the great cause of religious toleration. The great argument of speakers on both sides of the House is that under no circumstances could this proposal advance the cause of religious toleration. This Bill as it at present stands is not supposed in any way to increase religious toleration, but to remove a grievance on the part of the Roman Catholic. I myself am going to oppose this Bill. I am not only opposing it because to do so it is the logical sequence of voting against it on the First Reading, but also because I have not heard any

2217
argument which will lead me to a nearer conclusion. I would associate myself with what has been said by Members who complained of the short time which has been given for the discussion of this Bill. Even I, insignificant Member that I am, have received letters from various people, who are not my Constituents, and who seem to be in a great state of agitation about the passing of this Bill. I got one from a man, who concluded by saying, whether as an argument as to the strength of his Protestant faith or as a justification for the opinion he professed, that he had been married to a Roman Catholic wife for fifteen years. Whatever the reasons may be which are arousing feeling in the country, nobody can deny that a very real feeling does exist. I wish first of all to say that whatever reasons there may be, and for myself at any rate I have strong reasons for opposing this Bill, I do not attach in the very least degree any importance to the fact that the Roman Catholic Church utters very strong invectives against us. That seems to me to be no argument at all. Because the Roman Catholic Church has the most grotesque and extreme opinions against Protestants seems to me to be no argument worthy of the greatness of this country, and I think that we should take no notice of them.
I think we will all be ready to agree that in promoting this Bill the Government have been actuated by a desire to effect a settlement of this question. I do not think that anyone is justified in saying that by this Bill the Government have been actuated by a desire to catch any votes. If a Minister were suspected of any intentions so nefarious, he would be guilty of nothing short of the grossest disloyalty to his party, and of treason to his country. I do not think that any of us, however strongly we feel on this question, would accuse the Government of that crime. No message of peace and goodwill has ever gone forth in this world that has been met with so much contumely. In addition to the feeling amongst every section of the Liberal party when this Bill was first brought in, there was the High Church party, who felt that the word "Protestant" should have been left out; there was the Nonconformist, who objected to the words "Church of England as by law established." There were those who thought that no Declaration was necessary, and who considered this proposal superfluous, as there were those who thought that this proposal was inadequate, and that the Declaration was necessary.
2218
All those various sections of the Liberal party seemed to be roused to their depths. The Nonconformists went in a body, I saw in the newspapers, to the Prime Minister, and informed him that they could not support the Bill as it stood. I am not quite sure what hon. Members from Wales did. I expect they thought their consciences secure in the bosom of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There were the Members from Scotland, who found that amongst their constituents there still exists that strenuous religious spirit which refused to be comforted by any specious explanation, and who demanded that they should vote against the Bill. Of course, there was one section of the House satisfied with the Bill, and they were the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite. No doubt it will be a pleasure to the hon. Member for Louth, because he will once more be able to rejoice in political union and good fellowship with the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond). The hon. Member who spoke last delivered a panegyric on the late King which I feel sure was appreciated in every part of the House, but I do not know that that is any real reason for making the statement which he did about the late King or about his mother. I daresay the circumstantial evidence was strong, but I do not know what real proof he may have had in his mind.
Mr. MacNEILL: Perhaps I may say how I founded my belief. I did so from the speech delivered in 1840 in the House of Lords on the Regency Bill by the Duke of Sussex.
Mr. PRIMROSE: I quite accept the evidence of the hon. Member.
Mr. MacNEILL: It is not evidence.
Mr. PRIMROSE: Then the conclusion arrived at by the hon. Member. I think that the hon. Member has rather based his conclusion on a very light foundation. Most of the arguments on this question have been already employed, and it is very difficult to find anything new to say. But the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) made a speech in which he seemed to contend that the Declaration is of no use whatsoever, that it does not matter whether the Sovereign takes it or not, and that we have no legal claim which we could make against him, or there is no automatic result which follows if he fails to take it. The answer to that given by the right hon. Gentleman

2219
opposite was that if that were the case the Declaration should be abolished. My view is entirely the reverse. If we are to have a Declaration, if the Government think it necessary to draw up a Declaration which is causing the greatest religious feeling and apparently much perplexity to many of their own followers, I think some clause should be inserted rendering the Throne vacant if the Sovereign refuses to take it. It seems to me that we are merely wasting time in discussing the Bill at all if, when the Sovereign does not take the Declaration, no legal effect follows.
As regards repudiation of doctrines, that is a matter which has many authorities in its favour. I have a list here, but I do not propose to read all the names. The late Lord Salisbury two or three times declared the absolute necessity for the repudiation of the doctrines. The Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1901 and in 1903—whether it was the same Archbishop I do not know, but if there were two it makes the authority all the stronger—said that a repudiation of doctrines was absolutely necessary. The Leader of the Opposition stated, in answer to a question in this House in 1901, that he was not surprised that the form of the Oath as distinguished from the substance should have given pain to the Roman Catholic subjects of His Majesty. That answer seems to suggest that he felt at that time, at any rate, that some repudiation was necessary. I am the last person to wish to offend the susceptibilities of Roman Catholics in the least, but I cannot see that there is any force in the argument that the feelings of Roman Catholics are offended by the Sovereign repudiating certain distinct doctrines of their faith. If you want to prove that the Sovereign does not hold certain views, that he is not a member of a certain religion, you must take some of the doctrines which are at the very heart of that religion, and he must repudiate them, or we do not know where we stand. People seem to forget that a Declaration of this kind is not governed by sentiment, but is a legal form drawn up with the greatest care some 200 years ago, and that it was intended to leave no loophole of escape for the Sovereign. The Government have changed their proposal to-day, and propose to introduce the word "Protestant" in the place of "member of the Church of England as by law established." The question arises whether "Protestant" is a word with any legal definition. I am
2220
quite aware that the Prime Minister mentioned cases where the word "Protestant" was used; but I think it was prefaced by an adjective, and it does not follow, in a document which must be legally and carefully drawn up, that the word "Protestant" standing by itself would have any legal definition whatsoever. The word "Protestant" means someone who protests, but if he protests against nothing, it seems to me that the very meaning of the word disappears.
The Prime Minister gave as a reason for leaving out the repudiation that if the Sovereign were a member of the Church of England he would naturally subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles, in which this repudiation is embodied. But by removing the words "Church of England"—which, by the way, I am very glad he has removed—he has taken away any reference to the Thirty-nine Articles, which he said rendered the existing repudiation unnecessary. I thank the House for the attention with which they have listened to me. This Debate has outwardly assumed a very pacific appearance, but I cannot help feeling that the Government, in raising this question, have stirred up feelings in the country which will not be so easily allayed. I think it is to be deeply regretted that the Government have raised the question in the way they have. They are hurrying the Bill through in a manner which will embitter feeling already bitter, and I think the wound which will be the result of their action will remain open and irritating for many years to come.
Sir HENRY CRAIK: I am afraid that by my vote to-night, conscientiously given, I shall separate myself from colleagues on this side in the representation of Scotland with whom I would wish most to act. I have felt difficulty and doubt as to the vote I should give. After listening carefully to the Debate, I do not feel that I could acquiesce entirely in the Bill as it stands—far from it. Nor do I feel any more satisfied with the suggestion made by the Prime Minister. But I have had to ask myself, "What do I mean if I give an adverse vote on this Bill?" It means, if successful, that I render impossible any change in this Oath—an Oath which I would be unwilling to take myself and which I think an immense majority of my Constituents, educated Scotsmen in every part of the Empire, would be unwilling to take themselves. For this reason I am unwilling to help in imposing it upon my

2221
Sovereign. That alone decides my vote tonight, and in giving my vote for the Second Reading of the Bill I wish only to record that I think a change necessary, and what that change shall be we shall decide in Committee.
Mr. RYLAND ADKINS: I shall not take up time by discussing the general question. I have risen merely to say two things—one with regard to the change in the Bill announced by the Prime Minister, and the other with regard to the point legitimately made by the Member for the Strand (Mr. Walter Long) this afternoon. He then referred to the fact that in the earlier stages of the public discussion in connection with which this Bill has been brought in, stress was laid on the fact of the presence in the King's Declaration of forms of words obviously offensive to sincere believers—I was going to say in any form of Christianity. That is true. No doubt there could have been an argument of great weight constructed in favour of modifying that Declaration merely to the extent of leaving out all terms of obvious offence, but I think those of us who have read something of the showers of pamphlets and leaflets which have descended upon us, and who have taken more or less of an interest in the campaign, partly spontaneous and partly organised, so conspicuous lately, must have been brought to reconsider our position. This was as to whether the alteration in the Declaration ought not to go much further than the mere omission of these particular words. Speaking as a Lancashire Member who is going under present circumstances to vote for the Second Reading, speaking as one of the representatives of a county in which there are strong cross-currents on this question, it appears to me that real support should be given to the Bill now before Parliament, particularly in its promised form, however legitimate it may be to give weight to the argument for retaining the Declaration, apart from these words of offence. There is a great deal to be said for the latter if you were merely dealing with England itself. The reason for that negative declaration is essentially a historical reason, applying to England and practically to England only. Now, however, that our Gracious King is head of an Empire represented in all parts of the world, it is surely most unwise for any of us to neglect the change in the situation which has thus come about, and the effect that this Declaration must have on the minds of the Roman Catholics
2222
in other parts of the Empire who do not share this historical view, to whom the historical reason or the excuse for that particular from could not apply, but who are just as loyal subjects of the King as any of us in this House to-night. That is a reason which has weighed with me in giving my adhesion to the position now taken by the Government on this Bill in having a positive statement of Protestantism instead of a negative statement, however courteously phrased may be the repudiation of the Roman Catholic doctrines.
The second point I should like to put is that but for the Amendment adumbrated to-day by the Prime Minister, I should have found it my reluctant duty—anxious as I am to remove these causes of offence, and on the whole strongly approving of a positive rather than a negative Declaration—to vote against a Second Reading. For this reason, chiefly: if you are dealing with a Declaration to be made by the Sovereign on the question of his Protestantism, it is surely wrong to limit that Protestantism by any phrases which connect it with any particular Protestant Church, or with anything less wide than Protestantism itself. I am not concerned to-night either to support or to oppose the arguments of the Prime Minister in regard to the meaning of that phrase in the Act of Settlement that the Monarch is to be in communion with the Church of England. For my own part I personally agree with the arguments put before the House with such knowledge and clearness by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Birmingham. I believe that these words in the Act of Settlement took that form in order to allow of there being on the Throne of these islands a Monarch who might not be a Member of the Church of England, but who could be in communion with it.
10.0 P.M.
But we are not concerned in this Declaration with the precise relations of the Monarch to the Church of England, or to any other particular society. We are concerned with his Protestantism and nothing else. Therefore the Amendment which I have put down in the same terms as that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Birmingham, and in accordance with which I should certainly have had to vote against the Second Reading—much as I regretted it—in view of the statement of the Prime Minister I shall not move. I shall cordially vote for the Second Reading, and

2223
my votes to-morrow and on Friday will be largely governed by the insertion in the Bill of that Amendment, and by the retention of that Amendment during all the stages of the Bill. If that Amendment becomes law, then, I venture to think that a good deal of the feeling which has been aroused against any alteration in the Declaration will be greatly assuaged. I believe if the Bill becomes law it will in the long run, if not now in times of stress and excitement, command a wider assent from His Majesty's subjects than any other form of Declaration. I believe it does maintain the Protestant Succession. I believe the very important statement made to-night by the Noble Lord the Member for Chichester is a statement which can be properly received and accepted by all the Members of this House. On the grounds I have mentioned I now have great pleasure in supporting the Second Reading, and I venture to say that if the Bill passes in the form the Prime Minister has indicated it will go very far to settle a question which is all the more difficult because it is a question of sincere sentiment rather than of legal enactment.
Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: I think it impossible after what has taken place that this Debate can be regarded as a party Debate. The question is one I think which can be debated generally without any feelings of ordinary partisanship or without any feelings of religious intolerance. Looked at as it has been from a legal and practical point of view, I find myself compelled to say that I am opposed to the Second Reading of this Bill. The Prime Minister referred to the enactments which are referred to in the White Paper. I do not think he dealt with them, from a lawyer's point of view, very thoroughly or very satisfactorily. To begin with, dealing with the Bill of Rights, I think he omitted altogether to take note of what the preamble of the Clause in question in this matter really is. It says:—"And whereas it hath beene found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfaire of this protestant kingdome to be governed by a popish prince or by any King or Queene marrying a papist the said lords spirituall and temporall and commons doe further pray."
It is made a point by those who are in favour of the change that the Roman Catholic religion is selected for special legislation. The reason for that is stated
2224
in the preamble of the Bill, namely, because it has been found by experience that there should be legislation of that kind. In 1791 it was because of that experience that the Declaration was framed. We had no experience then of Buddhism, of Mahomedanism; we never will have. I beg the House to note that the foundation of this Declaration was experience, consistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant Kingdom, and in order not to be governed by a Popish Prince the Lords and Commons alike agreed that two things should be required. First, that there should be statutory disability, and that there should be a positive Declaration by the Sovereign that he disbelieved in the main principles of the Romish Church. That was not in the days of Titus Oates, but a generation after. The Lords and Commons of this Kingdom and the United Kingdom later on declared that they would not regard it as safe to rest upon a positive statutory disability, and that they would require a personal declaration on the part of the Sovereign, and I say now that that is equally necessary. It is not, of course, that the difficulty now arises. It is because you require to provide against the chance of again having a Charles II. or James II. It is the question of providing against contingencies of that kind that a strict statutory enactment requires to be enforced.
The Bill of Rights requires not only a statutory disability, but a personal declaration, and the Act of Settlement in 1701 also required a personal declaration to be given. The Prime Minister drops one phrase in the Act of Settlement, namely, "that whosoever shall come to the Crown shall join in Communion with the Church of England." The hon. Member opposite who has just spoken does not agree with that phrase. Neither do I. I think it is quite true that those who are not members of the Church of England may quite honestly and cordially join in Communion with the Church of England. The Prime Minister, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said in his speech that he proposed to make the Sovereign declare he was a faithful Protestant. I fail to understand what he means by that. It is quite certain nowadays that if any modern Act of Parliament were proposed by which everyone was required to declare he was a "faithful Protestant" we would have to have an interpretation clause. I would like to see the Prime Minister frame it. I believe there are not two men in the

2225
House who would agree upon it. What is the use of the words "faithful Protestant?" Does the word "faithful" add anything to it? We have not got an answer to that, and we never will get it.
Mr. BIRRELL: The Leader of the Opposition gave you one.
Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: The Leader of the Opposition, as I understood him, declared that saying he was a Protestant was just as strong as saying all these things that are in the present Declaration. If that is so, why change it? Is it offensive to those who belong to the Roman Catholic Church in this House to say that we Protestants do not believe in the main doctrines of their Church? Surely one can say that without any offence, and what I want to know is, if that is the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation, how can he justify the change if it is just as strong as the Declaration?
Mr. BIRRELL: Because it is not offensive.
Mr. SCOTT DICKSON: Is there any member of the Roman Catholic Church who can say that he regards it as offensive in Protestants to say that they do not believe in the cardinal doctrines of his Church? What is the use of being a Protestant if you do not say that? If that is the right hon. Gentleman's meaning of the word "Protestant," why not leave it as it is at present? You may offend some people by leaving it as it is. You will offend a great many people north of the Tweed, at any rate, if you change it as you propose to do; and, so far as I know feeling north of the Tweed, I say you will raise a storm there that even the Budget disputes will not equal. I do not understand how it is that the question has been raised at this time. The whole purpose is that the Declaration made and subscribed by any Sovereign from now onwards, including the present, shall be in the form in which it is in the Schedule. I understand, from what took place in 1901, that after the Accession no change should be made in the Declaration made by the existing Sovereign. The Prime Minister to-day, in answer to a question, said that King Edward VII. took the Declaration at the proper time and in the proper manner. Why have not His present Majesty's advisers made him take the Declaration at the same time, as was done in 1901? I say it is too late now to have a change imposed in the Declaration made by the
2226
Sovereign. It introduces changes and contingencies and conditions that ought not to have been brought into a question of this kind. I oppose this Bill because it absolutely and altogether abrogates the existing Declaration and introduces a Declaration which is new from start to finish, and does not meet the situation or the conditions that the old Declaration was intended to meet, and because it will not effect the purpose that the old Declaration was meant to effect. Therefore it is out of the question to say that you can propose Amendments in Committee to the Declaration which is now proposed. The first Section of this Bill should have been, "The old Declaration shall be abolished," and the second should have been an entirely new Declaration. This change will cause a good deal of feeling, and I do not think it will satisfy anybody except our Roman Catholic friends. They are naturally satisfied with the change, but you will not satisfy the feeling which exists north of the Tweed at all. Many hon. Members, I think, will find that by this proposal you will raise a storm north of the Tweed which even this new form of the Declaration will not settle. You may pass your Bill, but you will not end the agitation. It may be logical or it may not be logical, but the country is not ruled by logic. A great lawyer once said that law is not a logical science, and politics is less a logical science. Although the Government have succeeded in securing the support of many who were opposed to them when this Bill was introduced, I am sure the solution arrived at will not satisfy the Scottish people, and the Government have done a great disservice by commencing a new reign with the change which they now propose to introduce. I am convinced in what I have said that I am not only expressing my own views, but also the views of a large majority of the people who live north of the Tweed. For these reasons I shall vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. I am not one of those who think that the present Declaration could not be improved. I think it could. In conclusion, I say without hesitation and without doubt, I shall vote against the Second Reading of this Bill.
Mr. J. R. CLYNES: The hon. Member who addressed the House a few moments ago in the course of his speech enumerated the position taken up by various speakers in this House upon this question. I have no authority to express the view of the

2227
Labour party upon this measure, but I am confident that substantially the whole of the Members of my party will be found in the Lobby to-night in support or this Bill. At any rate, if there are any exceptions I shall be a little surprised, because I feel that the Members of the party with which I am associated will be guided in their actions by the very wholesome instinct of doing the right and fair thing. The hon. Member to whom I have alluded could not understand why a Catholic should feel offended when his religion was repudiated. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the repudiation of the kernel and centre of the religious faith of a Catholic is sufficient reason for that Catholic feeling the strongest possible offence. It may be that Protestants cannot understand this, but the fact at any rate is patent that Catholics very naturally do feel the strongest resentment when their faith is condemned as superstitious and idolatrous. The Government have not raised this question, but circumstances have raised it. The state of things follows the lamentable death of the late King naturally caused people to think of the nature of the Oath that his successor would have to take. At ordinary times it may be that public feeling cannot be aroused to the point of taking up this question, but the fact that the successor of the late King has to take this Oath has naturally aroused to a great extent public feeling, and accordingly the Government is obliged to deal with the subject. We have heard many speeches full of historical lore as to the causes which produced the character of the Declaration which this Bill seeks to remedy. I am going to submit a plain man's view and what I conceive to be the view which exists in the country. I have had the experience during the past month or two of speaking to many crowds of working men in different parts of Lancashire, and I have found on occasions when this subject has been referred to that the proposals suggested in this Bill are acceptable to the vast majority of the working men who take any interest in the matter.
The vast majority of the working men view the matter in this way: In this Protestant community it is the safe and proper thing to have a Protestant Monarch, but it is absolutely unnecessary in order to secure that religion that the religion of any other section in the community should be denounced and repudiated in
2228
the manner it is. We have slowly but still advanced generation by generation to wider religious toleration than obtained in the days when this Declaration was framed. Catholics have had to struggle generation by generation for the rights which they now enjoy. They are seeking to remove what is not exactly a disability but what is to them a great affront and insult. I cannot believe that any Member of this House will allege that the removal of any disabilities under which Catholics have suffered in former generations has in the slightest degree endangered the prosperity or the welfare of the Kingdom, and I feel further that the passage of this Bill and the destruction of the old form of Declaration would increase the sense of loyalty of the Catholic community in the British Empire. I do not believe there is one Member here would dare, if it were our duty at this moment to frame a Declaration for the Monarch, propose to put in that Declaration any such words as are contained in the Declaration at present. That, I think, is a fair test of whether we ought to retain these terms. They were hammered out and forced through in periods of the greatest religious contention and struggle between the different sections of the community. The community happily has outgrown the frame of mind that existed when this Declaration was framed, and, if we mould not for a moment think of proposing such terms ourselves, can we any longer defend them? The whole situation has altered and the terms of this Declaration should be altered as well. It was said in the course of the discussion that we had to provide not for the state of things which now exists, but for a state of things which might occur. A picture was painted of the possibility of a great clash in some future age. We were asked to imagine that the Catholic community had so multiplied and increased in strength as to be able to enforce their religious views on the country. I am willing to accept that picture. But if we can conceive any such situation it is inconceivable that any offensiveness in the words of the Declaration could help the other side in a struggle of that kind. The nature of the language and the terms of the Oath forced on the Monarch would not be of any value to the other side engaged in a struggle of that kind. I cannot understand where the proposal in this Bill falls short of anything which is absolutely necessary and which fully safeguards the Protestant interests of this

2229
country. I understand this Declaration to be that the Monarch solemnly and sincerely declares in the presence of God that he will be a faithful Protestant. I will not stay to dissect the meaning of the word "faithful." We must as plain men put a wholesome interpretation upon it, and I cannot understand any Protestant preferring any term to "faithful." The true intention of the enactment is to secure the Protestant Succession to the Throne and the Sovereign agrees to—
"uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law."
Language can no further go. The provisions of this Bill are, I believe, acceptable to the general body of the Labour party. I am prepared, though charges are frequently made against us, to accept the word of honour of the King just as well as I would accept the word of honour of a plain man. Members of Parliament, when they come to this House, have to come to the Table to swear allegiance to George V., and I must say I dislike the idea of asking any Catholic to take the Oath of Allegiance to a Monarch whom you compel to describe a Catholic as a heretic, and whose religion he has to speak of as superstitious and idolatrous. I hope this House will not be misled by the opposition so efficiently organised in the country against this opportunity of extending further the principle of religious toleration and liberty. Let us give Catholics equality of treatment.
Mr. NIELD: This Debate is celebrated for the great moderation expressed on all sides of the House on a question which in days past would have set the heather on fire in all parts of the country. I regret very much that the Government have brought forward at this period of the Session a Bill of this kind, and have only given us one day for the Second Reading, because it simply means a process of physical exhaustion for those who endeavour to catch the Speaker's eye. I listened with great interest to the historical and constitutional aspect of the question given by the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. MacNeill). But I did not hear from him why it was, if Titus Oates was responsible for the original Declaration in 1673, passed as panic legislation, sixteen years afterwards those sober Whigs who invited Prince William of Orange to come over here attached this Declaration, which apparently was not necessary at all from the point of view of panic—why did they
2230
attach this Declaration to the Bill of Rights, and for the first time put upon the Sovereign that which before was only put upon the subject? I have heard comments made upon His Majesty King Charles II. I am not here to defend him nor to say anything as to what the condition of his mind would have been had he been called upon to take this Declaration. I heartily agree with the Leader of the Opposition that I expect His Majesty would have been equal to the occasion; but I do venture to think that why the King was not asked at that time to make that Declaration was perfectly obvious. The country and Parliament had been so hopelessly disgusted with the rule which had preceded the Restoration that they would not exact it from the King then, and thirteen years afterwards, when his eccentricities were developed, they were not likely to embarrass him by calling upon him to make this Declaration any more than they did his successor, James II. But after the danger had passed, with a perfectly new state of things, and when these very sober Ministers had taken upon themselves to bring about a revolution, they thought it proper then to insist upon this Declaration. This question cropped up after the death of Queen Victoria, and was brought forward first in the House of Lords by Lord Herries, who stated particularly that all his co-religionists desired was to have the words "idolatrous" and "superstitious" re-moved. Hon. Members will find in "Hansard" no reference to any demand by Members of this House or of the House of Lords to have anything more done. On the Motion in 1901 to appoint a Select Committee, Lord Herries said:—
"We do not ask to do away with the Declaration altogether. What we ask is that such modification should be introduced into the oath as to leave out these offensive words."
The result of that speech was that a Committee was appointed, which reported, and afterwards Lord Salisbury introduced a Bill with a slight modification of the terms of the Declaration, which was recommended by the Committee. That Bill went to a Second Reading, and afterwards, on the Motion of Lord Rosebery to send it back to the Committee, a long Debate took place, and then Lord Salisbury declared that all that had been asked was the removal of the words from the Declaration, and Lord Crewe said, in so many words, that if it had been suggested at any time before the Bill was brought forward that the whole Declaration was

2231
to be abolished, he himself would never have assented to that Committee, and all that it was desired to do was to alter the words. When it is asked what is the reason for the introduction of the words against Transubstantiation I can only refer the hon. Member to the statement by the Bishop of Salisbury on the occasion of this very Debate originated by Lord Rosebery, and I do not think anyone will challenge the Bishop of Salisbury as, at any rate, a Church historian of very great eminence. He said:—
"The most judicious historian of the period (1689) had stated that the words had been introduced because it was found that there was no other doctrine which could not be dispensed with."
I regret that the Prime Minister intimated, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Long), that he could not see his way in Committee to introduce these negative words or to make the Declaration negative, because that makes it impossible for me and for many others to support the Second Reading. We want to see the offensive words withdrawn. No one desires to see the Declaration kept in precisely the same form as now, but it is a very different thing to remodel it altogether, and I hope to-morrow, short as the time is, that some better counsels may prevail. I quite understand that it must be extremely unpleasant for the Sovereign who desires at the time of his Accession, particularly on the day of his Coronation, to stand well with all men, that words should be put into his mouth that he personally dislikes. Still, the great question is, Are these words necessary, and have they not been regarded as necessary ever since 1689? Who can deny that we have had able leaders on both sides of the House and in another place all through these two centuries when there have been opportunities for taking or dispensing with this Declaration? I hope I am not uncharitable in suggesting that probably we should not have had it now had it not been for the exigencies which are pressing on the Prime Minister and the Front Bench. Without using any words of disrespect and without identifying the King with the Established Church of England, I am reminded of the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Silvester Home), who said he had never before played the part of Balaam. My recollection of the story of Balaam is that before he went he sent a clear intimation that what he would speak would not be what he himself would desire to speak, but he would speak what he was
2232
told. The hon. Member in playing the part of the modern Balaam has found that the amenable condition of the Prime Minister has given him all he wants, and the reference to the Church of England is cut out, so that under no circumstances can His Majesty be regarded as a member of that body, and so the modern Balaam is prepared to bless the Bill which he came down to curse. I hope an opportunity may be found to incorporate and make the King express his belief in the Book of Common Prayer and the Thirty-nine Articles without making him necessarily declare himself a member of any Church. If that is done, there will be no unpleasantness for the Monarch when he is called upon to repeat it, and it will give the security which we think is necessary.
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The only reason why I ventured to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Central Division of Glasgow (Mr. Scott Dickson) was that I do really think that now we are enjoying for the first time for a long time in Parliamentary history, to a remarkable degree this Session, freedom of Debate, and have the pleasure of hearing Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench expressing diametrically opposite opinions. I rejoice in that, and I hope it will be extended. It would not be a bad rule of the forum that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on these benches who find themselves differing from those with whom they generally are in political association, should answer one another. I think that would really add enormously to the interest of our Debates. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made, in the course of the evening, a most admirable speech—admirable, I think, in this sense, that it converted, to my knowledge, one or two wavering Gentlemen on this side of the House. That is the sort of speech we want. Unfortunately the area of the right hon. Gentleman's converting eloquence did not include the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Central Division of Glasgow, who remained impervious, and almost brutally impervious to that seductive voice. Otherwise I do not like interrupting right hon. Gentlemen in the course of argumentative speeches. I confess that so far as I am concerned I appear here to-night in better spirits than I have ever enjoyed at this Table, and for this reason. I am one of those who are never so happy as when

2233
Englishmen are compelled by the irresistible challenge of great public events to verify their political formulas and take down from the dusty shelves of antiquaries and lawyers the fundamental statutes of these realms and ask themselves how far and to what extent the doctrines of our Constitution really represent their present mind and convictions. Therefore I am never so happy as when hon. Members are compelled, however disagreeable it may be sometimes, to reconsider those great constitutional questions. It is always disagreeable when our Constituents take, not to drink, but to ink. Although less deleterious to them, it is far more trouble some to us. We should not allow trifling considerations of that sort to trouble us. Our minds, after all, are not centred in our seats. My mental apparatus, such as it is, is more honourably housed, and I am therefore very glad. What is the first remarkable result from our discussion? This doctrine of our Constitution of the Protestant Succession came first into existence in the Revolution of 1688, and was subsequently some fourteen years afterwards enshrined in the Act of 1702.
Can anybody, who has any tinge of historical reading whatever, say that in either 1688 or 1702 the doctrine of Protestant Succession received the support of the great majority of the people of England and Scotland? Nobody would venture to say anything of the kind. Anybody who knows anything about history knows that during the last four years of the reign of Queen Anne Jacobite feeling was so strong not only among the simple people in the country but among leading statesmen on both sides that it was a very touch and go affair whether the House of Stuart might not have been very soon restored. At that very early period of the eighteenth century, and throughout the greater part of it, as even anybody whose knowledge of history is confined to the channel of the novels of Sir Walter Scott, knows perfectly well, the great warlike demonstrations of 1715 and 1745 were but manifestations of a strong feeling which existed in this country all through that century. The Church of England, always loyal supporters of the Throne, were divided by a great schism, and the non-jurors were carrying away into their retreats a great part of the piety and a very large part of the learning of the Church of England. This state of things existed at all events by the common consent of historians down to something like 1760, and even later. Then you get to the last century. The last century began with a
2234
great outburst of Romanticism and a very serious accession of sentimental Jacobitism, of Charlie-over-the-waterism, as George Borrow called it. This was followed, some people think connected with, the Tractarian movement, which revived to some extent the doctrines of divine right and passive obedience, and altered and reconstituted the Church of England, and refounded it once more upon the basis of Archbishop Laud and the theologians of that great time to which Archbishop Laud belonged. Here we are in the twentieth century. Time has already taken a chunk out of it. We are in 1910, and now, I venture to say, in consequence of this admirable discussion, this delightful Debate, for the first time in more than 200 years, we have had an opportunity of discovering that this old doctrine of the Protestant Succession represents really the fixed mind and determination of the vast majority of the people of these islands; and every speaker who has taken part in this most historic Debate has made it as plain as can be that any statesman, I do not care to what party he belongs or whatever popular cause he might be associated with who got up and made it plain to this country that he was prepared to treat that doctrine as negligible, as something which might or might not be considered as really vital to the opinions of this country would very soon be sent back to the land I can wish him no worse fate, and he would soon be in treaty with Mr. John Murray or Messrs. Smith, Elder and Co. for the publication of his Memoirs, so that he might have the means of livelihood. It is a very important and very interesting thing to find that this doctrine of the Protestant Succession really is a living, vital thing at this moment, and accepted by everybody; and I say it is a very useful thing, because, living as we do in a time of religious toleration—not quite complete, there are a great many religious opinions which wise men still keep to themselves—but still comparatively complete religious toleration people get a notion that all these old fashions as they sometimes call them have gone out of date.
I have among my friends a number of very nice people—I was going to call them young; they were young when I was young—who have joined the Church of Rome, and who are fervent members of that body. Living very much among themselves in coteries, as is too frequently the case, and reading too much one class

2235
of books and newspapers, a good many of these estimable men to my knowledge for some years past have been under the delusion that this country was trembling on the verge of a reconversion to the Church of Rome. I think it is a blessed thing that these estimable persons should be awakened out of their dream by the discovery that this country is strongly and determinedly wedded to the old revolutionary doctrine of the Protestant Succession. I think that is a most invaluable thing. Nobody can deny that the doctrine of the Protestant Succession is a Papal disability. We live in a time when people think that all disabilities ought to be removed Our Friends below the Gangway hold that it is a disability to belong to Churches to which the Sovereign is not permitted to belong. They do not like the idea that the King of England cannot be a Baptist or an Independent. It may be the Act of Settlement does say so, but, at all events, they say, "Why thrust it down our throats again to-day?" We are thrusting it down the throats of Roman Catholics, but the Nonconformists do not seem to mind that. The Protestant succession is a genuine Papal disability; it may not be a personal disability I do not know if any Member of this House has the Electress Sophia in his family tree, but none the less it is a disability to belong to a religion which the King of your country may not join. Many people thought all disabilities were going to be removed, but now, at all events, the mind of the people for the first time is really expressed in Parliament that this particular disability they are determined should continue.
A word or two about this Declaration. The hon. and gallant Member for Southport spoke of the Declaration in terms almost of veneration, and said that millions of people in this country attached enormous importance to it, and that it was really the bulwark of the Protestant Succession. I wonder very much how many people, who had been sleeping quietly in their beds all their lives, relying on this Declaration as the bulwark of the Protestant Faith, ever heard of it, at all events until the lamented death of Queen Victoria and the Accession of King Edward. I have been a little curious about this Declaration. It was, of course, put bodily into the Bill of Rights out of the Act of 1678, and my learned Friend the Member for Donegal (Mr. Swift
2236
MacNeill) attributed, I think rather hastily, the actual language to that period. I like to trace these things a little further back. As an old conveyancer, I know that almost everybody has a draft before him. A long thing like this does not come out of his own head. I have been at work to find out an earlier draft of the Declaration, and I have been rewarded, at all events, with some measure of success. The words relative to transubstantiation in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper are taken verbatim from an Ordinance passed at the very height of the early part of the Civil War in 1643, when the Long Parliament imposed an Oath to be tendered to all persons suspected of being Papists on attaining the age of twenty-one. That declared:—
"I believe there is no transubstantiation in the Lord's Supper or consecration thereof by any person whatsoever."
Then what has been rather irreverently called the "long rigmarole," beginning:—
"I doe make this declaration and every part thereof in the plaine and ordinary sence of the words read unto me as they are commonly understood by English protestants, without any evasion, equivocation or mentall reservation whatsoever. …"
Those words are taken verbatim from a rather famous oath of abjuration, which was passed in the reign of King James I., and was composed by Archbishop Bancroft and a renegade Jesuit priest—those two learned persons put their heads together. The words "the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary, or any other Saint, and the sacrifice of the Masse, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous." I cannot trace further back than the period of Titus Oates. That is the genesis of your famous Declaration. It is a thing of shreds and patches. The larger part of it was concocted in the reign of King James I., who shortly afterwards devoted his whole energies to trying to concoct a Popish match for his own son. The Declaration against transubstantiation is taken from the Ordinance of the Long Parliament, at the very height, or, at all events, in a very important year of the Civil War. The words "idolatrous and superstitious" are, so far as I know, the original words of the statesman of 1678. It does not quite stop there. The words as to transubstantiation were also found in the celebrated Test Act of 1673—five years before—and those words were inserted in this House on the Third Reading of the Bill. Such was the practice of our ancestors. The Test Act of 1678 gave rise to a very

2237
interesting Debate. Unfortunately, the printed records do not exist, and a record is only to be found by students who consult the manuscript authority in the British Museum. Those who take that trouble would be rewarded by the rather interesting Debate which took place even then. The words about transubstantiation were not words proposed by Members of the Parliament, because they proceeded, I think wisely, to give a further description of what they meant. No sooner did they do that than they ran counter to the Lutheran tendencies of the House. It was found that the words were not only aimed at the Church of Rome, but at the modified doctrines of the Lutheran Church. As they had only one object—to be disagreeable to the Papists—they eliminated the explanatory words, which would be of great assistance in our discussion to-day.
11.0 P.M.
We thus get this particular form of Declaration which, according to the hon. and learned Member for Southport, has been the bulwark of our Protestant faith during the last 200 years. I think it is a very useful thing, and this follows from my argument at the beginning, to bring the light of present-day feeling and present-day knowledge, upon a thing of this sort. I am quite sure that the sense and conviction of this House in the year 1910 is that all this barricado of words and declarations, is a futile piece of absurdity. You cannot by any wit of man devise and elaborate detailed statements of doctrine or repudiation of doctrine which would serve any useful purpose in a matter of this kind. Of course, in the old days, everybody took oaths. I remember an old Liverpool merchant telling me when I was a boy that when he was a young man as a clerk in a shipping house, he would sometimes take as many as fifty oaths in one day,—on clearing goods at the local Customs House. That was the practice of our ancestors: they swore through thick and thin. It has been
admitted during the Debate that nobody ever much benefited by it. The famous Protestant hero, Henry of Navarre, when he turned Papist, made the well-known remark that Paris was worth a Mass. I have not the least doubt he would have said that London was worth the repudiation of Mass. We have now attained an altogether better frame of mind on these questions. You might say, "Why have a Declaration at all?" I dare say there is something to be said for not having a Declaration at all; but still there
2238
is force in the argument employed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Horne) that it is only on occasions like this, when we have recourse to Acts of Settlement and White Papers which a beneficient Government has distributed for the removal of the ignorance of legislators in this country, that we know what is in these statutes; and I do not see any particular reason why the good people of the country should be made very clearly acquainted with the actual verbiage of these documents. But the Coronation or the Accession to the Throne is a great and striking event which travels all over the world, particularly in these days, and therefore all the incidents connected with the Coronation or the Accession of the Monarch become public property and are widely and generally known. There is therefore, perhaps much to be said for its being generally known that the King of this country, on his Accession or closely thereupon, does make a Declaration of the Protestant faith, and that in consequence this country is recognised throughout the world as a country which is not in communion with the Church of Rome. I think that, historically speaking, there is a good deal to be said for that view, and I rejoice greatly that we have, as I hope, discovered words which, while removing the offence to Roman Catholics, do not give offence in other quarters.
Hon. Members seem to speak of the Prime Minister as if he was to blame for being scrupulously anxious, on this great occasion of the Accession of the Sovereign, and his Declaration, to avoid giving offence. Our whole motive is to avoid giving offence, first to the Roman Catholics but, having plucked the poisoned shaft out of their breasts, we do not want to go and embed it in the breasts of two or three other sets of people. On the contrary, we want now to proceed in this matter on lines which recognise the feeling of the moment at which we have arrived. I think the statement of the Sovereign that he is a Protestant is quite sufficient. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University put that point with great clearness. If a man jumped up in the street and said, "I am a Protestant," you might not know exactly to what he was referring. But on an occasion like this, having regard to the doctrine of the Protestant Succession embodied in the Act of Settlement, everybody knows when a man says, "I am a faithful Protestant"; it means that he is not a Roman Catholic.

2239
But it is said that to ensure that he is not a Roman Catholic he must single out particular doctrines. I do not know why anybody should assert that transubstantiation and the invocation of the Virgin Mary are the main doctrines of the Church of Rome. That has been said over and over again. They may be important doctrines, but there are other doctrines of the Church of Rome which are the common property of the whole Christian Church. I should have thought everybody would admit that to single out particular theological dogmas of this kind was offensive. It is not the words "idolatrous and superstitious." It is the notion that it is necessary for the King of England at a time of this sort to single out particular doctrines as fit and worthy for repudiation. I believe I understand the reason why Protestants in 1678 put in those particular words. I think they shared the view which was expressed by an hon. Gentleman from the North of Ireland, who often takes part in the Debates in which I am concerned, that it was commonly supposed by Protestants that the Pope had no dispensing power over an Oath which contained references to a matter of faith; whilst he could dispense you from an oath of loyalty and supremacy—whilst he could absolve you if you had only said something nasty and disagreeable: if you used language sufficiently offensive and disgusting to the Roman Catholic mind, that was an Oath from which the Pope could not dispense you.
I am not going into the dangerous discussion as to what a Pope can or cannot absolve you from, but I am perfectly certain of this: That no such limitation as that forms any true part of the Catholic doctrine of dispensation—whatever it may be. It is a Protestant delusion if you think that by simply putting in particular words that have an insulting reference to particular articles of the Roman Catholic faith that you have got the Pope! Nothing of the kind. I think, therefore, we may be well content with the great and striking result, which, as I think, has come from these Debates. We have had an opportunity of expressing with new force and new vigour—if I may use the fine expression of Scotch laws we have "homologated" the doctrine of the Protestant Succesion as our own. We have ratified it; we have confirmed it. I think that pays us very well for the trouble we may have had with
2240
our constituents. I am therefore glad to have had an opportunity of supporting the Second Reading of this measure, and I believe that to-morrow, when we enter into the Committee stage, we shall, in the time at our disposal, not have much difficulty in coming to a decision upon this subject. I feel perfectly certain of this, in spite of the statements of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Scott Dickson), that when this matter has once been settled in these terms, we shall hear very little about it between now, and, at all events, the next Succession to the Throne, which may God long avert.
Sir MARK STEWART: I protest, on behalf of a very large number of people in Scotland, who I believe have a right that their voice should be heard here, at the very flippant and irreverent speech to which we have just listened. That is the opinion of a large number of Gentlemen, at any rate, on this side of the House. I have myself said over and over again that we were quite willing to take out these words, "idolatrous" and "superstitious," which no doubt give great offence to our brother Roman Catholics. We have no right to do anything to give offence to their high prestige. In the Debate in 1901 Lord Salisbury, after listening to the speech made by Lord Herries—and no one respects Lord Herries more than I do—did not feel able to press forward the Bill of that time, because it did not give satisfaction to the Catholics of the country. We do not want to give offence to anybody; we want to live in perfect charity with our Catholic fellow-men. We know they do not agree with us, and we do not agree with them. What does that matter if we are conscientiously trying to do our duty? The right hon. Gentleman made a great point that the Declaration amply provided that the Sovereign should be a Protestant, but that the people of this country knew nothing about it. Why? Because they knew that the Declaration was sound and just on the whole and because the Protestant Succession was secured to this country, and they were able to enjoy that knowledge in perfect quiet and peace. That is what I want to emphasise. But take away that safeguard and where are you? The Sovereign is now to say, "I am a Protestant." That is all right when he is a Protestant, but how much better would it not be to keep the old Declaration instead of riding off on a perfectly new plan. Hon. Members have no idea of the

2241
feeling there is upon this matter in Scotland, from which hundreds of Petitions have come in against disturbing the present Declaration. Whatever hon. Members opposite from Scotland may do, I feel bound to enter my strong protest against the course which the Government are pursuing.
The PRIME MINISTERrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided: Ayes, 313; Noes, 187.

Division No. 135.]

AYES

[11.15 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Agnew, George William

Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.)

Jowett, Frederick William

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Edwards, Enoch

Joyce, Michael

Allen, Charles Peter

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Keating, Matthew

Archer-Shee, Major Martin

Elverston, Harold

Kelly, Edward

Armitage, Robert

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Falconer, James

Kilbride, Denis

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Farrell, James Patrick

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Fenwick, Charles

Lambert, George

Barclay, Sir Thomas

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Barnes, George N.

Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Munro

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

Ffrench, Peter

Leach, Charles

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Field, William

Lehmann, Rudolf C.

Barton, William

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Levy, Sir Maurice

Beale, William Phipson

Furness, Stephen

Lewis, John Herbert

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Lincoln, Ignatius Timothy T.

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Bentham, George Jackson

Gibbins, F. W.

Low, Sir Francis (Norwich)

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Gilhooly, James

Lundon, Thomas

Boland, John Plus

Gill, Alfred Henry

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Bowerman, Charles W.

Glanville, Harold James

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Glover, Thomas

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Brigg, Sir John

Greenwood, Granville George

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Brocklehurst, William B.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Brunner, John F. L.

Griffith, Ellis Jones

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Bryce, John Annan

Guest, Major C. H. C.

M'Callum, John M.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

M'Kean, John

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hackett, John

M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Mallet, Charles Edward

Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

Manfield, Harry

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Hancock, John George

Marks, George Croydon

Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Byles, William Pollard

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Meagher, Michael

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's County)

Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Harwood, George

Menzies, Sir Walter

Chancellor, Henry George

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Middlebrook, William

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Millar, James Duncan

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Molloy, Michael

Clancy, John Joseph

Haworth, Arthur A.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Clough, William

Hayden, John Patrick

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Clynes, John R.

Hayward, Evan

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Hazleton, Richard

Muldoon, John

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)

Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

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

Healy, Timothy Michael

Muspratt, Max

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Helme, Norval Watson

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hemmerde, Edward George

Neilson, Francis

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

Nolan, Joseph

Cowan, W. H.

Henry, Charles S.

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Crean, Eugene

Higham, John Sharp

Nussey, Sir T. Willans

Crosfield, Arthur H.

Hindle, Frederick George

Nuttall, Harry

Crossley, Sir William J.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Cullinan, J.

Hodge, John

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Hogan, Michael

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Holt, Richard Durning

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Dawes, James Arthur

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Doherty, Philip

Delany, William

Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

O'Donnell, Thomas (Kerry, W.)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Dowd, John

Devlin, Joseph

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

O'Grady, James

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Dillon, John

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Donelan, Captain A.

Jardine, Sir John (Rexburghshire)

O'Malley, William

Doris, William

Johnson, William

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Duffy, William J.

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Shee, James John

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Verney, Frederick William

Parker, James (Halifax)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Vivian, Henry

Pearce, William

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Wadsworth, John

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

Scanlan, Thomas

Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Schwann, Sir Charles E.

Walsh, Stephen

Philipps, Sir O. C. (Pembroke)

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

Walters, John Tudor

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

Walton, Sir Joseph

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Shackleton, David James

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Pointer, Joseph

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Wardle, G. J.

Pollard, Sir George H.

Sheehy, David

Waring, Walter

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Shortt, Edward

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

Simon, John Allsebrook

Waterlow, David Sydney

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

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Watt, Henry A.

Pringle, William M. R.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Radford, George Heynes

Snowden, Philip

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

Rainy, Adam Rolland

Soares, Ernest Joseph

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Rea, Walter Russell

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Reddy, Michael

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wilkie, Alexander

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Summers, James Woolley

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Sutherland, John E.

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Rendall, Atheistan

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Ridley, Samuel Forde

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

Roberts, George M. (Norwich)

Tennant, Harold John

Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff)

Winfrey, Richard

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

Wing, Thomas

Robinson, Sidney

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Young, William (Perth, East)

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Toulmin, George

Roe, Sir Thomas

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

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

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)

Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Hunt, Rowland

Arbuthnot, Gerald A.

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Hunter Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Ashley, Wilfred W.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Jackson, Sir John (Devonport)

Bagot, Captain J.

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

Baird, John Lawrence

Craik, Sir Henry

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

Dalrymple, Viscount

Keswick, William

Balcarres, Lord

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Baldwin, Stanley

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

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

Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Kirkwood, John H. M.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)

Kyffin-Taylor, G.

Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

Duke, Henry Edward

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Barnston, Harry

Duncannon, Viscount

Lawson, Hon. Harry

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.)

Faber, George D. (Clapham)

Llewelyn, Venables

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Falle, Bertram Godfray

Lloyd, George Ambrose

Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

Fell, Arthur

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

Beresford, Lord Charles

Fisher, William Hayes

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

Bird, Alfred

Flannery, Sir J. Fertescue

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Black, Arthur W.

Fleming, Valentine

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Fletcher, John Samuel

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Boyton, James

Forster, Henry William

Mackinder, Halford J.

Brackenbury, Henry Langton

Foster, John K. (Coventry)

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Bridgeman, William Clive

Gardner, Ernest

Mason, James F.

Brunskill, Gerald Fitzgibbon

Gibbs, George Abraham

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Bull, Sir William James

Gilmour, Captain John

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Burdett-Coutts, William

Gooch, Henry Cubitt

Mitchell, William Foot

Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

Gordon, John

Molteno, Percy Alport

Butcher, John George (York)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Moore, William

Butcher, S. H. (Cambridge University)

Grant, J. A.

Morpeth, Viscount

Campion, W. R.

Gretton, John

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Gwynn, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Mount, William Arthur

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hall, E. Marshall (Toxteth)

Munro, Robert

Cator, John

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Newdegate, F. A.

Cave, George

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Newman, John R. P.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Wor'cr.)

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Nield, Herbert

Chambers, James

Heath, Col. Arthur Howard

O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Henderson, Major Harold (Berkshire)

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. A. G.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

Ormsby-Gore, William

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Clyde, James Avon

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Parkes, Ebenezer

Coates, Major Edward F.

Horner, Andrew Long

Pearson, Weetman, H. M.

Cooper, Captain Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)

Houston, Robert Paterson,

Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

2244

2245

Peto, Basil Edward

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Verrall, George Henry

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Starkey, John Ralph

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Proby, Col. Douglas James

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

White, Major C. D. (Lancs., Southport)

Quilter, William Eley C.

Stewart, Gershom (Ches., Wirral)

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkcudbrightsh.)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Rice, Hon Walter Fitz-Uryan

Strauss, Arthur

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Sykes, Alan John

Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Royds, Edmund

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

Rutherford, Watson

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M. (Bootle)

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Lonsdale and Mr. Hugh Barrie.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 410; Noes, 84.

Division No. 136.]

AYES.

[11.25 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Furness, Stephan

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gardner, Ernest

Agnew, George William

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Allen, Charles Peter

Chancellor, Henry George

Gibbins, F. W.

Arbuthnot, Gerald A.

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Gibbs, George Abraham

Archer-Shee, Major Martin

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Armitage, Robert

Clancy, John Joseph

Gilhooly, James

Ashley, Wilfred W.

Clough, William

Gill, Alfred Henry

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Clynes, John R.

Glanville, Harold James

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Glover, Thomas

Bagot, Captain J.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Gooch, Henry Cubitt

Baird, John Lawrence

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

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Greenwood, Granville George

Balcarres, Lord

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Gretton, John

Baldwin, Stanley

Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Griffith, Ellis Jones(Anglesey)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Guest, Major C. H. C.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cowan, William Henry

Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

Barclay, Sir Thomas

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Barnes, George N.

Craik, Sir Henry

Hackett, John

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

Crean, Eugene

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Crosfield, Arthur H.

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

Barton, William

Crossley, Sir William J.

Hancock, John George

Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.)

Cullinan, John

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

Beale, William Phipson

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Beckett, Hon. William Gervase

Dawes, James Arthur

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Delany, William

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

Devlin, Joseph

Harwood, George

Bentham, George Jackson

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

Dillon, John

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Beresford, Lord Charles

Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Bird, Alfred

Donelan, Captain A.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Doris, William

Hayden, John Patrick

Boland, John Pius

Duffy, William J.

Hayward, Evan

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Duke, Henry Edward

Hazleton, Richard

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Healy, Maurice (Cork, N.E.)

Bridgeman, William Clive

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Healy, Timothy Michael (Louth, N.)

Brigg, Sir John

Dunn, Albert E. (Camborne)

Heath, Col. Arthur Howard

Brocklehurst, William B.

Dunn, Sir W. H. (Southwark, W.)

Helme, Norval Watson

Brunner, John F. L.

Edwards, Enoch

Hemmerde, Edward George

Bryce, John Annan

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Bull, Sir William James

Elverston, Harold

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

Burdett-Coutts, William

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Henry, Charles S.

Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

Faber, George D. (Clapham)

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

Burke, E. Haviland-

Falconer, James

Higham, John Sharp

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Farrell, James Patrick

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Fell, Arthur

Hindle, Frederick George

Butcher, John George (York)

Fenwick, Charles

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Butcher, S. H. (Camb. Univ.)

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Hodge, John

Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Munro

Hogan, Michael

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Ffrench, Peter

Holt, Richard Durning

Buxton, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Poplar)

Field, William

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Byles, Wiliam Pollard

Fisher, William Hayes

Hope, John Deans (Fife. West)

Campion, W. R.

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Fleming, Valentine

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Cator, John

Foster, John K. (Coventry)

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

France, Gerald Ashburner

Hunt, Rowland

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Illingworth, Percy H.

Nolan, Joseph

Sheehy, David

Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Sherwell, Arthur James

Jackson, Sir John (Devonport)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Shortt, Edward

Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

Nussey, Sir T. Willans

Simon, John Allsebrook

Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

Nuttall, Harry

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Johnson, William

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Snowden, Philip

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Soares, Ernest Joseph

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

O'Doherty, Philip

Spicer, Sir Albert

Jowett, Frederick William

O'Donnell, Thomas (Kerry, W.)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Joyce, Michael

O'Dowd, John

Starkey, John Ralph

Keating, Matthew

O'Grady, James

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Kelly, Edward

O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

Summers, James Woolley

Kilbride, Denis

O'Malley, William

Sutherland, John E.

Kimber, Sir Henry

O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

Sykes, Alan John

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

Talbot, Lord Edmund

King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

Ormsby-Gore, William

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

Kirkwood, John H. M.

O'Shee, James John

Tennant, Harold John

Lambert, George

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Parker, James (Halifax)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Pearce, William

Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff)

Leach, Charles

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

Lehmann, Rudolf C.

Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Peto, Basil Edward

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Lewis, John Herbert

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Llewelyn, Venables

Philipps, Sir O. C. (Pembroke)

Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

Lloyd, George Ambrose

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Toulmin, George

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Pointer, Joseph

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Pollard, Sir George H.

Verney, Frederick William

Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Vivian, Henry

Lundon, Thomas

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Wadsworth, John

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Power, Patrick Joseph

Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Pretyman, Ernest George

Walsh, Stephen

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)

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

Walters, John Tudor

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

Walton, Sir Joseph

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Pringle, William M. R.

Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Proby, Col. Douglas James

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Quilter, William Eley C.

Wardle, G. J.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Radford, George Heynes

Waring, Walter

McCallum, John M.

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

M'Kean, John

Rainy, Adam Rolland

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

Raphael, Herbert Henry

Waterlow, David Sydney

Mallet, Charles Edward

Rea, Walter Russell

Watt, Henry A.

Manfield, Harry

Reddy, Michael

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Marks, George Croydon

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

Mason, James F.

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Rendall, Athelstan

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Meagher, Michael

Ridley, Samuel Forde

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Whitehouse, John Howard

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

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Menzies, Sir Walter

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Middlebrook, William

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Wilkie, Alexander

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Millar, James Duncan

Robinson, Sidney

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Molloy, Michael

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Royds, Edmund

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

Morpeth, Viscount

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Mount, William Arthur

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

Winfrey, Richard

Muldoon, John

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Wing, Thomas

Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

Muspratt, Max

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Scanlan, Thomas

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Neilson, Francis

Schwann, Sir Charles E.

Young, William (Perth, East)

Newdegate, F. A.

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

Newman, John R. P.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Shackleton, David James

NOES

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Brackenbury, Henry Langton

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Brunskill, Gerald Fitzgibbon

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Barnston, Harry

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Clyde, James Avon

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

Coates, Major Edward F.

Black, Arthur W.

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Cooper, Captain Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Chambers, James

Cory, Sir Clifford John

2248

2249

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Keswick, William

Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

Dairymple, Viscount

Kyffin-Taylor, G.

Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. M. (Bootle)

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Duncannon, Viscount

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Stewart, Gershom (Ches., Wirral)

Falle, Bertram Godfray

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkc'dbr'tsh.)

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Mackinder, Halford J.

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Fletcher, John Samuel

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Forster, Henry William

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Verrall, George Henry

Gilmour, Captain John

Molteno, Percy Alport

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Moore, William

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Gordon, John

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

Grant, J. A.

Munro, Robert

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Hall, Marshall (Toxteth)

Nield, Herbert

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

Wood, John(Stalybridge)

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Parkes, Ebenezer

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Henderson, Major Harold (Berkshire)

Pearson, Weetman H. M.

Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Agar-Robartes and Mr. Mitchell Thomson.

Horner, Andrew Long

Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

Houston, Robert P.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Rutherford, Watson

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CIVIL LIST BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

CLAUSE 1.—(Payment of hereditary revenues to Exchequer.)
The hereditary revenues which were by Section 1 of the Civil List Act, 1901, directed to be carried to and made part of the Consolidated Fund (including the Osborne Estate to which that section was subsequently applied by the Osborne Estate Act, 1902) shall, during the present reign and a period of six months afterwards, be paid into the Exchequer, and be made part of the Consolidated Fund.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: I do not propose to move an Amendment, but I will say what I have to say on the question, that this Clause stand part. The Government have greatly simplified the form of the Bill. This Clause in particular now represents in very few words an enormous clause which used to figure in previous Bills, but it is curious that these words now mean something very different from what they used to mean. The same words as they appear in the Civil List in the reign of George III. were held to include the surrender of the Duchy of Lancaster, but now, though in the same
2250
form, they exclude the Duchy of Lancaster. The Civil List Act passed in the reign of George III. provided for the surrender of the hereditary revenues, excepting only those of the Duchy of Cornwall. That exception is no longer inserted since it is held that the Duchies are not covered by the words of the Clause. In 1889 there was a full debate upon the Duchies, in which were stated the reasons for what has taken place in regard to the Duchy of Lancaster, and I do not propose to go over those reasons again. On some future occasion I hope the Government will propose that the Duchy of Lancaster should be taken over by the public in the way it was taken over in the early years of the reign of George III. The reason is that we have now before us evidence confirming the views taken in the Debates in 1889 that the revenues of the Duchy may be subject, and have been subject, to undue pressure through not allowing a sufficient amount to be placed to capital reserve. Sir Michael Hicks Beach foresaw that difficulty in 1889, and at that time he stated that the ground for saying that the amount set aside for Privy Purse was not unduly large was that there were private residences at Sandringham, Osborne and Balmoral which were expensive to maintain, and must be maintained "out of the Privy Purse and the Duchy of Lancaster," which he described as an "appanage"—exactly what it was not. The Duchy of Cornwall is an appanage, but the Duchy of Lancaster is not. But at that time it was still shown that these very same words as to the hereditary revenues formerly covered the Duchy of Lancaster. Therefore, I may express the strong hope that the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster may, under some

2251
future Act, be brought into the general hereditary revenues, and managed in connection with the other hereditary lands of the Crown. There is no reason for the distinction made between them. They were certainly formerly covered by the words which governed the others, and should under all correct principles of public management be brought in.

CLAUSE 2.—Annual Payment for Civil List.
There shall, during the present reign and a period of six months afterwards, be paid for the King's Civil List, the yearly sum of four hundred and seventy thousand pounds.
Mr. BARNES: I beg to move to leave out the word "seventy" and to insert instead thereof the word "fifty."
I wish to make it clear that this is not an Amendment, as might appear on the surface, to reduce the amount of the Civil List. I have already taken a Vote of the House on that matter, and the House has come to a decision, and although we do not agree with that decision yet we feel that we are in honour bound to accept it. This Amendment is somewhat technical in character. It has reference to Class 4 in the Schedule, and I move it here because this sum of £470,000 mentioned in Clause 2 covers also Class 4 in the Schedule, and of course it is necessary to move it here as otherwise I should not have an opportunity of moving it later on
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): Has this reference to the £20,000 for works?
Mr. BARNES: Yes. It seems to me that in this matter you are following a very bad precedent and are asking us to do even worse than the precedent. In 1901, as I understand, this £20,000 was for the first time brought into the Civil List, but the £20,000 does not by any means represent the total amount of money spent on works; that is to say, as I understand, on palaces in occupation. As a matter of fact, if the House assents to the Bill, and the proposals of the Committee submitted a week or two ago the House will be committed to an expenditure this year of, I suppose, £102,000 altogether for palaces. But this Amendment has reference not to the £55,000 mentioned in the Report, but only to the £20,000 mentioned as Class 4 in
2252
the Civil List under the heading of works. It will be necessary to say a word in regard to the previous practice. So far as I understand, the previous practice has been that this £20,000 has been expended for the internal maintenance and repair of palaces in occupation. The £20,000 does not represent, however, the total amount spent both inside and outside the palaces. During the last reign it amounted to £47,000. The previous practice has been that the £20,000 has been spent without any effective control whereas the £27,000 has been estimated for in the usual way and therefore has been more or less under the control of Parliament. We think it is a bad thing that large sums of money should be voted without some observation in the House of Commons. It has been said that the previous practice has led to a good deal of administrative inconvenience, because the £20,000 has been spent without Parliamentary authority, whereas the £27,000 has gone on the Estimates. Therefore it was submitted that it was necessary to bring the whole general amount spent on the palaces under one control. We submit that the putting of this total expenditure under one control can be effected in one of two ways. We can either take the £20,000 out of the Civil List altogether and put it along with the £27,000 on the Estimates or put the £27,000 along with the £20,000. The Government have, in fact, adopted the latter course, and we suggest that the former course is the better. In saying that the Government have put the £27,000 along with the £20,000, I am making a statement not quite consistent with the Bill, but if hon. Members read the Bill carefully they will see that the statement I have made is quite correct, because, if this course is adopted, the £27,000 will not appear in the Estimates as hitherto, and will only come on the floor of the House of Commons when the expenditure has been incurred. I think the straightforward course would be to take the whole of the money out of the Civil List and put it in the estimates in the usual way, so that the Minister who draws up these estimates would be the Minister directly responsible to the House of Commons.
It has been said by the Minister himself, whose opinion, of course, is worthy of all due weight being given to it, that such a course would be inconvenient for several reasons. It was said by the Minister up stairs that he had to estimate a long time before, and had to put his Estimates in in the latter part of the year, those Estimates

2253
covering the period up to the 31st March in the year following. Therefore, small works connected with the palaces which had to be undertaken in a hurry could not be taken in the Estimates in the latter part of any particular year. With all due deference to the Minister of Works, that is not altogether conclusive. He would have no difficulty in getting a Vote on Account in the early part of the year. I believe it is quite customary to have Votes on Account. Moreover, where it is absolutely necessary, it is possible to have Supplementary Estimates, or it is quite possible for the Minister to get a total amount at the end of any particular year. If he has got too much money under one head and too little under another, it is quite an easy matter for him to get the Treasury sanction to spend the money in one way instead of another. By these means this difficulty of the Estimates being before the House so long before some emergency arises is met. At all events, I think that is a method of getting over the difficulty which is more in accordance with the principle which ought to be adopted of keeping intact the control of the House of Commons over these large sums of money. I think that it is unfair to the Crown to put this £20,000 into the Civil List, because it has no connection with the moneys necessary for the King for his personal use or for the maintenance of the Royal household or the dignity of the Crown. After all those Palaces are public property, and we think the expenditure of money on them should be done in a public manner and subject to proper Parliamentary control. I commend the Amendment to the consideration of hon. Gentlemen present.
The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): I do not feel that I have any right to refer to anything that occurred in Committee upstairs, because in accordance with the invariable practice in these matters it has always been treated by Members of the Committee as confidential. In reply to the point put by my hon. Friend as to why the provision of this £20,000 should appear on the Civil List for works in the palaces, that practice was established partially at the commencement of the last reign, but partially also at a much earlier date. A sum of £10,000 has always appeared on the Civil List for these palaces, and that was increased to £20,000 at the commencement of the late reign, greatly, I think, to the general convenience of administration. All that has
2254
been done on this occasion is to ease me of certain duties which I was conscious of, and which the Committee will be conscious of, when I explain them to them. What is being done is to take the average amount of the repairs and maintenance of the palaces in occupation of the Sovereign for the last seven or eight years, and to put that as a lump sum on the Estimates, in order that I should not be put to the duty of estimating eighteen months before all the details of the works which have to be carried out at different times in the palaces in occupation, or almost constant occupation. But the control of the House of Commons over the expenditure has been absolutely preserved. Although it is a lump sum, there is not a detail of my proceedings in relation to such expenditure which cannot be questioned in this House. I feel sure that with the maintenance of Parliamentary control that the House will not think that the arrangement accorded to the Department is an unreasonable arrangement for the convenience both of my Department and of all those concerned.
12.0 P.M.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The remarks we have just heard do not meet the point raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Barnes). The £20,000 included in the Civil List is for internal work, and it is proposed to put £27,000 for external work on the Civil Estimates, under the heading of "Palaces." Why should not the £20,000 also appear on the Estimates. The division of these two sums is confusing, and is not logical, and it is difficult for an ordinary layman like myself to understand the principle which has guided the Committee upstairs in coming to this decision. The sum of £27,000 will appear yearly on the Estimates as a fixed sum, and the public outside will naturally conclude that that is the total sum being paid for repairs. Whereas, in addition to that, this £20,000 in the Civil List will also be spent. Whilst the taxpayers assume that the total cost of the upkeep of the Royal Palaces in any given year is the £27,000 on the Estimates, it will be in reality £47,000. In the interests of good bookkeeping and honest finance, it is surely desirable that both these sums relating to the one class of work—the only difference being that one is external and the other internal—should appear in the one set of accounts. We, on these Benches, prefer that this expenditure should appear on the ordinary Estimates, and not in the form proposed by Clause 6, Sub-section (3). It is there stipu-

2255
lated that all this money is to be voted, and the amount not required is to be set aside for future expenditure of that class in such manner as the Treasury may sanction. That is to say, the House of Commons should annually vote without examination and without discussion this £27,000, and any unexpended balance is to be allowed to accumulate for future expenditure. Surely those who are interested in maintaining control over Government Departments should not be favourable to such a proposal, but should vote with my hon. Friend.
Mr. R. D. HOLT: This is practically a vote for spending £47,000 a year on the
repairs and maintenance of the Royal Palaces. £47,000 is a very large sum, and it is simply inconceivable that it can be properly expended in ordinary repairs and maintenance. There must be a great deal of unnecessary extravagance and absurd work carried on to get through such a sum. We have not the slightest details as to the character of the expenditure, and as a protest against the general wastefulness which animates this and many other proposals I shall vote for the Amendment.
Question put, "That the word 'seventy' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 39.

Division No. 137.]

AYES.

[12.6 a.m.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.(Bath)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Craik, Sir Henry

Illingworth, Percy H.

Allen, Charles P.

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

Archer-Shee, Major M.

Crosfield, A. H.

Johnson, W.

Armitage, R.

Crossley, Sir William J.

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Ashley, Wilfred W.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Baird, John Lawrence

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

Dawes, J. A.

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Balcarres, Lord

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Kyffin-Taylor, G.

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

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S.

Lambert, George

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Dixon, Charles Harvey

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Leach, Charles

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Barclay, Sir Thomas

Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

Lewis, John Herbert

Barnston, H.

Duncannon, Viscount

Lincoln, Ignatius T. T.

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

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Llewelyn, Major Venables

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Falconer, J.

Lloyd, George Ambrose

Barton, W.

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

Fisher, W. Hayes

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

Fleming, Valentine

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

Beresford, Lord Charles

Forster, Henry William

Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

Bird, Alfred

France, G. A.

Mackinder, Halford J.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Furness, Stephen

Macmaster, Donald

Black, Arthur W.

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

M'Laren, F. W. S. (Linc., Spalding)

Brackenbury, Henry Langton

Gibbs, George Abraham

Mallet, Charles E.

Bridgeman, William Clive

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Marks, George Croydon

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Gilmour, Captain John

Masterman, C. F. G.

Brunner, John F. L.

Gordon, John

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Bryce, J. Annan

Gretton, John

Middlebrook, William

Bull, Sir William James

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Guest, Major

Millar, J. D.

Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid.)

Gwynne, R. S.

Mitchell, William Foot

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Morpeth, Viscount

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

Munro, Robert

Cator, John

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

Cave, George

Hardy, Laurence

Muspratt, M.

Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Neilson, Francis

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Nicholson, W. G.(Petersfield)

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

Chambers, James

Haworth, Arthur A.

Nussey, Sir Willans

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hayward, Evan

Nuttall, Harry

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

Clough, William

Henderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire)

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

Clyde, James Avon

Henry, Charles S.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Coates, Major Edward F.

Higham, John Sharp

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Palmer, Godfrey

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

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Peto, Basil Edward

Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Pollard, Sir George H.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Horner, Andrew Long

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Cowan, W. H.

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

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

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Hunt, Rowland

Pringle, William M. R.

Quilter, William Eley C.

Staveley-Hill, Henry

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Radford, G. H.

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Waring, Walter

Raphael, Herbert H.

Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirrall)

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkc'dbr'tch.)

Waterlow, David Sydney

Rea, Walter Russell

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

Strauss A.

White, Maj. G. D. (Lanc., Southport)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Summers, James Woolley

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Sutherland, John E.

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

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Sykes, Alan John

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Rothschild, Lionel de

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Royds, Edmund

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

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

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Wing, Thomas

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Toulmin, George

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Sanderson, Lancelot

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Schwann, Sir Charles E.

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Worthington-Evans, L.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

Verrall, George Henry

Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

Shortt, Edward

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Soares, Ernest J.

Walters, John Tudor

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Starkey, John Ralph

NOES.

Barnes, G. N.

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

Rendall, Athelstan

Beale, W. P.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Robinson, S.

Bentham, G. J.

Holt, Richard Durning

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

Bowerman, C. W.

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Shackleton, David James

Byles, William Pollard

Jowett, F. W.

Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

Clynes, J. R.

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Watt, Henry A.

Duffy, William J.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Gibbins, F. W.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Wilkie, Alexander

Gill, A. H.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Glanville, H. J.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Glover, Thomas

O'Grady, James

Winfrey, Richard

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Hancock, J. G.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. G. Roberts and Mr. C. Duncan.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Pointer, Joseph

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put and agreed.

CLAUSE 3.—(Provision for the Queen in the event of her surviving the King.)
In the event of Her Majesty Queen Mary surviving His Majesty the King, there shall be paid to her during her life an annuity of seventy thousand pounds.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. CLYNES: I beg to move to leave out Clause 3. It does not appear to me to be in harmony with the general purposes of the Bill. The Bill provides for an existing condition of things, but this provides for a condition of things which we all desire may be far off. That condition ought to be provided for by the Parliament in existence when the event contemplated by the Clause does occur, thirty or forty years hence. It is surely improper that this House should decide what should be done on matters of money at that time. We have just heard from the First Commissioner of Works, that he has great difficulty in settling matters affecting a period eighteen months in advance, and if that is too great a task for him to undertake it is surely too great a task for
2258
this House to settle a matter that may not arise for thirty years or more. The general attitude assumed by Ministers when a point of this sort is raised on any subject is that they ought not to anticipate events, but wait for the set of circumstances brought before them arising and deal with them as they occur. In this case we seek merely to apply a principle which has already been laid down to the circumstances contemplated in this case. A bad principle runs through the whole of Clauses 3 and 4. Why should this House grant £10,000 a year to princes who have accomplished nothing greater than attaining the age of 21 years? Again, I do not see why such a great distinction should be drawn between sons and daughters in this matter. The amount is £10,000 for a son. and £6,000 for a daughter. We have not put down any Amendments on this particular side of the question as to the amount. We do not quarrel so much with the amount, although we think they are excessive. I move this Amendment, principally on the ground that it is not the business of Parliament to anticipate these circumstances. We cannot measure the worth of our monarchs by the amount of money we give them, but there might be circumstances, a generation hence, which

2259
would cause us to offer a different amount. Members of the Royal Family are supposed to be patterns and examples of what ought to be done in the domestic life of the nation. It is a most uncommon thing in private life to anticipate these events, and the principle which operates in the one case should operate in the other.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree with what the hon. Member has said that it is not sufficient to say that we are following precedent in this matter unless there is some very good reason for it. I do not think the hon. Member has made out a case why the House of Commons should not follow precedent as regards Clauses 3 and 4. The matter was carefully considered by a Committee in 1890 and they came to the conclusion it was undesirable that when a contingency arose we should consider each particular case. That was always a very delicate and difficult business, and gave rise to discussions which I do not think were particularly useful or instructive. I think it is far better that we should provide for the whole of these contingencies at the beginning of the reign. From the point of view of the Treasury, nothing is gained, but quite the reverse by leaving it to Parliament to make provision on each individual occasion. I think, on the whole, hon. Members may rest satisfied that in the long run the Treasury would be the loser. It is possible that at a time when public opinion might be influenced by sentiment the expense would be double that if we make provision now in cold blood. The hon. Gentleman said that my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works found it difficult to anticipate eighteen months in advance. That is purely a question of anticipating what repairs would be required to a palace, and is a totally different matter. I think anyone who examined what happened during the reign of Queen Victoria would come to the conclusion that it is a better bargain for the State to consider the thing as a whole rather than when these contingencies arise, and when circumstances
give rise to emotions which interfere with calm judgment. Nothing would be saved from the point of view of economy. The Committee of 1889, after careful consideration of the whole circumstances, came to the conclusion that it was in the interests of economy—these proposals were not merely extending but were widening, being proposed not only to sons and daughters but also to grandchildren—and there was a general feeling that the matter should be faced at the beginning of a reign if there should be a limitation. It was from the point of view of protecting Parliament against demands of that kind that an arrangement of this sort was recommended at the beginning of a reign, and I say that as one interested officially in seeing there is strict economy in these matters.
Mr. BARNES: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose statement, of course, settles the matter, told us that this proposal would be in the interests of economy, and that probably if Parliament were called upon to provide for the sons and daughters of the King in times of emotion the country might be disposed to give even more than the sums now proposed. I fail to see any need for emotion on a young man attaining his 21st birthday, or on a young woman attaining her majority. It seems to me probable, if this matter were left open and Parliament were called upon to deal with it as occasion arose, that Parliament would get pretty well tired of having constant repetitions of the claims of sons and daughters and other relations of the Royal Family. Therefore, there does not seem anything of a convincing character to my mind in the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I can only say I regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not found better and stronger arguments in support of this particular proposal. I shall go into the lobby with my hon. Friend.
Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 236; Noes, 34.

Division No. 138.]

AYES.

[12.25 a.m.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Barclay, Sir Thomas

Brackenbury, Henry Langton

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Barnston, Harry

Bridgeman, William Clive

Allen, Charles P.

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

Brocklehurst, William B.

Armitage, Robert

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Brunner, John F. L.

Ashley, Wilfred W.

Beale, William Phipson

Bryce, J. Annan

Baird, John Lawrence

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

Bull, Sir William James

Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Balcarres, Lord

Bird, Alfred

Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Black, Arthur W.

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Henderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire)

Raphael, Herbert Henry

Cator, John

Henry, Charles S.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Cave, George

Higham, John Sharp

Rea, Walter Russell

Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Chambers, James

Horner, Andrew Long

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hume-Williams, William Ellis

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

Hunt, Rowland

Rothschild, Lionel de

Clough, William

Hunter, Sir Charles Roderick (Bath)

Runciman Rt. Hon. Walter

Clyde, James Avon

Illingworth, Percy H.

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

Coates, Major Edward F.

Johnson, William

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Sanders, Robert A.

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

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Sanderson, Lancelot

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Schwann, Sir Charles E.

Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Corbett, A. Cameron

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Kyffin-Taylor, G.

Shortt, Edward

Cowan, W. H.

Lambert, George

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Soares, Ernest Joseph

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

Leach, Charles

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Craik, Sir Henry

Levy, Sir Maurice

Starkey, John Ralph

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Lewis, John Herbert

Staveley-Hill, Henry

Crosfield, Arthur H.

Lincoln, Ignatius Timothy T.

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Crossley, Sir William J.

Llewelyn, Venables

Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)

Dairymple, Viscount

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkc'dbr'tsh.)

Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Dawes, J. A.

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

Summers, James Woolley

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Sutherland J. E.

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

Mackinder, Halford J.

Sykes, Alan John

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)

Macmaster, Donald

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Dixon, Charles Harvey

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

Taylor, T. C.(Radcliffe)

Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)

Mallet, Charles Edward

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Duncannon, Viscount

Marks, George Croydon

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Falconer, James

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

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Ferens, T. R.

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Toulmin, George

Fisher, William Hayes

Middlebrook, William

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Fleming, Valentine

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Forster, Henry William

Millar, James Duncan

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

France, Gerald Ashburner

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Verrall, George Henry

Furness, Stephen

Morpeth, Viscount

Walker, Col. W H. (Lancashire)

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Munro, Robert

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Gibbins, F. W.

Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

Waring, Walter

Gibbs, George Abraham

Muspratt, Max

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Neilson, Francis

Waterlow, David Sydney

Gilmour, Captain John

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

Gordon, John

Norton, Captain Cecil William

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Gretton, John

Nuseey, Sir T. Willans

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

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Nuttall, Harry

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Guest, Major

O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Peto, Basil Edward

Wing, Thomas

Hardy, Laurence

Pollard, Sir George H.

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Worthington-Evans, L.

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

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

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Pringle, William M. R.

Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Quilter, William Eley C.

Hayward, Evan

Radford, George Heynes

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

Helme, Norval Watson

Raffan, Peter Wilson

NOES.

Arbuthnot, Gerald A.

Hardie, J. Keir

Rendall, Athelstan

Barnes, George N.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Robinson, S.

Barton, William

Holt, Richard Durning

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

Bentham, George Jackson

Jowett, Frederick>William

Shackleton, David James

Bowerman, Charles W.

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Watt, Henry A.

Byles, William Pollard

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Wilkie, Alexander

Chancellor, Henry George

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Clynes, John R.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Gill, Alfred Henry

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Winfrey, Robert

Glanville, H. J.

O'Grady, James

Glover, Thomas

Parker, James (Halifax)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. G. Roberts and Mr. C. Duncan.

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Hancock, John George

Pointer, Joseph

CLAUSE 4.—(Provision for the Princess of Wales in the event of the marriage of the Prince of Wales.)
(1) In the event of the marriage of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, there shall be paid to Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales during the continuance of her marriage with His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales for her sole and separate use, but without any power of anticipation, an annuity of ten thousand pounds.
(2) In the event of Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales surviving His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, there shall be paid to Her Royal Highness during her life an annuity of thirty thousand pounds.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr KEIR HARDIE: I do not intend to move any Amendment, but simply to ask for an explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When a similar Clause was under discussion at the beginning of the last reign there was some difference of opinion as to whether the money which was being provided should be paid direct to the Princess of Wales or should be paid to the Prince of Wales, her husband, and the announcement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that time, Sir Michael Hicks Beach, was that the sum should be paid direct to Her Royal Highness. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the money is to be paid to the husband, the Prince of Wales, as was originally proposed nine years ago?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We do not propose to depart from the practice which was then established.
Clause added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Provision for His Majesty's younger children.)
(1) There shall be paid to the trustees hereinafter mentioned as a provision for the benefit of His Majesty's children (other than the Duke of Cornwall for the time being) an annual sum of ten thousand pounds in respect of each son (other than the Duke of Cornwall for the time being) who attains the age of twenty-one years, and a further annual sum of fifteen thousand pounds in respect of each such son who marries, and an annual sum of six thousand pounds in respect of each daughter who attains the age of twenty-one years or marries:
Provided that the sum payable in respect of any such son or daughter shall cease to be paid in the event of the death of that son or daughter.
(2) The persons who are for the time being the First Commissioner of His Majesty's Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Keeper of His Majesty's Privy Purse shall be the Royal trustees, and shall be a body corporate by that name, and any act of the trustees may be signified under the hands and seals of the persons who are the trustees for the time being.
(3) The trustees shall hold the annual sums paid to them under this Section, in trust for all or any one or more of the children of His Majesty (other than the Duke of Cornwall for the time being), in such shares, at such times, in such manner, and subject to such conditions and powers of revocation (including, if it is thought fit, a condition against alienation) as His present Majesty may by order countersigned by the First Commissioner of His Majesty's Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, appoint:
Provided that any such appointment may be varied by another order made and countersigned in like manner.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "ten" ["an annual sum of ten thousand pounds"] and to insert instead thereof the word "six."
The proposal contained in the Clause is that each son, on attaining the age of twenty-one, shall receive £10,000 per annum, and each daughter, on attaining the same age, shall receive £6,000 per annum. Then the sons are further favoured, inasmuch, as when they marry they are to be indulged to the extent of £15,000 per annum, and there is no suitable provision made for the daughters when they marry. We, on these Benches, have always advocated equal pay for equal work. It is a good principle that a woman performing the same work as a man shall receive the same pay, and that practice is carried out in its fullest effect in the Lancashire cotton trade. I stated, on the Second Reading, that this was a proposal to enable the younger sons of the Monarch to live lives of luxury, idleness and ease. I do not say that they will lead such lives—I

2265
hope they will have more sense—but you are making provision to enable them to live lives of that kind. We are asked to provide these sums of money without exacting any duties of any kind, and if hon. Members opposite deny that statement I shall be indebted to them if they will point out what the duties are which are attached to the receipt of these sums. Whatever these duties may be, or for whatever reason we are asked to grant these endowments, the daughter will be called upon to perform these duties or comply with these reasons equally with the sons. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a strong believer in woman suffrage, and he practically gave an undertaking that he would assist in getting legislation passed to equalise women with men in respect of legislative power. If that be so, I ask him how he defends this differentiation between the younger sons of the King and the whole of the daughters. In order to get an explanation I beg leave to delete the word "ten" ["an annual sum of £10,000 in respect of each son"] and to insert instead thereof the word "six."
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think there is a very sufficient reason in the practice of every kind of society for making a distinction in respect of the allowances given to the sons as against those given to the daughters. In the case of the sons of the Sovereign more public service is expected from them, and if they render more public service it is right that there should be larger allowances. So far from being given to enable them to live lives of idleness and luxury, this amount is given in order to equip the recipients with the means to enable them to render that service, and in their sphere I have no doubt that, at all events, they will discharge their obligations. More is expected from the sons of Royalty in this respect, and therefore if the State expects more at their hands it is proper that more ample provision should be made for them. When you come to the case of marriage I should say that there is great reason for making a more substantial allowance to a son than to a daughter. A daughter would naturally expect the larger contribution to come from the husband to maintain the household. In the case of a son the maintenance of the household will fall upon him. There are, therefore, important reasons why there should be differentiation in the allowances. I trust the hon. Gentleman will regard that explanation as satisfactory.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I do not regard the explanation as satisfactory, but as it is probably the only one we will get I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Appropriation of Civil List.)
(1) In the application of the sum paid for the Civil List the amounts mentioned in the second column of the schedule to this Act shall be appropriated to the class of expenditure mentioned opposite thereto in the first column of that schedule.
(2) If at the end of any calendar year, the sum appropriated to any class of expenditure (other than Class IV.) is not wholly required for expenditure of that class in that year, the Treasury may direct that the amount not required be applied as an addition to the sum available for any other class.
(3) If at the end of any calendar year the sum appropriated to the expenditure of Class IV. is not wholly required for the expenditure of that class in that year, the amount not required shall be set aside and accumulated for the purpose of future expenditure of that class in such manner as the Treasury direct.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. LEES SMITH: I beg to move to leave out from the word "year" in Subsection (2) ["of that class in that year"] to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert instead thereof the words "it shall be paid into the Treasury." In the Debates on the Civil List the points dealt with have been two, namely, (1) the Duchies, and (2) the appropriations of the Privy Purse. My Amendment draws attention to these two points. In previous Debates there has always been a great deal of discussion as to whether the process by which the Privy Purse appropriates the savings of the other classes of the Civil List is or is not illegal. I believe that matter is going to be discussed, but, apart altogether from the legal aspect of the question, it appears to me that in the report itself there is evidence that the system leads to results so haphazard that it ought not to be allowed to continue.
Most of these savings accumulated from savings on expenses of the household. I may give an example of a point I wish to

2267
bring before the Committee. The Committee of 1901 which investigated the subject at the beginning of the reign of King Edward fixed the Privy Purse at £110,000. That was an increase of £50,000. But it assured the House that this sum of £110,000 would be quite ample to meet all reasonable requirements for the honour and dignity of the Crown. When the Committee went on to consider class 3, for the expenses of the household it found that in class 3 during the last thirteen years of the reign of Queen Victoria there had been spent £13,000 per year more than the sum allotted, and this sum they said had been paid out of the Privy Purse. It may be put the other way by saying that it had been paid out of the increased revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster. But an arrangement had to be made by which the expenditure upon this class should be brought within the sum allotted. The Committee effected this by abolishing certain sinecure offices, by reducing certain unnecessary expenses such as the maintenance of the Royal buck hounds. In this way they saved £22,000 a year, and when this bad been done the expenditure on that class had been brought within the limits of the amount appropriated and the Committee, apparently for the sake of security, determined to overshoot the mark and they allotted to this class £21,000 a year in addition. Of course, that sum of money was not needed, and as might have been anticipated, has never been spent, and if you look at the accounts you will find that throughout the reign of his late Majesty there has always been on this class an unexpended balance amounting on an average to about £21,000, and amounting throughout the reign to not far from £250,000.
The question at issue is what ought to be done with this surplus sum, what has been done during the last reign, arid what should be done during this reign? To me there appears to be only one answer. That sum was in the nature of a reserve, and if it is found by experience that it is not needed to maintain the honour and dignity of the Crown it ought in all fairness be given back to the public purse. What is the alternative view which the Committee took? The Committee desired that this sum should be used, and all similar sums should be used to inflate the Privy Purse, which they had already assured us was ample for all reasonable requirements of the honour and dignity of
2268
the Crown. It seems to me by the basis of these calculations they were swelling the Privy Purse to a sum which was unreasonable and extravagant. That is the position as it was left in 1901. It appears to have fixed the Civil List on a system which was quite haphazard. When we pass to 1910 we might have thought that a Liberal Committee, as opposed to a Conservative Committee, would at any rate have done justice to the public in regard to the matter inquired into by the Committee of 1901, but they said they saw no reason to make any alteration. What they have done, therefore, is to stereotype the system, and to inflict what appears to me to be an unnecessary loss on the public, which at the present moment amounts to not far short of a million. I beg to move.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has not put the Amendment down in the right form. I think he means to leave out from the word, "year," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert "it shall be paid to the Treasury."
Sir CHARLES DILKE: Paragraph (6) in the Report which my hon. Friend cited states that because the Committee of 1901 fixed all these classes exactly according to the expenditure after a very careful investigation, therefore the Committee of 1910 did not go so carefully into it. But that view is entirely negatived by the looseness with which these accounts were always drawn as between class and class. You have only to turn to the details of the savings on the various classes shown from year to year in order to become convinced of the loose arrangement. It is a great pity that the last opportunity was not taken to clear up the matter. Undoubtedly a great deal of harm was done by concealment of the amount of the savings, and the refusal to state them from 1850 up to 1883. Finally a promise was given in 1883 and kept in 1889, and since 1889 we have had them given, right back to 1838. Sir Robert Peel, when he beat the Whig Government upon the allowance to Prince Albert, stated most emphatically that the whole treatment of the savings was irregular. He inferred that the savings under various heads were applied to the Privy Purse, and he distinctly stated that their application was illegal under the provisions of the law. The accounts were entirely lost in 1841, and there is a note made at the time stating that they had disappeared. In 1889 the subject was to some extent made public, for the first time,

2269
and, of course, the position which was held to be illegal became legal by the notice given to Parliament in 1901. But there was not that business-like arrangement in 1901, which there ought to have been, and which the paragraph in the Report to which I have referred declared to have taken place. As a matter of fact it did not. The principle laid down by Mr. Gladstone and universally accepted was that the various classes were to be considered to see if the allowances were wanted. The manner of treating savings otherwise than by putting them to reserve, as was done in 1838 and 1839, before the bad practice of 1840 and 1841 grew up, is, of course, a way to deal with any difficulty about elasticity. As long as this slipshod arrangement goes on, which you can see for yourselves by looking at the columns which give the amounts put to the Privy Purse, as long as that loose arrangement goes on there will always be this unpleasantness about this arrangement of the Civil List that there has been for years past. As one of the Committee, I repudiate all responsibility for this paragraph which states that which is not the case, that the various classes were properly allocated in 1901.
1.0 A.M.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The contention of my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment is that any savings in any particular branch of expenditure ought to pass to the Treasury, and not to relieve or lighten the burden of any other branch of expenditure. That is really what it comes to. If he does not mean that, what he ought to have done was to move a reduction of the total amount. The point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean is really more a matter of bookkeeping than of the actual amount. If my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment does not mean that the Sovereign is the only person in the whole kingdom who is not to get the benefit of any saving he may make—that really is the contention—if by his frugal management of the household in any year the expenditure does not come up to the average then he is not to get the benefit of that to provide for contingencies, which arise in every household. As a matter of fact it is a direct incentive to extravagance. I do not bring any charge against those who are running this household, or any other, but I do not care what household it is, if they know that the money they save by strict economy will pass over to somebody else outside, I do not think that is an incentive to thrift. I
2270
am not so sure that there is not a good deal to be said against the present method of public Departments. I will not say from my own observation, but from what I have heard, the mere fact that they are driven at the end of the year to part with the money which is left and hand it over to the Treasury is very often a direct incentive to spend more than they ought to spend. That is a system which I have always thought to be a thoroughly vicious one, and that very vicious principle my hon. Friend wants to introduce into the Royal household. I think the Royal household is managed much better than any public Department. If he will look at any branch of any expenditure in a given year he may find it to be very high, and I am not sure that he would not find the same branch the next year considerably below that sum. We are simply allowing some latitude for economy and careful housekeeping in the Royal household as in any other household in the kingdom. I agree there has been considerable savings on some of these items. The only point is whether the total is too much, or whether it is undesirable that the Royal household should have this margin for contingencies which anyone who examines these accounts will find constantly arise. It is purely a matter of allowing just a little margin and latitude instead of saying: "We will give you so much to spend on this and if you do not keep within it, there you are—lost!" To say, "If you save on this you will not get the benefit of it" is compulsory expenditure, and that is very bad for any household.
Mr. SHACKLETON: The explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is exceedingly unsatisfactory. Every year in the late reign there was a surplus averaging £33,000 a year. In no single year was there a deficit in any of these items. If we examine class by class what do we find? In class 1 there was not a single year when the total amount allowed was reached. The same thing applies to class 3. Those are two of the main classes where very large sums are allowed. I do not see where the argument comes in about "ebbing and flowing." What these figures show conclusively to me is that we are allowing too much. A further argument is that there ought to be some credit given for economical housekeeping. Yes, but why should it go to His Majesty? I find there is a list of officials who do the house-

2271
keeping for him, paid for by the State. Surely if there ever were a case where the Treasury were entitled to receive these savings it is when the officers the State have appointed make the savings. Let us be quite frank about this. What is the total amount we are voting for the Privy Purse? Not £110,000, but £200,000 odd. I would sooner these figures were stated in bold clear type under the proper head. I do dislike the statement going out that we are paying £110,000 for the Privy Purse, £64,000 going in from another source and an average of £30,000 going in from savings and other departments. I think the Amendment of my hon. Friend is one that ought to have been accepted. Where there is a saving on these items it ought to go into the Treasury and His Majesty has no claim whatever. I certainly shall support the Amendment to provide that in regard to all these items wherever there is a saving it should go into the proper place, namely, the Treasury.
Mr. POINTER: I wish to emphasise what my hon. Friend who has just sat down has said, and to suggest that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken of "ebbing and flowing," the Committee ought to have some information from him as to where the ebbing takes place, especially in view of the fact that during the last nine years—the whole of the last reign—there was a surplus each year. Therefore, I think, the least the right hon. Gentleman can do is to tell us exactly where these ebbings have taken place, and incidentally, also, to explain what contingencies arise in the Royal household that have to be looked forward to. I can see no possible contingency. Here they are living in wealth and luxury with everything the heart can desire, and then we are told we must provide for contingencies. The whole thing is a sham and a mockery. It is to be lamented that a Radical Chancellor of the Exchequer should speak as he has spoken, trying to mislead the people by talking about "ebbing and flowing." The whole evidence shows we are providing more than is necessary and that there is no need for fear.
Mr. C. DUNCAN: I have listened very carefully to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and he used very frequently the word "thrift." He suggested that if the expenses under a particular head did not reach the amount
2272
voted it indicated a certain amount of thrift in the management of the concern, and that therefore the amount saved should go into the Privy Purse. It seems to be that that is waiving a point that ought to be considered conclusively. The very essence of the matter, so far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Members of this House are concerned, is this: Is the amount reasonable or unreasonable in existing circumstances? I venture to say there is no method at all at present in endeavouring to find out whether the sum allowed is reasonable or unreasonable. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talks about "ebbing and flowing." If what I have heard is correct it seems to me to be always top high-water. There are very considerable savings, and it is a fair and proper suggestion that when there are savings they should go back into the funds of the State. That seems the only reasonable and sensible way of meeting the case.
Mr. BARNES: There is a sixth class, which was instituted for the purpose of making up any deficiency that may arise under either of the heads. There has been ample evidence to guide the Committee as to whether or not anything of the sort is necessary. In the Report of the Committee, on page 13, it is shown that only on one occasion was this sum of £8,000 unappropriated touched. In that year the sum of £3,900 was taken from it, and in every other year, without exception, the whole of this amount of £8,000 unappropriated seems to have gone into the Privy Purse. I agree with the Mover of this Amendment that the nation ought to have got the benefit of these moneys instead of the Privy Purse.
Sir E. CORNWALL: It seems to me hardly fair for hon. Members to say there is anything in this Civil List or in the Report of the Committee that hides anything. I think it is all to the contrary. I think nothing more clear and explicit could have been given to this House or to the country than the details and particulars that have been given in regard to the Civil List. In fact, it is because these particulars have been so freely and so readily given, so readily placed before the Committee and before this House, that hon. Gentlemen have had the opportunity of roaming over a realm of instances as to public expenditure and expenditure by the Crown which otherwise they could not have had. The whole point put by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is: Was the

2273
sum granted in 1901, when the Civil List of King Edward was fixed, adequate or inadequate? Now I think that if the Committee upstairs had brought a report to this House to reduce the sum that was given in the time of King Edward, this House would have resented the Report of the Committee. The whole country would have resented it, and we should not have been acting as expected in this House. The sum granted in 1901 was £110,000 to the Privy Purse, plus the savings made on the other items. That is the amount which the late Sovereign had in the exercise of his duties and for his position as Monarch. If we are going to take out the sums which have been enjoyed by King Edward, we must go beyond £110,000 for the Privy Purse. Otherwise we shall be making the amount very much less for the present reign than for the previous reign. Now, in view of the fact that we are making provision for what we all hope may be a very long reign, when we see that the duties of the Monarch are increasing as our dominions oversea come closer in touch with the Mother Country, we may look forward to far greater responsibilities falling on the Crown than have fallen hitherto. To try in any way to lessen the total amount would be the greatest possible mistake. It would be contrary to the desires and wishes of the people, and would be detrimental to the public interest generally. To hear some hon. Members speak about the money granted to the Crown, one would think that the money was used for the purposes of some personal, narrow enjoyment of the expenditure.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is really getting very wide of the mark.
Sir E. CORNWALL: I understood that the Amendment was that these sums which have been saved on expenditure on certain items should be put into the Treasury, and that that would be taking away from the amount available in the Privy Purse item. I was endeavouring to argue that that would mean a very considerable lessening of the Privy Purse amount, and I thought it was a fair argument to use, as to why that amount should not be lessened. But I have no desire to trespass against your ruling. I am quite satisfied that the House has made up its mind on the subject. I thought it advisable that on this side of the House some one should stand by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and the Government, in bring-
2274
ing up the Report, I believe has the full consent and approval of the great bulk of the people.
Mr. JOWETT: If I understand the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer correctly he is of opinion that the expenditure in public Departments might with advantage be farmed out. He argued that it was a good system that any surplus, any saving, in regard to the expenditure on public policies and the rest of it, might properly and advantageously be handed over as a private perquisite to His Majesty. It goes into the Privy Purse; that is what it means. After using that argument he went on to say that he was not sure that the present system of dealing with other Departments would not be better, if it was altered and approximated to the method of dealing with the Civil List. If it means anything it means this—that in the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer it would be better for the heads of Departments if they were able to absorb themselves the surplus saving. If it does not mean that it means nothing. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said that if less information had been given to us we should not have been able to make these references, and argue as we have done with all the particulars before us. Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman thinks that the House which has this decision to take ought not to have been given the information?
Sir E. CORNWALL: Not at all. I use it as an argument to show that you had the information.
Mr. JOWETT: What is the meaning of that? It is true that we have got the information, and we are now speaking on the information. The complaint that we make is that whilst the Privy Purse is stated to be £110,000 a year, when the particulars are properly gone into—those particulars that do not naturally go out to the public unless they are spoken of here across the floor of the House in Debate—instead of being £110,000 a year, with the saving of £33,000, and with the Duchy revenues of Lancaster added, with what comes from the unappropriated amount off £8,000 a year, the whole sum will be not £110,000, but £214,000 a year. If that is so, we ought to know. Let us understand what the Privy Purse does consist of. It consists of £110,000, plus the savings on Class II. and Class VI., and plus also the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 207; Noes, 32.

Division No. 139.]

AYES.

[1.20 a.m.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex.

Gibbs, George Abraham

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Allen, Charles Peter

Gilmour, Captain John

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

Armitage, Robert

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Peto, Basil Edward

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Gordon, John

Pollard, Sir George H.

Baird, John Lawrence

Gretton, John

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Guest, Major

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

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Pringle, William M. R.

Barclay, Sir Thomas

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Radford, George Heynes

Barnston, Harry

Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

Raffan, Peter Wilson

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

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Beale, William Phipson

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Rea, Walter Russell

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

Haworth, Arthur A.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Bird, Alfred

Hayward, Evan

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Helme, Norval Watson

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Black, Arthur W.

Henderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Brackenbury, Henry Langton

Henry, Charles S.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Bridgeman, William Clive

Higham, John Sharp

Rothschild, Lionel de

Brocklehurst, William B.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Brunner, John F. L.

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

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

Bryce, John Annan

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Horner, Alfred Long

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid.)

Hunt, Rowland

Sanderson, Lancelot

Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

Hunter, Sir Chas. Rodk. (Bath)

Schwann, Sir Charles E.

Byles, William Pollard

Illingworth, Percy H.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Johnson, William

Seely, Col. Right Hon. J. E. B.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Jones, Edgar R (Merthyr Tidvil)

Shortt, Edward

Castlereagh, Viscount

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Soares, Ernest Joseph

Cator, John

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Cave, George

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kyffin-Taylor, G. (Liverpool)

Stewart, Gershom (Ches., Wirral)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Lambert, George

Stewart, Sir M'T.(Kirkcudbrightsh.)

Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Chambers, James

Leach, Charles

Summers, James Woolley

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Levy, Sir Maurice

Sykes, Alan John

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Lewis, John Herbert

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Clough, William

Lincoln, Ignatius Timothy T.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Clyde, James Avon

Llewelyn, Venables

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Lloyd, George Ambrose

Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

Tryon, Capt. George Clement

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

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

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Mackinder, Halford J.

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Cowan, William Henry

Macmaster, Donald

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

Waring, Walter

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Mallet, Charles Edward

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Crosfield, Arthur H.

Marks, George Croydon

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Crossley, Sir William J.

Masterman, C. F. G.

White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

Dairymple, Viscount

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Dawes, James Arthur

Middlebrook, William

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

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow)

Millar, James Duncan

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Duncannon, Viscount

Morpeth, Viscount

Wilson, A. Stanley (York E.R.)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Falconer, James

Munro, Robert

Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

Ferens, Thomas Robinson

Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

Wing, Thomas

Fisher, William Hayes

Muspratt, Max

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Fleming, Valentine

Neilson, Francis

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Forster, Henry William

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Worthington-Evans, L.

France, Gerald Ashburner

Nussey, Sir T. Willans

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Furness, Stephen

Nuttall, Harry

Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

Gelder, Sir William Alfred

O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid.)

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

Gibbins, F. W.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

NOES.

Barnes, George N.

Clynes, John R.

Elverston, Harold

Barton, William

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Gill, Alfred Henry

Bentham, George Jackson

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Glanville, Harold James

Bowerman, Charles W.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

Hancock, John George

O'Grady, James

Shackleton, David James

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wilkie, Alexander

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Pointer, Joseph

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Holt, Richard Durning

Rendall, Athelstan

Winfrey, Richard

King, Joseph (Somerset, N.)

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Robinson, Sidney

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Lees smith and Mr. Jowett.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

Question, "That the Bill be reported to the House without Amendment," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Payments by Treasury in respect of retired allowances.)
(1) The Treasury may undertake the payment of any retired allowances granted by His late Majesty and paid as part of the expenditure under class 2 of His Civil List.
(2) The Treasury may also in the case of any retired allowance which may be granted by His present Majesty to persons who have been for a longer period than ten years in the Royal service under Her Majesty Queen Victoria or His late Majesty, undertake the payment of any part of that allowances which is in their opinion attributable to that service.
(3) The amount paid by the Treasury in respect of payments undertaken under this section shall not exceed the sum of £18,000 in any year.
(4) The Treasury shall keep a register of all allowances which are paid by them either in whole or in part under this section.
Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. POINTER: I rise for the purpose of objecting to this Clause. We do so not because we are against the principle of paying retired allowances or pensions to the various officers and others of the Royal household. I think everyone will understand that belonging as we do to a party who think that a man should, when he retires from active duty, be provided with a pension or retired allowance, we could not logically raise any objection on the general question in regard to these pensions. But what we want is a little more information in regard to this question. I would like to say in passing that the hon. Gentleman representing one of the divisions of Bethnal Green who has spoken made a suggestion, or rather a direct statement, that a very full statement of everything was given, and that all the information required for the discussion of this Question was to be obtained in the Report of the Committee. I will only point out that there is not the slightest information
2278
given as to the expenditure of the money that is put down under this head, and I read in the Report that the pensions paid in the late reign amounted to £9,000 a year. We have no suggestion as to how that money is expended, to whom it is paid, what is the character of the people to whom it is paid, or anything regarding it.
Whether these pensions are paid to the servants strictly so called, or whether they are paid to those decorative officers of which we have a list in the Report is a thing which is totally outside our knowledge so far as the Report is concerned. In looking over the Report of the Debate which took place on last Friday, I notice that the hon. Member for Blackfriars (Mr. Barnes) makes a rather significant statement. He tells us quite clearly that a certain officer in the service of the late King was receiving £1,500 a year, or rather he is still receiving for these services a pension of £1,500 a year, and that now he has been reappointed to a similar position under the present King. I think that is a matter this Committee ought to enquire about. This particular gentleman is supposed to have discharged some duty under the late King, and is retired with a pension. Now he is back again in the service of the present monarch presumably, I suppose, drawing a pension. The point I would like to put is—is this particular gentleman going to continue drawing his £1,500 per annum pension in addition to a salary for services he is rendering to the present monarch? Over and above that, I think we ought to have some indication as to the general manner in which this money is expended. Is any great proportion of it being given to those decorative officers who are well paid? I do not want to be disrespectful, but it is very hard to define their duties and say they do not perform the usual functions whereby the State is the better of their duties. I think we ought to know to what extent and what proportion of that money is being expended in what may be called distinct from legitimate pensions—pensions of those doing actual work in the Royal household. I think we ought to have that information, and it will depend

2279
upon whether the information is given fully and freely and to our satisfaction as to whether we divide the Committee or not.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As far as these pensions are concerned, the proportion which goes to the officers whom the hon. Gentleman has described as decorative and not useful, would be an exceedingly small one. The bulk of this money goes to old servants of the Royal household. A question has been put by the hon. Gentleman about an allowance of £1,500 a year given to an officer. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman got his information. He wants to know whether a salary is given in addition to the pension. It is really not a pension at all. This officer is giving services—very valuable and responsible services which he renders with very great discretion. In fact, throughout the whole of his life he has rendered these services. I am perfectly certain the hon. Gentleman would be the last person in the world to drop these pensions if he knew the facts,
Mr. BARNES: I would like to make a statement in regard to this gentleman who has got a £1,500 pension. I think it is due to myself and the Committee that I should do so. Last Friday I made the statement, on the strength of a statement I read in one of the daily newspapers, and upon it my hon. Friend has now made a further statement. So far as that particular pension is made I think the explanation given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is fairly satisfactory. [Laughter.] That is my way of putting it. I am sure hon. Gentlemen across the floor could put it much more fluently than I can. I accept the explanation as fairly satisfactory. In regard to the remainder of the statement I think it is just as unsatisfactory. What my hon. Friend asked for, and what he is entitled to get, is some indication as to how much of this £18,000 goes to officers of the Household—I mean gentlemen on high salaries—and how much goes to what might without disrespect be called the servants of the lower order. I was told that these pensions were going to domestic servants performing manual and menial work. It was only at the last moment I saw that the proposal was nothing of the sort, and that the large proportion is going to those who have got large salaries. I do not propose to offer names. I know that would be invidious, but I think the House is entitled
2280
to know how much of the £18,000 is paid per officer and how much goes to the manual servants.

CLAUSE 8.—(Charge of payments under Act.)
The sums required under this Act for the Civil List and for the provision under this Act for Her Majesty the Queen, and, in the event of the marriage of the Prince of Wales, for Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, and for His Majesty's younger children, and for the payment of the retired allowances payable by the Treasury under this Act, and for the payment of Civil List pensions (whether granted before or after the passing of this Act), shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof, and shall be paid at such times and in such manner as the Treasury may direct.

CLAUSE 9.—(Continuance of enactments, commencement, repeal, and short title.)
(1) Sections 5 and 6 of the Civil List Act, 1837, which relate to Civil List pensions, shall continue to apply during the present reign and a period of six months afterwards, but Civil List pensions shall not be granted as chargeable on the sum paid for the Civil List.
(2) The Civil List Audit Act, 1816, and all other enactments relating to the Civil List of his late Majesty, and not hereby superseded or expressly repealed, shall continue to apply to the Civil List under this Act, and nothing in this Act shall affect any rights or powers for the time being exerciseable with respect to any of the hereditary revenues which are by this Act directed to be paid into the Exchequer.
(3) Sections 1, 2, 3 and 6, and Section 9 (with the exception of Sub-section (5) of the Civil List Act, 1901, and Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Osborne Estate Act, 1902, are hereby repealed, and the provisions made by this Act shall be in substitution for the provisions made by the enactments hereby repealed.
(4) This Act shall take effect as from the last demise of the Crown, and such adjustments and allowances shall be made as may appear to the Treasury necessary for giving effect to this provision during the present year.
(5) This Act may be cited as the Civil List Act, 1910.
Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Sir CHARLES DILKE: This Clause is the audit clause, and it used in former days to be in a most unsatisfactory condition. It is now in a most satisfactory condition. For the last two years the post of auditor of the Civil List happens to have been held by the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. That has given such general satisfaction that I hope it is likely to be a permanent arrangement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that many years ago there were difficulties in connection with the matter, and I hope we may hear from him that the present arrangement will be made permanent.
Mr. BARNES: The right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Dilke), of course, speaks with full knowledge of the Civil List. He knows all about it, but the average man knows nothing about it, and I think we might be told a little about it before we close up the whole matter. Hon. Members reading the Clause will find that there are three or four references to previous Acts of Parliament. There are a good many lawyers in the House and probably they know all about it, but we laymen know little about it. I do not want to say a word against these Civil List pensions. I believe the amount added to the Civil List pensions for the year is £1,200. If I wanted to move an amendment to the Clause at all, I should move to double that amount. I rather regret when I see the annual statement of the Civil List pensions that the amounts are not more adequate to the services rendered by those who get on to the List, and I regret that some people I should like to see get on to the List do not do so—as, for instance, the late Mr. Cox, who sacrificed his life in the interests of science. Inasmuch as this is the only possible occasion on which the Civil List included in the schedule to this Bill can be discussed, I think it would be advisable if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could state briefly what amount is covered by the List, the amount given to pensioners every year, and such other information as he may think it desirable to give.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In regard to the grant of £1,200, I think that is a grant that originated within the reign of Queen Victoria. I cannot trace it beyond the Civil List of 1837. It is the sum appro-
2282
priated to Royal bounty, out of which Ministers are entitled to make grants or bounty allowances like that mentioned by the hon. Member (Mr. Barnes). There is a good deal to be said for increasing the amount. The reason for putting such grants on the Civil List was that it was undesirable that questions should be debated in Parliament as to the merits of the particular claimants. The other question put to me was about the various Acts of Parliament mentioned in the Clause. The first deals with the Civil List, and the second deals with the audit, which has become more effective in recent years. I should not be surprised if the saving, of which complaint was made to-night, was due largely to the greater efficiency of the audit. The fact that it has got into the hands of the Treasury has made it more efficient. The reference in the Clause to the Act of 1901 is to make it clear that the allowances to the Prince and Princess of Wales is not cumulative but have lapsed, and that the provision made now is a new one and not in addition to the one which existed before.
Mr. BARNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the amount of money paid annually under this Clause?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is a matter of £1,200 a year.
Mr. BARNES: I understood that was the amount of the additions.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot give the total amount now. If the hon. Member will put down a question on the subject I will be pleased to give it. This is merely the annual provision. It has no reference to the post.
Mr. BARNES: Is there any public document that gives the yearly amount paid?
Sir CHARLES DILKE: I should like an answer from the right hon. Gentleman as to the point I raised in regard to the audit. It would be to the advantage of the country if he could do so. At the present moment it is merely formal, because I see there is a note in the Estimates stating that the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury is the auditor of the Civil List.
Mr. CLYNES: We admit the force of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's' argument that it would be inadvisable for the House to discuss the merits of particular claimants for pensions, but can he tell us who it is that now settles these things?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: They are settled entirely on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. The responsibility is entirely his. With reference to the question of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Dilke), I thought I made it perfectly clear that the arrangement will be continued.
Bill reported without Amendment; to be read the third time this day (Thursday).

CENSUS (GREAT BRITAIN) BILL.
Lords Amendments considered.

CLAUSE 4.—(Preparation and filling up of Schedules.)
(1) Schedules shall be prepared by or under the direction of the Local Government Board for the purpose of being filled up by or on behalf of the several occupiers of dwelling-houses, with the following particulars, and no others, namely, particulars as to—

(a) the name sex, age, profession or occupation, condition as to marriage, relation to head of family, birthplace, and (in the case of a person born abroad) nationality, of every living person who abode in every house on the night of the Census day; and

(b) whether any person who so abode was blind, deaf, dumb, imbecile, or lunatic; and

(c) in the case of any person who so abode being married, the duration of marriage, and the number of children born of the marriage the number of such children living; and

(d) the number of rooms inhabited; and

(e) in the case of Wales or the county of Monmouth, whether any person who so abode (being of three years of age or upwards) speaks English only or Welsh only, or both English and Welsh.

(2) Every enumerator shall in the course of the week ending on the Saturday next before the Census day leave at every dwelling-house within his enumeration district one or more of these schedules for the occupier thereof or of any part there-
2284
of, and on every such schedule shall be plainly expressed that it is to be filled up by the occupier for whom it is left, and that the enumerator will collect all such schedules within his district on the Monday then next following.
(3) Every occupier for whom any such schedule has been so left shall fill up or cause to be filled up the schedule, to the best of his knowledge and belief, so far as relates to all persons dwelling in the house, tenement, or apartment occupied by him, and shall sign his name thereto, and shall deliver the schedule so filled up and signed to the enumerator when required so to do.
(4) In this section the expression "dwelling-house" shall include every building and tenement of which the whole or any part is used for the purpose of human habitation, and where a dwelling-house is let or sub-let in different tenements or apartments and occupied distinctly by different persons or families a separate schedule shall be left with or for and shall be filled up by the occupier of each such distinct tenement or apartment.
(5) For the purposes of this section, a person who is travelling or at work on the night of the Census day, and who returns to a house on the morning of the following day shall be treated as abiding in that house on the night of the Census day.
Lords Amendment to Clause 4, Sub-section 1 (a), after the word "occupation" ["age, profession or occupation"] insert the words "religious profession."
Mr. BURNS: In moving "That this House disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," there is not much to be added to what took place in the Debate in this House on a previous occasion. On that occasion, after a lengthy Debate, the House of Commons, by a Division of 135 to 38, objected to a religious census being incorporated in the Census Bill for the year. Since that decision the Bill has been to another place and by two Divisions, 38 to 31, or a majority of seven in the first instance, and 32 to 29, or a majority of three only the second time, the Lords inserted an Amendment that a religious census was necessary. I now ask the House of Commons to abide by its own decision. It would, perhaps, not be uninteresting for this House at this stage to know that the House of Commons on several occasions has objected to the taking of a religious census. In 1910 they so decided by 135 to 38; in 1880 by 97 to

2285
27; and in 1890 by 288 to 69. In 1870 the House of Lords were in favour of a religious census by a majority of four only, and when it was returned to the House of Commons on that occasion it was rejected by the Commons by a majority of 101 to 40. The Government object to this Amendment, and the succeeding one, on the broad ground that a religious census is useless as a means of ascertaining the real religious belief of the occupier, who himself will have to declare his religious profession. The Amendment seeks to impose no penalty for any false statement, as on every other point embodied in the census. It leaves to the occupier, who is not skilled in the niceties of creeds or religious denominations, the responsibility of declaring, practically, that he belongs to one of three or four of the principal denominations. Being optional, we regard it as being unreliable, and as there is no penalty attached it is untrustworthy from the point of view of statistics. As this proposal has been objected to so frequently by the House of Commons, and has only secured on one occasion a very small majority—in the highest case, seven—in the other place the Government ask the House of Commons again to disagree with the Lords in their desire that a religious census be taken. I beg to move.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I ask the House to reconsider its position. What is it that is objected to? That there should be a column in the census in which a man should state what his religious profession is. The right hon. Gentleman has said that such a return would be misleading, and would be a difficult matter to carry through. I would remind the House that this very House of Commons has passed without objection this identical provision for Ireland. It has been the law in Ireland for a long time, and the statistics are supposed to be, and probably are, approximately correct. If the right hon. Gentleman and the Government really believe in the difficulties they have put before the House, why did they not strike the religious census out of the Irish Bill? No difficulty exists in Ireland. Practically all our Colonies have this religious census, as do also the vast majority of foreign countries, and no such difficulties as the right hon. Gentleman has adumbrated have ever arisen in any case. I should like to deal with the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that this House, by a majority of 135 to 38, decided against this religious census. That being so, I
2286
ought to remind the House how this division came to be taken. The right hon. Gentleman was addressing the House at 8.15. A large number of hon. Members were anxious to address the House on this subject, but at 8.15 a Private Bill came up for discussion, and was discussed at very much shorter length than was expected. I do not mind admitting to the House that I was at that time dining, as were a large number of other hon. Members. Owing to an unfortunate accident, for which I do not suggest the Government was responsible in any way, the indicator which shows the business going on in the House recorded in the dining room that the Private Bill was still under discussion, whereas this subject had again come before the House.
The right hon. Gentleman was continuing the speech which had been interrupted at 8.15. The first intimation that we who were not inside this Chamber at the moment had that anything was happening was the ringing of the Division bell, and even that would not have happened but for the ceaseless watchfulness of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), who happened to be the only Member of the Opposition present in the House. The Division took place absolutely unexpectedly to the vast majority of those who were in favour of this religious census. We did not know, when the Division bell rang, but that it was a Division upon the Private Bill and not upon this matter at all. Therefore, the least that is said about being bound by this Division the better. I want to deal with the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman that such a census as this would be unreliable. Is there the slightest difficulty about making the return in Ireland? It is always made there without the slightest difficulty. Not a single Roman Catholic returns himself otherwise than as a Roman Catholic, and those who are not Roman Catholics do not return themselves as members of that communion. Would not this return enable us to get accurate information as to the number of Roman Catholics in England. We have been deluged recently with pamphlets saying that there is growing danger owing to the number of Roman Catholics in England. Would it not be an interesting and useful thing to find out whether there really is this large growth in the Roman Catholic population of Great Britain. It would be a perfectly simple thing to get; and would not it be very interesting and

2287
useful to know whether the growth is as large as suggested by certain people, or whether it is diminishing? Again, would it not be an exceedingly useful thing to know what the numbers of the Nonconformist bodies are? Except for a very small margin you would be able to get that with absolute accuracy.
The large majority of Nonconformists would put themselves down as belonging to the profession to which they do belong. And it would be exceedingly useful. In England it would certainly be useful. For instance, there are the questions upon education and passive resistance of which we used to hear some years ago, and may again possibly hear. We want to know whether the body from whom the vast majority of passive resisters came is an increasing body or a diminishing body. It would be a useful thing, surely, statistically, and you would get approximately correct returns. I am not going to deal with the trouble about the Report of the Welsh Church Commission, but in Wales it would be more difficult to get correct statistics without some Government census. Surely we could get approximate returns of the number of Nonconformists in that particular locality. The right hon. Gentleman, in his speech on the last occasion, made light of this matter and with his easy humour told us some stories about what happened among a large number of people who returned themselves when in gaol as members of the Church of England because they got certain benefits by it—because the hymns were more attractive than the Nonconformist hymns. Whatever the reason, I do not know that that would apply to any large number of the population, unless we go on passing Bills like those of last year, and increase criminals at a tremendous rate. I am prepared to admit at once that probably, as regards the Church of England, a large number of the people who return themselves as members of the Church of England might strictly not really be in communion with that Church. Therefore the statistics would have to be taken subject to a liberal discount. But do you really mean that the people who are Nonconformists would not return themselves as Nonconformists? Are they the only religious profession that are ashamed to state what is their faith? Do you mean that a large number would put themselves down as Nonconformists who are not?
Mr. WILLIAM JONES: We get Nonconformist statistics from our chapels. Church people cannot get theirs from their churches because they put down as of the Church of England people who never attend the churches.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I am in a hostile House. There is not a single Member who has answered my question. In common fairness I expect an answer. You say I will get inaccurate statistics. Will anyone who is a Nonconformist not put himself down as one?
An HON. MEMBER: They will refuse.
Mr. RAWLINSON: Why they should refuse it is difficult to discover. Why should a Nonconformist possibly refuse to put his religious profession down? In an ordinary small town he would be very well known. He goes to chapel, probably openly, and it is known perfectly well that he is a member of some particular body. There is nothing inquisitorial. He need not be ashamed to put that down. You would get, as in the case of the Roman Catholics, an approximately accurate account of the Nonconformist bodies. I put the question: Would a large number of people put themselves down as Nonconformists who were not Nonconformists? I do not think that would occur. You have in practically every other country reliable statistics on the matter which are highly important. As far as I have heard there is no argument put forward seriously against this particular measure. It is said that you may get a certain number of inaccuracies. A second suggestion is that the question is inquisitorial—to inquire into people's private affairs. I cannot think for one moment that any man would sooner object to give his religious profession than to give the details of his income, and he has to do that already. As far as women are concerned, is there in the majority of cases any women who would look upon it as more inquisitorial to be asked her religious profession than to be asked her age, as she is asked now? It certainly does not lie in the mouth of this Government to complain of this being an inquisitorial question, when they have added to this very Census Bill one or two questions of the most inquisitorial character which never existed before. I venture to press the House in fair play, in the absence of any argument against this proposal to agree with the Lords Amendment, are not the objections imaginary,

2289
and is there any reason why we should not do in England and in Scotland what is done in Ireland, and what other countries are doing?
Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I would like to draw the attention of the President of the Local Government Board to a letter which appeared in the "Times" of last Monday from Sir Athelstone Baines, in which, writing on behalf of the Royal Statistical Society, he quoted the resolution passed by the Council of the Society. It is as follows:—
"Religions Denominations.—A column, the filling up of which may be left optional, should be added for this subject, in accordance with the practice in Ireland and Australasia. The Committee are of opinion that the information is likely to be of use in administrative as well as in social and vital statistics."
That is the opinion of the foremost Statistical Society, which does not take into consideration the purely political methods of those on the opposite side of the House who resist a religious census. The Society looks at the question from a calm, dispassionate point of view, and urges what we on this side of the House urge, namely, that there should be a religious column equally as inquisitorial as, but no more inquisitorial than the Irish religious census column. I cannot understand on what ground we should pass into law an Act which insists on a religious column for Ireland, and does not insist on a religious column for England and Wales. If there is a reason it is because of the existence of the Established Church. They had it in Ireland before the Church was disestablished. The first year they had the religious census in Ireland it was ob-obtained specifically to find out the strength of the various denominations with the view of obtaining material for the disestablishment of the Church. It suited their purpose in 1861 to have a religious census in Ireland, and it does not suit their purpose to have the light of truth thrown on the strength of religious denominations in England and Wales. I wish to say a word in answer to the President of the Local Government Board when he states that the census would be unreliable, being an optional one. Is it unreliable in Australia? Is it unreliable in Germany? Is it unreliable in Ireland? Why is it not reliable, when in Ireland more than 99 per cent. furnish the return optionally? Everywhere it is optional; hardly anybody declines to fill in the religious column. If this Amendment which the Lords have introduced were to pass, I suppose there would be a sort of passive
2290
resistance on the part of some Nonconformist sects who do not wish to exhibit their exiguous nature, but we have yet had no answer to the very specific point I made on this subject, and that is, that as long as you do not have official statistics you will have unofficial statistics. In the very interruption of the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire to-night we have a good illustration of the value of religious statistics in this country. He said, "We, in our chapels, number ourselves." I, as a person who has had to deal considerably with various Welsh questions, including disestablishment and disendowment, am constantly brought into contact with a maze of statistics, all unofficial and many of them contradictory.
The Congregational Year Book contradicts the Free Church Year Book about the strength of a particular denomination in the same year. I have to wander through a maze of unofficial statistics. They are hurled at me on platforms. These unofficial statistics are most harmful for administrative purposes, for official purposes, or for any purposes whatever. I should like to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he read the letter of the Bishop of St. David's in "The Times" one day last week, in which he pointed out quite clearly that the Nonconformists themselves, when the question of statistics before the Welsh Church Commission was up, confessed that in the vital question of adherence to the various Nonconformist denominations, the statistics that were furnished were in an absolutely chaotic state, and were unreliable. I wish to withdraw a remark to which I rather committed myself on this point in the House of Commons, when I said I was perfectly willing to accept the statistics produced by the Welsh Church Commission. From what I have heard since—and from the Bishop of St. David's letter, I admit—these statistics seem to be no more official statistics than the statistics we have had from the various chapels and the various unofficial statistics we have had from time to time. I do not wish at this late hour of the night to introduce any controversial matter into the subject, but I say I stick to my guns, I remain in the same position, and shall oppose the motion of the President of the Local Government Board to disagree with the Lords' Amendment.
Lord HUGH CECIL: This is not only an interesting Amendment, but a

2291
striking Constitutional object-lesson. The House is at present engaged in reconsidering a decision given it by the other House of Parliament. We were told in the earlier part of the Session that that was a very valuable function. You can see, Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons reconsidering the question at half-past two in the morning. The question is well known to be a party one. No human being has the slightest doubt but that every single Member will vote as he voted before. What hypocrisy it is! It is well known that where the House of Lords is not in a position to insist on its Amendment, reconsideration by this House is the merest farce. It has been said actually in the Press that the House of Lords courted a rebuff by making this Amendment. Therefore the Government are to restrict the functions of the Second Chamber to the exclusive one of courting a rebuff. It is perfectly clear that a religious census would be of statistical value. It is perfectly clear that if it were not for political and sectarian considerations that statistical argument would be allowed to prevail. It is not allowed to prevail, because the political Nonconformists dare not face the results of a religious census. But it may be observed that by their action in these repeated discussions they have defeated their own object. So far as controversy goes whatever is the result of the Division we have prevailed, no Nonconformist in the future who does not wish to be laughed at will be able to talk about the numbers of Nonconformity and contrast them with the numbers of the Church. No one can talk about numbers who is not prepared to stand an official count. They have shrunk from the test. We shall know what their pretensions are worth for the future.
Mr. LLEWELYN: I think I gather from an interruption from the other side that there is an opinion among the hon. Gentlemen opposite that a religious census would be unfair and unjust to Nonconformists, and I think it was said that some of them would not dare to say what their religious opinions were. The Bill itself says:—
"If any person employed in taking the census communicates, without lawful authority, any information acquired in the course of his employment, he shall be guilty of a breach of official trust within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act, 1889, and that Act shall apply accordingly."
I may therefore claim that the operation for this proposal, if carried out, would
2292
be quite as secret, if not mere secret, than the ballot.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. J. Herbert Lewis): I will not enter into any of the arguments used to-night. They have been answered in advance by the Debates which have taken place already. This Amendment has been sent to us by the House of Lords, but how has it been sent to us? With any emphatic majority? With the endorsement of the Unionist Leaders in the House of Lords itself? On the contrary, they have abstained from voting on that question, and it has come to us in this half-hearted, desultory, perfunctory way, and we are expected to reverse the decision which has been given in this House over and over again from 1860 onwards without the slightest variation, and with a majority as uniform as it has been overwhelming. We are face to face with an Amendment that is sent to us in that spirit from the House of Lords, and when we are asked to reconsider a question which the House of Lords has, in the most unofficial way, presented to us with a majority of three, we are entitled to contrast with it the enormous majorities by which this House has unanimously recorded and registered its opinions. It only now remains for the House of Commons finally to pass its judgment upon this question, feeling sure that the steps which have been taken hitherto by Ministries of both parties in relation to this question have not been taken without reason, and that we shall be on a sound and sure foundation if we follow the precedents that have been set from both sides of the House.
Viscount MORPETH: I do not know what the Under-Secretary means by unofficial majority of the House of Lords
Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: I mean that, as a matter of fact, a much larger number of Unionist Peers abstained from voting than those who recorded their votes and that among those who recorded their votes there was not a single Leader.
Viscount MORPETH: I have seen legistion passed through this House with less than half the Ministerialist Members recording their votes. I should be surprised if half their number are not present now. Is this vote therefore to be called unofficial? Is the hon. Gentleman to hold that no measure passed by the House of Lords

2293
is to be recognised unless supported by the recognised Leaders? When the Licensing Bill was before the House of Lords the country resounded with denunciation because the House of Lords was in the hands of Lord Lansdowne, and because a single wink from the Leader of the Opposition was sufficient. We heard of the caucus at Lansdowne House and private meetings there. But now, when Lansdowne House does not vote the decision of the House of Lords is to have no attention paid to it, because the Leaders of the party in the
House have not given their imprimature to it. That is officialism run mad. Not only are we to be governed by officials and Ministers, but even, unless the Leaders of the Unionist party in the House of Lords concur in the vote, that vote is to be considered null and void.
Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House divided: Ayes, 130; Noes. 66.

Division No. 140.]

AYES.

[2.25 a.m.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Guest, Major

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

Pointer, Joseph

Allen, Charles Peter

Hancock, J. G.

Pollard, Sir George H.

Armitage, R.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

Barclay, Sir T.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Pringle, William M. R.

Barnes, G. N.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Radford, G. H.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

Raffan, Peter W.

Barton, W.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Raphael, Herbert H

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Rea, Walter Russell

Black, Arthur W.

Hayward, Evan

Reddy, M.

Bowerman, C. W.

Helme, Norval Watson

Rendall, Atheistan

Brady, P. J.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Henry, Charles S.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Brunner, J. F. L.

Higham, John Sharp

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Robinson, S.

Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid.)

Holt, Richard Durning

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Byles, William Pollard

Illingworth, Percy H.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Johnson, W.

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

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

Clough, William

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Shackleton, David James

Clynes, J. R.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Shortt, Edward

Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

Kilbride, Denis

Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Soares, Ernest J.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lambert, George

Strachey, Sir Edward

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Leach, Charles

Summers, James Woolley

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

Lehmann, R. C.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Crosfield, A. H.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Crossley, Sir W. J.

Lewis, John Herbert

Waring, Walter

Dawes, J. A.

Lincoln, Ignatius T. T.

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Doris, W.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

M'Laren, F. W. S. (Linc., Spalding)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Elibank, Master of

Marks, G. Croydon

Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

Elverston, H.

Middlebrook, William

Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

Ferens, T. R.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

France, G. A.

Munro, R.

Winfrey, Richard

Furness, Stephen

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

Wing, Thomas

Gelder, Sir W. A.

Muspratt, M.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

Gibbins, F. W.

Neilson, Francis

Gibson, Sir James P.

Nussey, Sir Willans

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Gulland and Mr. Dudley Ward.

Gill, A. H.

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Glanville, H. J.

Parker, James (Halifax)

NOES.

Ashley, W. W.

Chambers, J.

Gordon, J.

Baird, J. L.

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

Clyde, J. Avon

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cooper, R. A. (Walsall)

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Barnston, H.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Hohler, G. F.

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

Craig, Norman (Kent)

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Bird, A.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Horner, Andrew Long

Brackenbury, H. L.

Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

Kerr-Smiley, Peter

Bridgeman, William Clive

Duncannon, Viscount

Kyffin-Taylor, G.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Fisher, W. Hayes

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Fleming, Valentine

Llewelyn, Venables

Cator, John

Forster, Henry William

Lloyd, G. A.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Gibbs, G. A.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Gilmour, Captain J.

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Rothschild, Lionel de

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Morpeth, Viscount

Sanders, Robert A.

Tryon, Capt. George Clement

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid.)

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G A.

Stewart, Gershom (Ches., Wirral)

Worthington-Evans, L.

Peto, Basil Edward

Sykes, Alan John

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Talbot, Lord E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Rawlinson and Mr. Ormsby-Gore.

Rice, Hon. Walter F.

Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

House disagreed with remaining Lords Amendment.
Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to the Amendments made by the Lords to the Bill.
Committee nominated of,—Mr. Barnes, Mr. Burns, Mr. Holt, Mr. William Jones, and Mr. Herbert Lewis.
Three to be the quorum.
To withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Burns.]
Reasons for disagreeing to the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.
To be communicated to the Lords.—[Mr. Burns.]

SMALL HOLDINGS (No. 3) BILL.
Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Lords Amendments.

CLAUSE 2.—(Application to Tenancies terminated before commencement of Act.)
Where a tenancy has been terminated before the commencement of this Act, and the tenant proves to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries that he has incurred any loss or expense for which he would have been entitled to compensation under the foregoing section of this Act, if the tenancy had terminated after the commencement of this Act, the Board may, out of the small holdings account, pay to the tenant such compensation for such loss of expense as they think just: Provided that no compensation under this section shall be payable if the claim for compensation is not made before the first day of September, 1910.
Lords Amendment: In last line of clause leave out the word "September" and insert instead thereof the word "November."
Motion made, and Question again proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Sir RANDOLF BAKER: I do not propose to apologise for discussing this
2296
matter to-night, because it is an important question. In the House of Lords an Amendment was made in Clause 2 of the Bill which extended the time in which farmers could claim compensation from 1st September to 1st November. That seems to be a very small concession, and one which might very well be agreed to. When the Bill was in Committee in this House the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture was asked whether, supposing the Royal Assent was not given to the Bill until a fairly late date, he would not give a further extension beyond 1st September. The answer was that if the Bill only received the Royal Assent on 15th August, an alteration of the time at which the Bill was to come into operation might be made in another place. There you have a distinct invitation to another place to make the alteration. When another place made the alteration and extended the time, the Government come down and request us to disagree with the Amendment. Surely you want a no more flagrant case of a deliberate attempt to stir up trouble between this House and the other. What does this Amendment mean? That claimants for compensation for disturbance which took place before the Act came into force should be allowed until 1st November in which to send in their claims, If the Bill stands as the Government proposed, no claims sent in after 1st September will be considered. The Secretary to the Board of Agriculture must know that August is the busiest month in the whole year for farmers in this country. They are entirely taken up with getting in their harvests, working many hours a day, and they will have no time in which to prepare the necessary statement of claim under this Bill.
I know what will be the answer from the Treasury Bench. The Secretary to the Board of Agriculture will say, "Oh, we are prepared to accept a mere notice of claim as being equivalent to the claim." But that is not what the Bill says. We asked to have words inserted providing that no compensation should be paid under this section of the notice if claim for compen-

2297
sation was not made before 1st September. The Government refused to add those words. The hon. Baronet (Sir E. Strachey) said it was the intention that the Act should read like that, and the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Lewis Harcourt), who was responsible for the Third Reading of the Bill in this House, also said that he would further consider whether those words should not be put in. The words have not been put in, and when an extension of time is made in another place we are not allowed to agree with it. The Government in this case might well give way, and accept this very simple Amendment. The Lord Chancellor in another place is reported to have said that the Amendment would be a breach of privilege, and there is a note in "The Times" of the following day saying they were requested to state that it would probably be raised as one. But no question of privilege has been raised, and Mr. Speaker has not ruled that it is a breach of privilege, so that the Amendment can still be accepted by the Government. I shall certainly divide against the Motion to disagree with the Amendment.
Sir COURTENAY WARNER: I hope that in this case the Government will give way. I am quite aware that there was an agreement that the Bill should not be opposed, and that it is some sort of a breach of the agreement that the Amendment was made in the Lords, because it was not part of the actual contract with the Treasury. It is a matter of a very small sum of money, and practically only a technical objection has been raised. The Amendment will only give a slight amount of extra work, and I think the Treasury should give way. It will not cost the country any more or do it any injury. It will greatly popularise the Bill to grant the extension of time. I therefore hope that the objection to the Amendment will not be persisted in.
The SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir E. Strachey): It is very much a matter of regret that this Amendment was made after this Bill passed through this House by agreement on both sides, and after it was well understood that time was given for it by the Prime Minister on the ground that it was an unopposed measure. The Treasury very liberally agreed to allow an Amendment to be put in making it retrospective, merely allowing farmers to come in who would not otherwise have come under it. The hon. Baronet (Sir Randolf Baker) has quoted
2298
what I said as to the proposed extension of time if the Bill did not receive the Royal Assent before 15th August. The Bill will receive the Royal Assent before 15th August. It will receive it almost immediately if the House will only consent to the bargain made in this House as to its being a non-controversial Bill. As regards the statement that the farmers will not have time to make out their claims I myself and the First Commissioner of Works assured the House that all that was necessary was for a farmer simply to make a statement that he was going to claim compensation under this Act. I assure the House that that is all the Board will require. I would remind the House that it is for no other persons except the Board to decide whether a claim has been made in proper time or not. They alone are the people who have the right to decide whether a full and sufficient claim has been made during the whole of the month of August. I again appeal to the House not to allow the agreement and compromise on this Bill to be broken by what took place in another place.
Mr. LANE-FOX: The hon. Baronet (Sir E. Strachey) has talked about this being a non controversial and agreed Bill, and has said that it was to be treated as such. I think the point under discussion is a very small one and would not constitute this a controversial Bill. I think the Government would be well advised to accept it. Whilst it is a small point it will make a very considerable difference in the attitude the farmers of this country will take in regard to it. It is such a small matter that it is hardly worth while either side of this House talking about it very seriously, but at the same time the whole aspect this Bill will wear in the eyes of the farmers of the country will be very considerably affected by the attitude taken up by the Government on this point. In the interests of the Bill itself I hope the Government may even now give way to the appeal addressed to them by one of their own followers and which will be endorsed by the vast majority of the agricultural community throughout the country. I do not think it ought to be thrown in our faces that there has been any sort of breach of agreement. There has been no question about this being a non-controversial Bill, and this is a non-controversial Amendment. It is an Amendment which constitutes a distinct improvement in the Bill, which makes practically no difference in

2299
its working, but which would remove what will otherwise be a substantial grievance in the eyes of the farmers of the country.
Committee appointed to draw up Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with the Amendment made by the Lords to the Bill.
Committee nominated of,—Mr. Barnes, Major Guest, Mr. Hobhouse, Mr. Rendall, and Sir Edward Strachey.
Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The House divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 56.

Division No. 141.]

AYES.

[2.45 a.m.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Allen, Charles P.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Barclay, Sir Thomas

Hardie, J. Keir

Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

Barnes, George N.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

Pointer, Joseph

Barton, William

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Pringle, William M. R.

Bowerman, Charles W.

Hayward, Evan

Radford, George Heynes

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Helme, Norval Watson

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Brocklehurst, William B.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Raphael, Herbert Henry

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Henry, Charles S.

Rea, Walter Russell

Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

Higham, John Sharp

Reddy, Michael

Byles, William Pollard

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

Rendall, Athelstan

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Holt, Richard Durning

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Clough, William

Johnson, William

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Robinson, S.

Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Corbett, A. Cameron

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Kilbride, Denis

Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

King, J. (Somerset, N.)

Shackleton, David James

Crosfield, Arthur H.

Leach, Charles

Shortt, Edward

Crossley, Sir William J.

Lehmann, Rudolf C.

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Dawes, J. A.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Soares, Ernest Joseph

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Lewis, John Herbert

Strachey, Sir Edward

Doris, W.

Lincoln, Ignatius T. T.

Summers, James Woolley

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

Elibank, Master of

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Waring, Walter

Elverston, Harold

M'Laren, F. W. S. (Linc., Spalding)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Falconer, James

Marks, G. Croydon

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

France, Gerald Ashburner

Middlebrook, William

Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

Furness, Stephen

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Gibbins, F. W.

Munro, R.

Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

Gibson, Sir James Puckering

Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

Gill, Alfred Henry

Muspratt, Max

Wing, Thomas

Glanville, H. J.

Neilson, Francis

Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

Nussey, Sir T. Willans

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Gulland and Mr. Dudley Ward.

Guest, Major

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Hancock, John George

NOES.

Ashley, Wilfred W.

Gilmour, Captain John

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Baird, J. L.

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hardy, Laurence

Rothschild, Lionel de

Barnston, Harry

Henderson, H. G. H. (Berkshire)

Sanders, Robert A.

Bird, A.

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Brackenbury, Henry Langton

Horner, A. L.

Staveley-Hill, Henry

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Kyffin-Taylor, G.

Steel-Maitland, A. D.

Carlile, Edward Hildred

Llewelyn, Venables

Stewart, Gershom (Ches. Wirral)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Lloyd, George Ambrose

Talbot, Lord Edmund

Cator, John

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Thynne, Lord Alexander

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Morpeth, Viscount

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

Wheler, Granville C. H.

Cooper, R. A. (Walsall)

Mount, William Arthur

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Newton, Harry Kottingham

Winfrey, Robert

Dairymple, Viscount

O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Duncannon, Viscount

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

Fleming, Valentine

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir Randolf Baker and Mr. Lane-Fox.

Forster, Henry William

Peto, Basil Edward

Gibbs, George Abraham

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Three to be the quorum.
To withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Hobhouse.]
Reason for disagreeing to the Lords Amendment reported, and agreed to.
To be communicated to the Lords.—[Mr. Hobhouse.]

HOTEL AND RESTAURANTS (DUBLIN) BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
Mr. CLANCY: I want to know whether I might move an Amendment, which I think would obtain universal acceptance, to extend this Bill beyond Dublin.
Mr. SPEAKER: That would not be in order. This Bill is strictly limited to the police district of Dublin.
Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time," put, and agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed.
And, it being alter half-past Eleven of the clock on Wednesday evening, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Five minutes before Three o'clock a.m., Thursday, 28th July, 1910.

  Excise Department.
  Excise Department.
  Abatement on Earned Incomes.
  Abatement on Earned Incomes.
  Finance Act (Local Ratings).
  Finance Act (Local Ratings).
  Income Tax on Indian Salaries.
  Income Tax on Indian Salaries.
  Licence Duties (Cork).
  Licence Duties (Cork).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Ardee Union, County Louth (Medical Relief).
  Ardee Union, County Louth (Medical Relief).
  Knox Lambert Estate, Milltown, County Galway.
  Knox Lambert Estate, Milltown, County Galway.
  Boatmen's Licences (Warrenpoint, County Down).
  Boatmen's Licences (Warrenpoint, County Down).
  Land Purchase, Kilconly, County Galway.
  Land Purchase, Kilconly, County Galway.
  Army Manœuvres (Attendance of Servian Officer).
  Army Manœuvres (Attendance of Servian Officer).
  Bands at Political Meetings.
  Bands at Political Meetings.
  Army Bread Contract (Drogheda).
  Army Bread Contract (Drogheda).
  Volunteering Badges for Foreign Service.
  Volunteering Badges for Foreign Service.
  Alleged Bribery by Army Contractors.
  Alleged Bribery by Army Contractors.
  Territorial Quarters in Gloucestershire.
  Territorial Quarters in Gloucestershire.
  Vivisection (Oophorectomy Experiments).
  Vivisection (Oophorectomy Experiments).
  Declaration of London.
  Declaration of London.
  Japanese Tariff Bill.
  Japanese Tariff Bill.
  Army Act (Maintenance of Relatives).
  Army Act (Maintenance of Relatives).
  Tariff Agreement (France and United States).
  Tariff Agreement (France and United States).
  Tunstall Post Office.
  Tunstall Post Office.
  Mr. Brock's Studio.
  Mr. Brock's Studio.

BARON COWDRAY.
Sir WEETMAN DICKINSON PEARSON, Baronet, having been created Baron Cow-dray of Midhurst in the county of Sussex—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
London Electric Supply.
Military Lands Provisional Order Confirmation. [H.L.]
Also the Certificate that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Thames Conservancy (Appointments and Tolls) Provisional Order.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND TOWN WATER BILL. [H.L.]
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
PADSTOW HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
HAVANT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.

SLOUGH WATER BILL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BRISTOL GAS MIL.
Read 3ª, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
  FRASERBURGH WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
    SIDLAW SANATORIUM (TRANSFER) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
    Brought from the Commons.
COUNTY COMMON JURIES BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
DISEASES OF ANIMALS (N0. 2) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with several of the Amendments made by the Lords, agreed to, and one disagreed to, with a reason for such disagreement: The said Amendment not insisted on.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Read 1ª to be printed; and to be read 2ª To-morrow (The Lord Denman). (No. 139.)
FRASERBURGH WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. (No. 140.)
  SIDLAW SANATORIUM (TRANSFER) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. (No. 141.)
  Read 1ª to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2ª (The Lord Pentland); and reported from the Committee.

PRIVATE BILLS.
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH):Your Lordships will recollect that yesterday I asked the House to make a considerable number of alterations in the Standing Orders. They were all of a formal character and quite non-contentious. The proposed additional Order which is on the Paper today was also on the Paper yesterday, but it was intimated to me that there would be objection to it, and I thought it would be more convenient to the House that those Amendments which were non-contentious should be passed first, so that a clear and simple issue should be presented to the House with regard to this Order. The clause refers only to the metropolis, and only to traffic questions in the metropolis itself. The whole class of questions affecting regulation of traffic are obviously of great importance, and I am afraid they are not becoming any less complicated than they were before. Your Lordships know that the Commissioner of Police is

479
the authority entrusted with the regulation of traffic in the metropolis, and it has been the practice for the last six or seven years for the Commissioner of Police to go thoroughly into all proposals which might cause obstruction of traffic or make the regulation of traffic more difficult, such as, for instance, the placing of tramways in, comparatively speaking, narrow streets. Reports are made by the Commissioner of Police to the Home Office, and the Home Office either takes action or not according to its discretion. But the Commissioner of Police in the past has only discharged this task under circumstances of great disadvantage and loss of time. He has no means of official knowledge soon enough with regard to proposals that are being made. In other words, he cannot know what is proposed until after the Home Office has become in possession of the Bills which are deposited, and that is practically not until the last days of the year. Thus much valuable time is lost, and the end of February or March is reached before the Commissioner of Police can make his report and the Home Office can take action upon it for the information of Parliament. I believe that the proposal which is made in this Standing Order would be not only to the advantage of the Commissioner of Police, but also to the advantage of the promoters of all this class of Bills. It is obviously for their advantage that they should know as soon as possible if any objection is to be taken to their proposals, because it is inconvenient for them to be objected to on this class of point after the Bill has been actually sent to a Committee. It may have to be considered by the Committee, but it would be much more convenient that the Committees and the Officers of the House should know of the objections at an early date. There is no intention to make the Commissioner of Police in any way an autocrat in these matters. No new duties are put upon him. He has this duty to discharge now. The only effect of this proposal is to enable him to discharge the duty earlier and with more satisfaction to himself and others than at the present time. The initiative in regard to this proposed Standing Order did not come from me. It was left as a legacy by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, but I have carefully looked into the matter. My judgment coincides with that of Lord Onslow, and I recommend the change to the House.
Moved to resolve, That the following new Standing Order be made—
30A. Where by any Bill the construction of a work of any kind is proposed to be authorised by which street traffic or the regulation of street traffic in the Metropolitan Police District may be affected, a copy of so much of the plans and sections required to be deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments as relates to such work shall be deposited at the office of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on or before the thirtieth' day of November immediately preceding the application for the Bill.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
VISCOUNT HILL,VISCOUNT HILL, on behalf of Lord DUNMORE, moved an Amendment substituting the Traffic Branch of the Board of Trade for the Commissioner of Police. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have been asked to move the Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend. The noble Lord, in moving the addition of this Standing Order, spoke of the position of the Police at the present moment, and of their not receiving sufficiently early notice of proposed improvements. That may be so. I do not doubt it. Neither do I wish to say that the Police have not up to the present time carried out the work of regulating the traffic satisfactorily. But me rather object to the Police having full control of the traffic, although we agree that they should be consulted. His Majesty's Government already have. a Traffic Branch under the Board of Trade, and the London County Council are of opinion that that is the proper authority to govern the widening and alteration of the streets, although the Police are very well capable of regulating the traffic when those widenings have taken place. This proposal seems to us to be entirely contrary to the recommendations of Royal Commissions on this subject. It has always been recommended that an independent tribunal should be appointed for the traffic of London. As I have said, there is a Traffic Branch in connection with the Board of Trade, and we consider that that is the proper authority to deal with this matter. There has been considerable difficulty in the past with the Commissioner of Police in regard to street widening, and so forth. I am not going into the particulars or into the figures now, but what the Commissioner of Police suggested to the London County Council

481
with regard to certain streets would, if carried out, have involved an enormous expense to the ratepayers of London. The Commissioner's requirements were unreasonable in many instances, and we consider that these questions should be dealt with by an expert who is better informed and has much more experience than the Commissioner of Police. I believe every one is agreed that the traffic of London should be under an independent tribunal.
Amendment moved—
To leave out in lines t and 7 ("Commissioners "of Police of the "Metropolis") and insert ("Traffic "Branch of the Board of Trade in duplicate ").—Viscount Hill.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, I rise on behalf of the Home Office to express the hope that this Amendment will not be carried. The Standing Order in the form in which it is upon the Paper conies, I think, with special authority, being, as the noble Lord the temporary Lord Chairman said just now, moved by himself after an independent investigation into the circumstances, as a result of which he was able to express the opinion that the Notion originally proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, was one which ought to be adopted by this House. It comes to. your Lordships, therefore, with a double measure of authority. The main object of it is to enable the Police, who advise the Secretary of State on street traffic questions, to prepare their observations at an early date, and it is thought that the earlier they can do so the more convenient it will be for the Committees and also for the promoters, whoever they might be, even in the case where the promoters are the London County Council themselves. In any ease the Home Office would very much desire that the Amendment should not be carried. Perhaps I might appeal on a question like this to those members in your Lordships' House who lately sat upon a Tramways Bill which was promoted by the London County Council. I think the noble Lord whom I see on the Back Bench opposite, Lord Clinton, was one of the members of that Committee. I understand that information was laid before that Committee by the Police and by the Home Office showing that reports of this character deal with intricate and important questions affecting street traffic. This matter has been well done in the past by
482
the Police, and we believe that this proposal will facilitate the work of the Police.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not think my noble friend behind me has called in question the proposal made on behalf of the Lord Chairman that earlier notice should be given of any works which might cause interference with traffic. That is not the point in my noble friend's Amendment. The point which he desires to raise is that the proper department of the Government which ought to be put in motion is not. the Police, and through them the Home Office, but the Traffic Branch of the Board of Trade. I do not want to express any confident opinion on the point, but any of your Lordships who listened to the noble Earl the Lord President in the remarks he has just delivered must be aware that he did not address himself to that issue in the least. The noble Earl has been lately himself honourably connected with the Home Office, and he probably speaks with great knowledge of that Department but with less knowledge of the Board of Trade. I must say that in dealing with an Amendment of this kind his observations, always entitled to weight, would have been entitled to more weight if he had addressed himself to the point of the Amendment. There is a Traffic Branch of the Board of Trade. Why is that Traffic Branch not to be used? When I had the honour of being connected with the Board of Trade, as your Lordships know, we bad it in contemplation to pass a Bill for the traffic of London which was to have involved the creation of a great traffic authority—I do not say entirely subservient to the Board of Trade; far from it—but taking its initiative from the Board of Trade, although, of course, with the co-operation of the Home Office and the Local Government Board, the other Departments concerned. Though I should not for a moment desire to place any authority which I possess against; the authority of His Majesty's present advisers, I think it would have been more satisfactory to your Lordships if the noble Earl had been able to tell us why the Home Office are selected rather than the Board of Trade in this instance.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I am quite ready, with the permission of your Lordships, to give the noble Marquess that information. It is because the work has been done so satisfactorily by the Home

483
Office before. We are anxious they should go on doing it.
On Question, whether to agree to the proposed Amendment resolved in the negative:
Then the proposed new Standing Order agreed to, and ordered to he added to the Roll of Standing Orders, and to be printed. (No. 142.)

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3ª To-morrow.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONALORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
Read 3ª (according to order), and passed.

LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 15) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bills reported without amendment, and to be read 3ª To-morrow.

OYSTER AND MUSSEL FISHERY (BAY OF FIRTH) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND): My Lords, this is a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made under the Sea Fisheries Act, 1868, as read with other Acts, relating to an oyster and mussel fishery at the Bay of Firth, off the coast of Orkney. The purpose of the Order is to develop an oyster fishery at the place referred to. The Order is in similar terms to one which was scheduled to a Bill introduced in another place in 1908, but not proceeded with in that session. Further inquiry has been made recently with a view of ascertaining whether there has been any change since that year in the local circumstances which would render it inexpedient to proceed with the matter, and I have satisfied myself that there has been no such change. Your Lordships will see the bearing of the several clauses. I may, perhaps, be allowed to say that it is proposed at a subsequent stage of the Bill to restrict the operation of the Order to a period somewhat shorter than the term of sixty years mentioned in Clause 10 of the Schedule, and if the Bill is read a second time I propose to put down certain Amendments for this purpose. I trust that your Lordships will be good enough to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Pentland.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, deemed to have been reported from the Committee: Bill to be read 3ª To-morrow.

ST. MAGNUS CATHEDRAL, KIRKWALL.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH,LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH, on behalf of Lord A VEBURY, rose to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether it is the case that alterations are proposed to be made. on St. Magnus Cathedral, Kirkwall; and, if so, what is the nature and extent of the alterations contemplated; in whom is the Cathedral vested, and who are responsible for its up-keep; what is the present condition of the fabric; what is the amount of money proposed to be expended on the alterations, how is it being provided, arid under what architect's advice is action being taken; further, to ask, in view of the great architectural and historical interest which attaches to the Cathedral, what are the powers of the Government in regard to it, and what

485
are they willing to do in the matter. The noble Lord said: I have received a request from Lord Avebury, who is not able to be here to-day, to put this Question on his behalf, which I am glad to do. I think it is probably for the convenience of everybody concerned that the Question should he put and answered now, rather than postponed. I understand that the Secretary for Scotland agrees with that, and prefers to answer the Question now.
LORD PENTLAND: I am obliged to my noble friend for putting the Question. The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The nature and extent of the alterations contemplated cannot he stated, as those who are responsible for the plans have not communicated them to His Majesty's Government. The Cathedral is vested in the town council, and they and the heritors are responsible for its upkeep. So far as I am aware the present condition of the fabric is good, and while the removal of certain galleries, screens, &c., which have been erected in modern times, would be an improvement, I am advised that it is considered that there is no need for restoration. The amount of money proposed to he expended now on the alterations is, so far as His Majesty's Government can learn, £30,000, or possibly more, of a sum of £60,000 bequeathed for the purpose by the late Sheriff Thom. I am informed that the architect under whose advice action is proposed to be taken is Mr. George Mackie Watson. I ought to soy that I am indebted for this information largely to the town clerk and the town council of Kirkwall. Under existing legislation the Government possess no powers in regard to the Cathedral. Therefore they are unable to take such steps as might, in their opinion, be necessary for the preservation of the. building. When I say they possess no powers I ought to make one exception. They have power under the Ancient Monuments Act to take over the guardian ship of the building as an ancient monument at the request of the owners. The First. Commissioner of Works has arranged for the Inspector of Ancient Monuments to visit Kirkwall in August.

THE WESTERN ISLANDS OF SCOTLAND.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN rose to call attention to the recent Report of the Congested Districts Board (Scotland), and
486
to the present condition of the Western Islands of Scotland; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, a. few days ago I ventured to express the opinion that the state of things in the Western Islands of Scotland was becoming more serious every day. I believe from what I have seen and read since that that opinion is not merely mine but is very general. The noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland often refers us to the opinion of the Scottish Members. From a debate which has taken place in the other House it would appear that the Scottish Members are of the same opinion that I am with regard to the state of the Western Islands; and, further, they commented very severely on the policy of the present Government. They said that it was dilatory, that the Government had put off doing anything, that questions were allowed to slide, and they made other very severe remarks with regard to the general policy of the Scottish Administration. There is no doubt of this, that the crofters themselves are of that opinion. There is no doubt, too, that the owners of land in the Western Islands are of that opinion, and even if your Lordships take the admissions which are made in the Report of the Congested Districts Board, you will see that even that Report admits that the state of things at present is very serious and is becoming more so.
I attach some importance to this Report, because your Lordships must remember that the Congested Districts Board which makes this Report has for its Chairman the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland, and therefore it is Lord Pentland, the Chairman of the Congested Districts Board, who is reporting to Lord Pentland, the Secretary for Scotland. In these circumstances it is not very likely that any remarks depreciatory of the present Administration would find their way into the Report; but your Lordships will see from admissions that are made in the Report, to which I will allude presently, that the Board consider that the present state of things, if it has not wholly broken down, at all events is by no means in a prosperous condition.
Now let me pass to individual cases. I will begin with the case of the Lews, where the crofter system may be said

487
to be in a state of perfection. The Lews in the year 1900 had a population of somewhere under 10,000 inhabitants, and in the year 1901 it had a population of 28,000. Its assessable rental is only £34,000 or thereabouts, and out of 404,000 acres which there are in the island no less than 260,000 are under the system of crofts. And when I add that the average rental is under £2—I think it is £1 18s. or something of that kind—your Lordships will see that the state of cultivation which prevails on that island is one of extremely small holdings, holdings so extremely small that you can hardly expect them to pay. Further than that, you cannot improve on that state of things in the Lews, because it is impossible to give any more land to crofters there, and it is equally impossible to evict any one who falls into arrears, because he is in the Lews and has nowhere else to go.
The estate which really represents nearly the whole of the Lews is the late Sir James Matheson's estate. He brought that estate in 1844, for, I think, £200.000, and he has spent between £500,000 and £600,000 further upon it. What is the condition of that estate at the present time? The owner of it finds himself in the position that he is not able any linger to pay the rates. He has paid them up to the present time, but during the last two or three years it has been done by borrowing upon mortgage, and I have his authority for saying that that he cannot do so any linger. With regard to the rates in the Lews and in the Western Islands generally there has been a good deal of difference of opinion. When noble Lords have said that the rates in many of these Western Islands is more than 20s. in the £, the noble Lord—I heard him the other day Ndien that remark was made somewhere on this side of the House—has dissented. The fact is that the noble Lord speaks of one sort of pound—namely, the pound of gross rental —whereas others speak of the assessable pound, which, of course, is a very different thing. But I think we may brush all that kind of argument aside, because, after all, it is not the rate in the pound which is the important point in this matter. What is important is what is the amount of the rates, and how they compote with the income which there is from which to pay these rates.
I will give you in a word or two the position of the Matheson estate, the rental
488
of which is between £13,500 and £14.000 a year. Out of that the present proprietor has for the last two or three years had to pay on the average £6,000 a year in rates, irrespective, of course, of his Imperial taxes. I need not point out to your Lordships what a great burden that is, and how enormous the proportion of rates is to the general rental. And when we are speaking of this estate your Lordships must remember that, besides that, it is a very costly estate to manage, because the fact that there are 28,000 people in some way or other connected with the estate necessitates the keeping of an enormous number of ' clerks, and in other ways the management is costly. Of course, the rents were all recast by the Crofters Commission, but the arrears on this estate which have accrued since the Crofters Commission revised the rents amounted this year to approximately £19,000. Your Lordships must not suppose that Major Matheson is in any way unpopular. There is no question of a dispute between landlord and tenants. On the contrary, I believe that Major Matheson is extremely popular in the Lews and on the best terms with everybody. But the fact is that the burden of these rates is such that he cannot pay them any more, and the result is that he has been obliged to leave his home and very probably will never take up his residence again on the island.
I must say this with regard to the Report of the Crofters Commission and also this Report which I hold in my hand—the Report of the Congested Districts Board—that so far as these two Reports are concerned you would never know that there was any question whatever in the Lews. There is no notice of Major Matheson or his difficulties with regard to the rates. His name does appear once, but that is in connection with a proposal which has been almost forced upon him against his will, because he does not wish to stand against the Government, although he does not think it a wise proposal—a proposal to cut up the farm of Mangursta into small holdings. Major Matheson has met with very little sympathy from the Scottish Office. The noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland has been, I think, in the Lews two or three times. He had ample opportunities if he wished to go to the estate office, to speak to Major Matheson on matters of business, or to inquire into the state of affairs; but he did nothing of

489
that sort, and I must say that I think Major Matheson has been treated with rather scant courtesy. Not unnaturally, he has written several times to the Scottish Office and he has written in the present year, but with the exception of an official acknowledgment of his letter this year, in which he stated what I have been just stating to your Lordships, he has received no answer whatever. There is one thing that does strike me as ridiculous in the present position of taxation in this country. I believe that although Major Matheson is unable to pay his rates he will be found actually liable to the Super-Tax. Yes; owing to the present financial arrangements, although he has £6,500 to find which he says he is no longer able to find, yet at the same time he will be liable to Super-Tax under the recent regulations of the Treasury.
Now supposing for a moment that Major Matheson has left the island. What are you going to do then? The result will be, I suppose, that the Government will go on distraining and getting out of the estate whatever they can until they have swallowed up all the available assets. And what is going to happen then? I must say that it seems to me that the future is extremely obscure. And when I say that the state of the Lews at the present time is very serious indeed, I am only echoing what was said in a Report made to the Local Government Board by a Commissioner whom I think they sent specially to inquire—a Mr. Maxwell— who said the Lews could not possibly go on as it was. The same thing is often said in the Report of the Congested Districts Board which we are now considering. With regard to this crofter system, in the first place there are a number of Government settlements where the land has been purchased by the Government and resold to the settlers. Do those Government settlements succeed? If your Lordships will turn to the Report, you will see this—
"Serious attention has been given to the generally backward state of the payments made by purchasers of holdings from us towards the annuities, by means of which the loans are repaid, and also of rents due to us. In a scheme of State-aided creation of new holdings it is manifestly of the highest importance that the settlers should make punctual payment of the sums due by them. We regret to say that in the case of several estates the settlers, with some exceptions, are considerably in arrear. We thought it our duty to intimate that unless there was an immediate improvement in this respect, steps would be taken to enforce
490
payment or to foreclose. The result of this notice has not been satisfactory, and we have had to take proceedings against certain selected defaulters who we have reason to believe could have met their obligations in a more satisfactory manner than they have done."
That is not a cheerful account of the state of things in these settlements. The statement which I have just read to your Lordships does not appear for the first time by any means in this Report. It is a sort of annual litany. This statement has appeared verbatim, in the last three Reports, and in the one preceding it appeared also with very slight variation.
Now what is the result? First of all, there is the Government settlement of Syre. In the year 1908 the arrears there were £210; in 1909, £527; in March, 1910, £600. Next I come to the state of Barra, an island belonging to Lady Cathcart, in Inverness-shire. In 1908 the arrears there due to the Government—that is, on account of lands which have been purchased from them for settlements—were £227; in March, 1909, they were £410; and in March, 1910, £526. Glendale is a smaller matter, and I pass it over. But in the estate of Kilmuir, which has only been going for some five or six years, the amount of arrears in 1908 was £2,480; in March, 1909, £2,890; and in March, 1910, £3,400. Your Lordships may remember that I and several noble Lords who take an interest in Scottish affairs called attention the other day to a variety of items and endeavoured to obtain information with regard to them. We were not very successful, I admit; but with regard to Kilmuir, at all events, we found out this, that whereas there was a sum of £147,000 which has been spent by the nation, a suns of £46,000 is said to have been received none of which was for sinking fund of the debt, but which was divided in some unknown way between payments received for stock and rent which was paid. But what we took exception to, and what is manifestly bad accounting, is that these payments of rent are in the account subtracted from the total debt, and therefore a man would only have to go on paying rent steadily for a certain number of years in order to wipe out the original sum lent. In other words, in regard to the capital sum spent by the nation, and which you would suppose would be recouped by the rent, no allowance whatever is made. I hope and trust the noble Lord will see that there is some different way of making

491
up these accounts in future. I wish to be perfectly fair. It is not under the noble Lord's administration that this system of making up the particular Appendix of which I am now Speaking originated. But if this Appendix, which purports to convey to Parliament some idea—I do not say an exact idea, but some idea—of the way in which these things are going on in the Western Islands, had been drawn up with a view of concealing information instead of giving it, I concur entirely in the remark which fell from the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition the other day that it could not have been better drawn up.
Then, my Lords, I come to Vatersay. I am not going to take your Lordships back into the ancient history of Vatersay. Your Lordships have heard it two or three times in this House. I am only going back to November, 1908, at which period the noble Lord, who, up to that time, had stoutly refused to have anything to do with the purchase of the island and maintained that it was the duty of the proprietor to do all these things that he wished done—at that time, for some reason, I do not know what it could have been, suddenly executed a complete volte face and purchased the island. What has occurred on the island since that time? If your Lordships will turn to pages vi and vii of the Report of the Congested Districts Board you will see what is said about it. The Report says that first of all they gave public notice in Barra, inviting applications. In all eighty-three persons applied for the fifty-eight holdings. Three members of the Congested Districts Board attended at Castlebay and interviewed all the applicants or relatives representing them. The Report continues—
"Most careful consideration was given to the information given by these applicants and their references, to enable us to select the persons who in our opinion were best fitted profitably to occupy holdings in the various townships. As five of the men originally chosen renounced their holdings, we were able to fill their places with five others. The proceedings which we had to take against certain squatters for removal were decided in our favour, both by the Sheriff-Substitute and on appeal by the Sheriff."
From that statement what would. your Lordships naturally suppose? You would suppose that these applications had been sifted and so on, that certain persons who were squatting on the land had notices of ejectment served upon them, that these
492
notices were decided in favour of the Board by the legal authorities, and that those people had disappeared. My Lords, there could be nothing further remote from the fact.
What happened? On April 7, as has been stated in the Report, the Board issued their circular asking for applications, but on April 28 they received a most insolent letter written by a solicitor who was employed by the crofters—a gentleman of the name of David Shaw— in which lie informed the Board that these persons who had raided the land were on the land, that they meant to stay there, that they disapproved of foreigners being introduced, and, further, they gave the noble Lord notice that he would be responsible if any bloodshed occurred through the arrival of any new persons on the land. Then on June 9 these selections were made for the crofts. Nine of the raiders were rejected. They simply remained. where they were. Actions for ejectment were brought against them, and on November 24 orders against three of them were obtained. But no sooner had they obtained the orders than it was discovered that they had made a mistake, and instead of the orders being, as is stated in the Report, decided "in our favour," leaving the public naturally to infer that the ordinary result followed, what happened was this—the Government withdrew their actions and paid the costs. From that day to this no other step has been taken against any of these raiders, and the original three, and, I believe, all the rest, or at all events as many of them as choose, are at present crofters under the noble Lord in Vatersay.
Now let us take the fifty-eight crofters—those persons who were selected. I confess that in the terms of the circular they are good enough, because the circular says they are to give satisfaction as to their ability to till the croft, as to their capital, and all sorts of other things. But, to begin with, twenty-three out of these fifty-eight crofters are not resident on the island; they have not a house, and I have no idea how often they go there. They chiefly belong, I understand, to the island of Barra. They entered upon their crofts in November last, and. from then to the present time have not given the slightest sign of intending to go and reside on the island. The noble Lord said the other day that it was expected that before

493
long these crofters would build their houses. I should very much like to know on what information that expectation is founded. I believe I have better information than has the noble Lord, and my information is that if any steps are taken to force those crofters to take up their crofts or build houses on the island they will go off and give up the crofts. So that there are twenty-three of these men who cannot be said to be very desirable persons as crofters.
There are twelve more of them who came from the island of Mingulay. We questioned the noble Lord about them the other day, and he told us that the island of Mingulay was a rock-bound island, and his idea was that these young men seeing an opportunity had gone away, leaving the island almost derelict and in charge, as he said, of a few old men who were unable to launch a boat. Those men I believe to be. at the present time on the island of Vatersay. The noble Lord said there were two who had been crofters, and that there were some others who were cotters. My information—and I had the estate account with all the names and so on—was that there were certainly twelve men, if not more, who were crofters. I should like to know what amount of capital and what amount of stock they had, and I should also like to know how they satisfied the members of the Crofters Commission that they were persons who were thoroughly well able to make profitable use of a holding.
For a moment let us look at Vatersay as a financial transaction. On one point, at all events, We are agreed. We are agreed upon this, that it is about as bad a transaction financially as it is possible to make. I do not think the noble Lord will dispute it, but I will give him the figures. According to the figures on page 8, Appendix X, a sum of £11,800 has been spent on Vatersay. The expenditure there is not all comprehended in this Report. There will be expenditure in the next year at all events. But let us say, for the sake of round figures, that £12,000 has been spent on Vatersay. How much of that money does the Exchequer or the Congested Districts Board ever expect to see again? Very little. I question whether they will see any. But let us divide up the sum. In the first place there is the money which was paid for the purchase of the island—£6,250; in reality all the rest is money
494
which has been virtually given to these crofters or spent upon them, and therefore nearly £5,000 has gone in that way. What return do you get for this? The rent, which was £350 before and which was cheerfully paid—it had been £400 at a previous stage—is knocked down to £180 after an expenditure of £5,000. That is the present which is made to the crofters. But it has an effect beyond the crofters themselves, because the difference between £180 and £350 has to be deducted from the assessable rental of Barra, and therefore some of the rates which are removed from Vatersay are thrown on to the rest of the parish of Barra. So that, as a financial transaction, nothing could be worse.
I should not have alluded to this, or, at all events, I should not have dealt with it at such length, were it not for this fact, that this is the system which the noble Lord proposes to extend to the whole of Scotland. This is his system. I admit that I have never been able to agree with him that there is a difference between a small holding and a croft. We have not got beyond that elementary fact. The noble Lord thinks that small holdings ought to be treated as crofts, and that there ought to be no private bargains between landlord and tenant with regard to a tenancy below £50. That is his plan. I merely call attention to the way in which it has been carried out on the island of Vatersay, and I hope and trust that no such evil will ever befall Scotland as that this system should be introduced on to the mainland of that country. It is admitted, then, that this Vatersay transaction viewed as a financial transaction is not a success.
Oh, but we are then told that it is a great social success. But is it? We are told that a happy and contented population are to be found on Vatersay, and that this system produces a happy and contented population generally. Does it? Do you think that the remarks which were made in the other House with regard to the Scottish administration indicate that there is general contentment and happiness among the crofters in Scotland? It was said, too, in the other House that on Vatersay there are no arrears. There is one very good reason why there are no arrears—no rent has been asked for. These gentlemen entered their holdings in November last; their rent was due in May. We know that the Lord Advocate, who

495
made this remark, has a great many other things to attend to, but it would be a very good thing if, besides making speeches, he would also look a little into facts. How can there be any arrears on Vatersay? I should be very much surprised if a year or two hence the noble Lord is able to tell us the same, or, indeed, anything like it. But even if these people had been happy and contented there is a good reason. It is this. The noble Lord has given way to them in everything. There they are on Vatersay in spite of his threats; there they are his crofters; he has virtually presented them with the sheep stock; he has spent lots of money upon them. What more could he do? So much, then, for the settlements which belong to the public and have been resold to the crofters.
Have the settlements of private owners succeeded any better? I must say the private owners have had very scant justice done to them in this matter. They have been of opinion, from their knowledge of these islands, that this system of crofting could not possibly succeed, but, nevertheless, they gave way to the Government and have done everything that they could to forward the views of the Government in this matter. I do not think they have obtained very generous recognition. Let us take sonic of these settlements by private owners in South Uist. The settlement of Kilbride and one or two other small settlements are very recent, and we do not know much about them. I do not think there are any arrears there, but these people have complained of their rents, which, of course, were adjusted by the Crofters Commission. But on the island of Barra all the old settlements are in arrear. They are three years in arrear of their rent, which is a little over £500. So much for Lady Cathcart's estate. Then we come to the estate of Bay in Skye, which your Lordships will see alluded to in the Report of the Crofters Commission of this year, page xiii. This is what is said—
"In 1900 the proprietor [MacLeod] resolved to make an experiment in the formation of large holdings, which it was hoped would enable the settlers when placed on them to earn a fair living. He broke up the farm of Bay into five such holdings, extending to about 12 acres each, with a common pasture of about 4,000 acres. These holdings he let at a rent of £21 each, in terms of an agreement entered into, to five persons chosen by him. They got entry at Whitsunday, 1901.…The settlers fell deeply into arrears and pleaded that they were not able to pay the rents set forth in the agreement."
The Crofters Commission went and heard the parties, and afterwards inspected the subjects and arrived at this conclusion—
"If the settlers could stock the land and manage the same properly, they should be able to pay the rents stated in the agreement.…In all the circumstances we were of opinion that the rents on which the settlers had entered were fair rents, and that therefore we could not reduce them or cancel the arrears which had arisen thereon, It is obvious that the settlement is not in a thriving position, and that unless the whole place is fully stocked and better managed than it has been, no progress can be expected."
So the settlement of Bay does not flourish.
Then we come to the Lews. There Major Matheson broke up the farm of Aignish, and the rent was fixed at £96; at present there are arrears of £90. At the same time the Government made a loan to the settlers of Aignish for the purpose of building their houses, and out of £355 clue as instalments for the payment of those houses the sum of £60 only has been paid. Let us go next to Battery Park, which was also divided by Major Matheson. The feu duty which ought to be paid to him is £27 a year. As a matter of fact the arrears at this moment—and that, again, has been only in four or five years—are £50, or going on towards two years rental. On the other hand the Government advanced money for building houses, and out of a sum of £293 due in instalments only £117 has been paid. Can your Lordships call those successes? Yet in spite of this the noble Lord, with all these facts before him, perseveres in desiring and in requiring that new farms should be cut up; and your Lordships will find in this Report that the farm of Mangursta is being cut up by Major Matheson to please the Government. It is not his notion that this Mangursta farm can possibly succeed as crofts. His opinion is exactly the reverse—I am authorised to say so—but he has done it simply because he has been pressed to do so by the Government. So that there, at all events, he has done everything in his power to forward their view. And further than this, something less than 100 years ago there were crofters on Mangursta, and they were removed from their crofts at their own request because it was impossible to make that farm succeed as crofts.
Now let us leave these points and come to the question of school rates. It is the pressure of the rates which is doing more than anything else to kill these islands.
These rates are bound to increase. As you cut up farms, as you increase the population, as you insist on education and other matters of ordinary civilisation, so, of course, the expenses increase, and the rates must go up. Take the most recent case that has occurred, the case of South Uist. There three new schools have been built during the previous year. The school board called upon the parish council to assess the island for £1,600. The parish council knew perfectly well that they could not raise the money, and they said so. The school board, in compliance with the Act, took them to Edinburgh. The matter was debated and it was decided, as it must be for it is according to the law, that the school board are entitled to call upon the parish council to find any money they require. As to the legal merits, there could, of course, be no doubt, but the Judge who tried the case made some severe remarks with regard to this matter. As to the law there was, he said, no doubt, and he was bound to give a decree. But he went on to say—
"Recently certain Farms on the island of South Uist have been broken up by the proprietor, at the instance of the Government and with the co-operation of the Congested Districts Board, into small holdings for occupation by crofters. The population which has thus been transplanted to form the tenants of the new holdings previously resided in crofter townships where adequate school accommodation existed, and some of the farms now broken up are situated at a distance from the existing schools. In consequence of this shifting of the population the school board of the parish decided to erect new schools and to provide additional school accommodation."
And he proceeded to say that this was an anomalous state of matters, and this unfortunate condition had, he said, arisen from various causes, the chief being the shifting of the population owing to certain farms having been broken up at the instance of the Government into small holdings. I do not think that it was possible for any learned Judge to deliver a stronger opinion with regard to the equity of the case than that which Lord Salvesen delivered. So much for South Uist.
I now take the case of the parish of Barra. In the parish of Barra at the present time the school rate is 7d. in the £, but owing to this establishment of the noble Lord's at Vatersay a new school has to be erected there. The noble Lord told us the other day that it was to cost about £1,000. At the same time the island of Mingulay, in the same parish, had a school, but when the population of
498
that island rowed away from Mingulay and went to Vatersay the school at Mingulay had to be shut up. What is the result? The parish council is hit in two ways. First of all its existing school is closed, and now it has to pay for a new school on the island of Vatersay. And, my Lords, what security is there that five years hence there will he anybody on Vatersay? I have been there twice, and I should be very much surprised indeed if five years hence there are any persons on Vatersay. The noble Lord, I think, has never been to Vatersay. He was very near it once or twice, and was invited to go. He was down as near as Lochboisdale, and three hours would have taken him to this settlement of his, but he has hitherto exercised a wise discretion and refrained from going. What will be the result in the island of Barra? The school rate in that island, which up to the present time has been 7d., will, I am told on excellent authority, be from 4s. to 5s. in the £. That is the result of this transmigration of crofters.
There is another fact which aggravates this condition of things. Up to the year 1908, when the school rate of any village in Scotland exceeded 1s. 6d. in the £, three-fourths of the difference was made up by a grant front the Exchequer. I believe that rule still prevails in England, but in Scotland it was abolished in the year 1908 by an Act which was brought in by the noble Lord, and therefore there is no means of their getting a grant. The power of giving grants, which undoubtedly was freely exercised in the case of these islands, has entirely disappeared. So the noble Lord has not only created this new settlement and thereby increased the rates, but he has also taken away the means that previously existed of alleviating the rates. All this was not done without warning, because Lady Cathcart, when she gave way against her judgment and agreed to form these settlements, pointed out to the Government, in distinct and express terms, this very danger, that by increasing the population you must necessarily increase the education rate. She asked front them a condition, to which they acceded so far as they said they could, that no additional expense should be thrown on these islands with regard to education. A grant was made, but the Public Accounts Committee came to the conclusion that it was not in the power.

499
of the Government to give these grants. They indicated at the same time, however, that it might be done from certain other sources; but up to the present time the noble Lord has not attempted in any way to deal with this difficulty. He has not attempted to move a special grant. I believe that if he proposed to get a special grant he would have very little difficulty in obtaining it.
I am sorry to have troubled your Lordships so long. I will only say a word or two more. This system of crofting has been on its trial and is on its trial now. I very much wish it could succeed, but it is quite clear that in certain cases it is failing, and has failed, and I do not see any indications where it is proving a success. The essence of this system is that it is eleemosynary. That is to say, the public taxpayer provides money for building houses which, of course, it is expected will be repaid; but with regard to fencing the land and preparing it for the settlement by crofters, and really I am bound to say with regard actually to finding the stock, except to a very limited amount, because promises in the Hebrides to pay, as your Lordships know, are a very different thing from actual payment, in reality the public has started and is supporting these crofts on an eleemosynary system. If you think that is for the public interest, then be consistent and go on and pay the rates, or, at all events, a considerable portion of them. The noble Lord has put off dealing with this question for a very long time. He has shifted and shuffled about, and has endeavoured to get rid of the difficulty by looking away from it, but he may depend upon it that he will never overcome difficulties by that course of action.
The situation has now become so grave, as he must have seen from proceedings in the other House and as I am sure he has been told in this House, that it cannot wait any longer. There are various ways in which this may be met. One of them has been proposed by Lord Balfour in the Local Taxation Commission's Report—that is, that public grants should be increased in the proportion to which the population stands to assessable revenue. That is one way. There may be others, but of this the noble Lord may be sure, that it is impossible to delay or procrastinate any longer. This question is a very
500
urgent one which demands and must receive immediate solution.
Moved, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the present condition of the Western Islands of Scotland. —(The Earl of Camperdown.)
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, in the beginning of the noble Earl's speech lie told your Lordships that the condition of the Western Islands of Scotland is a serious one, and is annually becoming more so. I do not think that any one who is acquainted with these islands, or even any one who has studied the successive Reports of the Congested Districts Board, can doubt the accuracy of that statement. The noble Earl went into many matters of very serious importance to the Western Islands. He dealt with individual cases of hardship, many of them of very real hardship, particularly the case of Major Matheson, which I hope will receive the serious attention of the Secretary for Scotland. I do not wish to follow the noble Earl into those details, but I should like to say a word more generally upon the methods and the system of the Congested Districts Board, and the result of their management in the past few years.
The Report which we have before us deals not only with this one year, but it is to some extent a general review of the work of the Board over a long period. I certainly have no wish to criticise in any way unduly the work and methods of the Board. I know something of the very serious difficulties with which that Board had to contend when they were first called into existence twelve years ago, and I know the character of the experiments with which they started in the hope of solving what I fear they have come to look upon as an almost insoluble problem. They attempted to assist the existing population to remain on the land and to make a living, and this object was, from every point of view, worthy of all praise. But I fear, in the light of the Reports that have been issued, that we are bound to look upon them as people who have been attempting what really has become impossible. In order to carry out their object they have had to change the system which they found in existence agriculturally in many of these islands—a system of combination of large and small farms, a combination which we believe is more

501
suited to agriculture as we know it in these islands and elsewhere throughout the kingdom. They Lad in this place to a large extent existing land owners, and they had to displace existing tenants and get rid of large farms, and to split their holdings up amongst the existing population. The soil of these islands is of a very poor nature; it is in many instances little more than inferior grazing land; and even though it is now broken up it is doubtful whether any part of it, even the very best of the soil, will for long bear cultivation. It was possible to use this land as grazing land, and in the past it did attract men with capital and a thorough knowledge of their business, and they were able to make a living for themselves and their families and pay their way. But the system which is now adopted takes the land out of the hands of those men and gives it to people who have little knowledge and less capital, and, in doing so, has reduced the rental value and the produce of the land, and consequently there has been a reduction of value to the whole community.
I do not want to go into details in these matters, but I do want to give your Lordships a proof of the reduction in value of the laud since this system has been adopted. I will ask the Secretary for Scotland to think of the case of Barra. It was not done in his tune; bat that island was purchased by the Board in 1901 for the market price of £7,920. It was obvious that the people for whom it was intended could not pay that price, so it was handed over to them at a lesser sum, and the balance is accounted for as a loss on the purchase. My point is this, that under the old system it was worth so much, whereas under the new system it is worth so much less; consequently there is a loss to the community owing to this system of very small holdings which the Board has adopted. This division and sub-division of land, as I think my noble friend Lord Camperdown suggested to your Lordships, is a part of the sort of craving after small holdings which is gradually spreading throughout the country. I believe every one of your Lordships will agree that, under certain favourable conditions, this spread of small holdings is an excellent thing, but there are certain conditions which are fundamental to the success of small holdings. In the first place, you must have a population who are able and willing to work, and who are to sonic extent capable of sustained
502
labour. Most important of all, you must have a kindly soil which is fit for cultivation, and which will return to the small holder a profit. You must have a fair amount of capital on the part of your small holder, and, in addition, you must be within fair reach of labour markets. It is very doubtful indeed if many of these conditions are fulfilled in these Western Islands. One is naturally very glad that in this Report one is able to point to certain instances of success, but I regret to think that the successful part of the scheme is far and away outweighed by the failures that have taken place.
I should like your Lordships to observe certain facts in the conduct and work of the administration of the Board—facts which, in my opinion, are wholly favourable to the Board up to a certain point. There has been on these Western Islands a great expenditure of public money. The Congested Districts Board have been lavish in their gifts to the smaller people. They have provided them with stock at much less than cost price; they have provided them in some cases with land at a less price than they paid for it; and consequently they have suffered very heavy losses. They have lent them money at low rates of interest and on easy terms of repayment, and in many cases those terms have not been observed. They have started schemes for communication and inter-communication both by steamers and by motor cars, but those schemes in some cases have been so little taken advantage of that they have had to be discontinued. In addition, they have started schemes of employment and instruction, which also have not, according to this Report, been so well taken advantage of as was anticipated. Those were experiments, and so far as they were experiments they are entirely to the credit of the Board, and if they had been successful not one of us would have used a word against them. But, my Lords, these experiments have gone on for twelve years, so that they are now rather past the experimental stage. And what is the net result? By your expenditure and by your loans and free gifts you have been encouraging men to attempt what I believe to be the impossible. You have been encouraging them to continue on land and at a work which cannot provide them with an independent living, and though they may leave it will be your duty to provide for them.

503
I think they have been fixed there probably as pensioners of the State, and although they may leave it is quite impossible that they can do anything to improve their position, and they are merely, as we say, increasing their indebtedness to the State.
My Lords, are we doing any good whatever in encouraging these people to remain in their home lands in a condition of poverty, depending for their living on the forbearance of the State, with an annually increasing load of debt accumulating around them, and with a future which I fear is absolutely hopeless? If we were doing any good in this matter, either to the individual or to the country, I should believe that all our expenditure was valuable and would be justifiable, but I do not think we are doing good. It can be shown that the condition of the people of these Western Islands has in many instances changed for the worst. Poverty is increasing; the poor rate, whatever the actual amount may be, has reached an abnormal figure in those islands. If we are not doing good I fear very much we are doing harm. We are rearing up a population there which is dependent for a living on the forbearance, and, I might also say, on the charity of the State. I believe we are sapping the independence of these people.
I will give one instance. The noble Lord will recollect that there was a distribution of seed. The details of it appear in most of these Reports. At the time of a bad harvest the Board very properly and very generously distributed seed among these distressed crofters. I think probably all of us have had to do that in our own time. It proved very useful to these crofters; they planted the seed and reaped good crops, but they saved no seed for the next year, I suppose with the idea that the Government having done it once would do it again. The Report says—
"In introducing new seed we did not contemplate a continuous supply, but it became clear that crofters and cotters looked upon us as a constant source of supply, and in many cases took no steps to grow good seed for distribution, or to supply themselves with seed, but simply looked to us to send them what they required each spring."
That seems to me to show that we are destroying the independence of these people. The Report goes on to say that complaints were made, and accordingly they made it widely known that they considered it inexpedient that it should be
504
considered that they did more than intervene now and then to introduce a change of seed.
LORD PENTLAND: Any distribution of seed to which the noble Lord could take exception has been stopped.
LORD CLINTON: I find almost exactly the same statement, that they only give the seed occasionally, in their Report of five or six years ago, and it has continued ever since. I hope the noble Lord will not discontinue the supply of seed where it is necessary, but I think those words show quite clearly that the fact of having given this seed has induced in the minds of these men the idea that they have got the bottomless purse of the State behind them, and that they can draw upon it whenever they please. The sapping of the independence of these men will have a bad effect on national character, and treating them financially as they have been treated has, in addition, imbued them with the idea that their contracts with the State, as far as money payments are concerned, can be broken almost at will. I believe this has done harm to many of these holders, and it is a question how far the Board can in justice allow this system to continue. The system cannot be recommended as a financial one. No one has ever suggested that it can actually pay, and it has never been expected to pay. It is never expected that there can be an adequate return from it. It was considered that there was an element of possibility in it, that it might be expected to benefit the people of these islands. That is the whole excuse for the method of the Congested Districts Board; and if it can be shown from your own Reports that it has neither been successful financially nor successful in being of benefit to a large number of people in the Western Islands, then there is no possible excuse for continuing this system.
I do not wish to continue my observations, because we have been speaking on this matter now for a considerable length of time; but I do hope the noble Lord will not only take these matters into consideration, having regard to the possible harm that is done to the crofters in the Western Islands, but that he will consider whether these experiments, which were perfectly justifiable at the beginning, ought to be continued when they are known to have failed. I believe that the experiments

505
that have been begun should. be finished to the end, but before the Government go into the further sub-division of large farms and create a. great number of small holdings they ought. to be convinced that there is a reasonable prospect of success.
LORD PENTLAND: My Lords, the debate which the noble Earl has initiated this evening is in the first place a criticism of the work of the Congested Districts Board, and before it proceeds further I should like to say a word or two as to that Department, and first as to the constitution of the Board, for which not this Government but the Unionist. Government of 1897 were responsible. It consists of the Secretary for Scotland, the Under-Secretary, three heads of Departments, and three nominated members, two of whom are at the present time high officials in the public service in Scotland, the remaining member being a crofter of great sagacity and experience, who, I think, was nominated by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, and who has proved of great service in many ways to the work of the Board.
The Secretary for Scotland must inevitably, as the Parliamentary representative of the Bard, bear the chief responsibility for the administration of its work; but the other members, I must point out, who receive no remunaration whatever for their services and who are all hard-working men connected with other public Departments, have given an infinity of time and labour. to the work of this Board, and they are as competent, as faithful, and as public-spirited as any public servants, either in Scotland or out, of it.. So that, so far as they are concerned, the criticisms which are levelled against the Board are wholly, to my mind, without justification.
But, my Lords, I do say this, that the work of the Board has entirely outgrown its constitution. It has multiplied many times since the Board was set up. That is not a discovery made at this moment. Those who first recognised it, I think, were His Majesty's Government, who in 1906 and 1907 introduced proposals connected with land reform in Scotland, part of which consisted of proposals for abolishing the Congested Districts Board and merging it in a Department of Agriculture, manned by paid officials who should do that work for Scotland. This House rejected that policy. Your Lordships declined even to consider it.
506
I am not going to re-argue that matter now; but I do say the responsibility for the lack of legislative change to reconstitute this Board lies, not with His Majesty's Government, but with your Lordships' House. I have made some administrative changes failing legislation, and I hope to make more changes as time goes on, but those are the only limits which at present are possible or open to us to increase the usefulness and effectiveness of the Board. The noble Earl who opened this debate discussed the island of Vatersav at some length. I was ready to deal with points which arose in the course of the discussion the other day on the questions which the noble Earl put to me, but I pass those over, as time presses. The noble Earl has initiated a discussion which travels over a. very wide area, and if he should wish for information on any of those points I am ready to give it to him.
I now come to the important point possibly the vital point, which the noble Earl mentioned—the difference between the late rent paid by the farm tenant. and the total rent now payable by the crofters. The farm tenant paid £350, and the crofters pay as an accumulated rent £180. That rent was fixed by the Crofters Commission, or, rather, the crofters' rents which go to make up that sum were fixed by the Crofters Commission, and the Congested Districts Board are content to acquiesce in that decision. I believe it to be a fair rent, and it has all the authority of the Crofters Commission behind it. No doubt the land yields less rent, but part of the work of the Congested Districts Board is to relieve congestion. Barra is a congested parish. There was a large squatter population there. Vatersay formerly maintained two families, probably ten people. It is now thought that it will maintain, when all the settlers are there, at least 150 people. The congestion, therefore, is to that extent relieved. I should not allude to this matter if I were not challenged on the point, but I must remind your Lordships after what the noble Earl has said that it was not the wish of the Government to enter upon this purchase. Furthermore, it appears from the correspondence that it was not this drop in rent which determined Lady Cathcart against dividing up the farm. The Government offered to pay her fall compensation for the drop in the rent. What they did decline was to guarantee her the payment of the rents, reduced and divided as I have described them; and this is not the first time, as

507
I think Lord Clinton reminded us, that the Government of this country have lost money over a transaction in the parish of Barra. Lord Balfour, when he was Secretary for Scotland, for the same purpose—to relieve congestion—purchased part of the island of Barra, and the Government of that day were obliged to lose an initial sum of £2,000 on the purchase before it could be handed over to the tenants who now occupy it.
LORD CLINTON: My point was that the new system which the Board adopted must entail a loss of money value, not to the Board or to the people interested themselves, but to the whole country.
LORD PENTLAND: I will come to that point if the noble Lord will allow me. But I say that no Government which is fit to be a Government can be a willing purchaser of such land. The published Papers give the whole story of Vatersay. They are very full, and the question has been discussed in this House. I do not, therefore, propose to reopen the matter. The Government were forced to step in and purchase the land to relieve the necessities of the very people whom the noble Earl alluded to to-day because they had raided the island and by the inactivity of the proprietor were allowed to remain there.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Of course, I take exception to that statement.
LORD PENTLAND: I quite expected the noble Earl would; but what I do ask him is, What is the purpose of this criticism to-day? Does the noble Earl quarrel with the Government for purchasing the land under those circumstances? What is his answer? Does he say that the Government should not have bought Vatersay? If I recollect, the noble Earl was one of those who pressed the purchase of Vatersay upon the Government.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Hear, hear.
LORD PENTLAND: Then there is no criticism coming from him in the other direction. Does he contend that the Government should not have given a fair price for Vatersay? I should like to know whether he has any criticism on that point?
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: No, none whatever.
LORD PENTLAND: Would he urge the Government to fix the rents at a higher value than that which has been determined by the Crofters' Commission? Does he say that the Government should not have done their best to provide water and schools and roads and the other necessities of life in that island? Because that is what his criticism means if it means anything. The noble Earl criticises the Government for spending money on this property. They were obliged to spend money upon it if the people there were to have the bare necessities of civilised life. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton, does supply the motive, I think, for the criticism which has been made with regard to Vatersay to-day. He seems to suggest that it may be regarded as a fair example and illustration of the policy of the present Government in regard to the creation of small holdings. He will, of course, pardon me for suggesting that he does, but he does not go so far as that, I am sure other people do.
LORD CLINTON: I raised no objection to the policy of the Government with regard to small holdings. What I said was that the system had proved an objectionable one in the Western Islands.
LORD PENTLAND: I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, who held up the example of the Congested Districts Board here and elsewhere as an example of what the Government wished to apply to Scotland as a whole. I cannot understand, and I really would like to understand, how that statement can be made. The agricultural conditions of the Western Islands differ in almost every essential from parts of the same counties and from other counties in Scotland. The proposals of the Government dealt not only with the Western Islands but with other parts of Scotland.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: In the same way.
LORD PENTLAND: No, my Lords, not in the same way. The noble Earl makes a mistake in thinking that any Government can transport the same conditions which exist in Vatersay and the Western Islands to the counties of Forfar or Dumfries. It is quite beyond the power of any Government to do so. I will give you one instance. Lord Clinton pointed out that in this breaking up of Vatersay we were obliged to lose rent, and that there had to be a drop in

509
the value of the land. Is it not within the knowledge of any noble Lord who knows Scotland that there are farms and land in many counties of Scotland which, if broken up into small holdings and equipped with buildings, would fetch a higher rent than they do now held in a single large farm? The very work of the Congested Districts Board shows that there are such places.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Where?
LORD PENTLAND: There is a case in Caithness where the owner of Dunbeath broke up his own home farm. The Congested Districts Board gave their help, and there was not one shilling less of rent to that proprietor from the transaction which was thus carried out. If that can be done in Caithness, it can be done in nearly every other county of Scotland; and therefore as a condemnation of the proposals of His Majesty's Government in regard to small holdings Vatersay is no good whatever. If the noble Earl who opened this discussion does not wish to condemn the present administration of Vatersay, and if, as I contend, such transactions are neither a guide to nor an illustration of the probable effect of the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to small holdings in the rest of Scotland, I must say I fail to see the real usefulness of the discussion.
Now, my Lords, I will pass to the general question of the high rates in these islands. Your Lordships discussed this question at some length last year and. I would save your Lordships' time by simply reminding you of the main conclusion which I ventured to submit to you on that occasion—namely, that when all the factors are taken into consideration it is not the burden of the rate, heavy as it is, which is so far excessive in these Western Islands, but the distribution of that burden owing largely to the presence in these communities of a considerable cotter and squatter population who pay neither rent nor rates, yet contribute their quota to the burden which is laid upon the rates by the population. So far as South Uist is concerned, and so far as the parish of Barra is concerned, such examination of the figures as I have been able to make entirely supports the conclusion of last year which I have just quoted. And perhaps I may remind your Lordships of what was said then, that it is very desirable to bring the cotters and squatters into the limits of a rent-paying and rate-paying
510
population, and by so doing relieve the burden upon the other ratepayers. Again I must remind your Lordships that the I Land Holders Bill which was submitted for consideration contained legislative proposals for effecting that purpose, and failing legislative changes I see very little chance of being able to effect what undoubtedly is a very desirable change. But I must point out that in the meantime, pending the endeavour which the Government have announced for next year to deal with the general question of the reform of local taxation—and I may say, in passing, that. there is no more pressing part of that subject than that of the poorer parishes in Scotland—considerable relief has been given particularly to these outer parishes, which have unfortunately among them in their population so large a proportion of older people, the strong and the vigorous having in many cases left to seek their fortune elsewhere. By the Old Age Pensions Act they have from this peculiarity reaped a considerable benefit. The relief given to each parish from old age pensions amounts to something like from two to three and a-half times the whole amount of the poor rates levied in these parishes.
The noble Earl said something about the education rate. I should like to say a word about that. The education rate is not the heavy rate in these parishes. It is the poor rate which is the heavy rate. I think your Lordships would be astonished at the sums demanded in the name of the education rate from the ratepayers in these parishes as a rule. Take the parish of South Uist, where this difficulty has arisen. In 1906–07 the total education rate was is. fid., the next year it was 11½d., and the next year 2s. 4½d. Let me remind you how the rate is divided. It is divided between the owner and the occupier. In Barra the rate for 1906–07 for special causes was 3s. 9½d. In the following year it was 9d., in the year following that, 6d., and this year it is again 6d.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: What will it be next year?
LORD PENTLAND: The same is true even of the island of Lewis. I will take the figures for the parish of Barvas for four years. They ranged between 4d., 8d., 10 d. and ls. 2d. For the parish of Lochs they were 4d., 4d., 9½d. and 11d. For the parish of Uig, the rates are somewhat heavier. I am reluctant to trouble your Lordships with

511
many figures. The reason of these low rates is that properly generous Parliamentary grants have been made. The cost of education is very much lightened in these parishes by special grants for that purpose. That being the general state of educational expenditure and rating in those parishes, I would ask your Lordships for a moment to consider the difficulty which has arisen in South Uist. The Scottish Office has been somewhat fiercely attacked in this matter, and though I am trespassing on your Lordships' indulgence 1 am sure you will allow me to say what has to be said in order to disclose the true position. I should like, in the first place, to say that this is quite a separate and special matter from even the ordinary educational expenditure. As I understand it from the noble Earl who mentioned this subject, the charge against the Government is that the proprietor of certain farms in South Uist, having decided to break up those farms in order that they might he tenanted by crofters, sought the financial help of the Congested Districts Board. That help was given, and it was at first intended that it should include financial assistance towards the erection of new schools. To make a long story short, it was decided by the action of the Public Accounts Committee, whose attention had been called to the matter by the Auditor-General, that it was ultra vires to give money for this purpose, and the Board were thus unable to make good their intention in that matter. But, putting aside that point, the schools had to be provided; the execution of this duty by the school board imposed a heavy obligation upon the parish, and they were faced with the necessity of raising £1,600 in rates in the year 1910. This involved a rate of something like 11s. 4d. in the pound for education alone, and it is now urged that this is a monstrous injustice not only to one class but to all classes of the community, and that the Government are largely responsible for it.
Now, what are the facts? Early in 1906 Lady Cathcart announced her intention of breaking up these farms to be occupied by seventy tenants. School accommodation had to be provided. Proposals were laid by the school board before the Scottish Education Department in the ordinary way for approval in November, 1907. They were revised, and the estimated outlay was reduced by the Department. The school board gave the Department no sign of any complaint, no warning, no apprehension as
512
to difficulty likely to be experienced by them in carrying out their duty. Eighteen months or more after this the school bard informed the Department that the parish council bad refused to levy the rate for £1,600, and would only consent to levy £500. Subsequently the school board raised an action against the parish council in the Court of Session, and the first information which reached the Department of that action having been taken was the announcement in the newspapers. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is deplorable that two local bodies working in the same parish should not be able to settle such a difference without resorting to the expense of litigation.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: No, no.
LORE PENTLAND: In my opinion it is. Complaint is being made of the burden of rates, and such action can only tend to increase the burden ultimately to be borne by the ratepayers of the parish. I think that before a step of that kind was taken every other means should have been exhausted of endeavouring to adjust the differences, whereas it is evident, so far as I am informed, that no such efforts were made. The decision of the Court was that the parish council should levy the rate. This matter was discussed in another place last week, and the Lord Advocate undertook, on my behalf, that the rate should not be actually levied until full information had been received by the Scottish Office in regard to the matter. That information has been received, and the parish council—it is a nominated parish council under the Poor Law Act, to take the place of the former parish council responsible for this business, who have resigned—this acting parish council have been instructed to levy the rate, and I trust that nothing will be said in this debate to discourage the payment of debts which are lawfully due from the ratepayers in this parish in regard to this matter.
In the vast majority of cases this rate is not the monstrous burden it is described to be. I will ask your Lordships to let me analyse this £1,600. Five hundred pounds has been collected, involving a rate of ls. 4d. on owners and 2s. on occupiers. The present demand is for a rate of 3s. 4d. on owners and 6s. 4d. on occupiers. I trust your Lordships will not be alarmed at those figures until you have heard the explanation

513
of them. In the first place, what is the true measure of this burden—that is to say, the actual amount demanded from the ratepayers? The nominal rate is 3s. 4d. upon owners and 6s. 4d. on occupiers, but these sums are not levied upon the actual rental. In the case of every ratepayer they are levied upon a rental which is subject to statutory deductions for the purpose of this assessment. From the rental of every occupier of this parish and from every owner there is made a deduction of forty-five per cent., and in the case of agricultural occupiers there is a further deduction under the Agricultural Rates Act of five-eighths of their assessment. In the case of owners these deductions amount to 9s.; in the case of non-agricultural occupiers also to 9s.; and in the case of agricultural occupiers the total deductions amount to 15 s. 10 d., leaving 4s. 2d. instead of £1 as the rent upon which the assessment is levied. So that we have this result, that while the nominal rate is what I have described the actual amount, of rates in the pound paid by each occupier is—for owners, 1s. 10 d.; for nonagricultural occupiers, 3s. 6d,; and for farmers and crofters, is. 4d. in the pound. We arrive at this result., that in respect of the supplementary assessment—I am not speaking of the whole assessment for education for this purpose, some of which has already been levied—to raise this sum of £1,100, out of 909 ratepayers 803 will be called upon to pay something less than 10 s., and 560 of them will be called upon to pay something less than a total of 5s. The next question I would like to put before your Lordships is this. Who is responsible for this rate? The suggestion of the noble Earl is that it is due to the necessity of building new schools on these crofter settlements.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Lord Salvesen said so in his judgment, having heard the case.
LORD PENTLAND: I am quite aware of that fact, but I think I shall be able to show even the noble Earl that that is not the ease. First of all, every school board has to provide for the current increase of population in its parish. Secondly, this school board bad to provide for the enlargement, and, I think, the erection of schools in Lochboisdale involving the borrowing of a sum of £2,150 for that purpose. There are other items which reduce the sum of £1,600 to a much smaller amount. In the first
514
place, in that £1,600 there is a sum of arrears of £339 which should have been levied by the school board or the parish council in the year before. Again, by not levying those arrears the school board lost part of the amount, amounting to something over £140. Further, there is a sum of £327 in respect of teachers' salaries at the new schools which w ill be repaid by the grant in the usual course next year. Adding these three amounts together we have a sum of £806, which has to be subtracted from the £1,600 before we see the true elements of the ordinary necessities which the school board and the parish council had to meet. There is a further sum of £238, which represents the interest of loans for new schools, but, again, of this £107 is due in respect of schools other than those in question. So that you have out of the £1,600 apart from current expenditure, the sum of £131 only to be raised by the school board in respect of these new schools. It is, therefore, perfectly evident that the expense of erecting new schools for the crofter settlements is the least of all the items which have contributed to create the present situation. These new schools are responsible for £131 out of £1,600—not a twelfth of the whole sum.
I submit to your Lordships, therefore, that the responsibility for this matter lies, not with the Scottish Education Department nor with any other Government Department, but with the school board and the parish council themselves. They made no provision whatever for the future. They did not face. their obligations in time either in respect to the Lochboisdale schools or the rural schools. So far as the rural schools are concerned, it was known in 1906 that those schools would be necessary. Three years rating passed, and during each one of these three years the school board and the parish council together—I do not know who was responsible—did nothing to raise the necessary money which they would have to expend on this purpose. They left their arrears to the future. In the year 1906–07 the total education rate was Is. 6d.; in the following year, 11½d.; in the year following that it was 2s. 4½d., and in that year they left this sum of £339 unprovided for. My Lords, those are the facts of the case, and I think they speak for themselves. This agitation does not come in any degree from the crofters and the farmers. So far as I know they have made no complaint. They know perfectly well that in respect to the rate for education their burden is exceed-

515
ingly light as a rule, and I am mistaken if they do not know that this expenditure is wholly abnormal.
It is not necessary to repeat to your Lordships what I said last year about the case of the proprietors on these islands and the non-agricultural occupiers. For my part I trust that their case will be fully considered next year when the Government hope to deal with the whole subject. It is far from welcome to me to speak harshly or to speak in a critical way of those who carry on local administration in these remote parishes. They do their work under great difficulties, and. my sympathies are wholly with them in the work which they do; but I am bound to say that in this matter this crisis might, by prudent administration, have been at any rate very greatly mitigated. Lean years will always eat up fat years, and while I have sympathy with those who have to face the difficulties of local administration, I have nothing but condemnation for those, if there are any such, who, in the interests of the larger proprietors or of the non-agricultural occupiers to whose case I have alluded, seek to persuade the great majority of the ratepayers who are not heavily burdened by the normal educational burden, who live lives of toil and hardship and who are the first to suffer from bad government, to resist the law and to join in agitation for the non-payment of rates. I would earnestly warn the crofters and their friends to reject the advice and encouragement of those who thus wish to use them for their own purposes. Such an agitation will increase the difficulty and the expense ultimately to be borne by the ratepayers. Already the litigation between two local authorities in the same parish has cost £200, and I believe the members of one are also members of the other. My Lords, no agitation will alter the facts, which I have done my best to lay before your Lordships' House on this occasion.
Now as to relief for this situation. In justice to the ratepayers who provide the money, whatever method of relief is finally found it must have regard to similar burdens elsewhere if it is to be fair to other parts of the country. The noble Earl alluded to a necessitous school grant which was in operation some time ago. I think its operation expired in 1909, but that was a grant which for three years was paid by the Treasury for the purpose of
516
relieving heavily-burdened parishes both in England and Scotland. The sum was strictly limited in amount, and was provided as a temporary expedient only. So far as Scotland is concerned, the arrangement came to an end on the creation of the Education (Scotland) Fund in March, 1909. To this Fund the Treasury made a contribution far in excess of all the grants which were swept into the Fund. A method of allocation of the Education (Scotland) Fund was adopted which gave to the more necessitous districts, such as Inverness and Ross-shire, a sum greatly in excess of what they had previously received for similar purposes, and as a result of this method of distributing the Fund it was hoped that there would be no occasion to renew the grant, which was admittedly of a purely stop-gap character. That expectation, through a variety of causes, has not been realised, largely because of the increase of expenditure upon bursaries for secondary education in rural districts.
The Department now propose to revise, with some modifications, the former Minute which gave special relief to heavily-burdened districts, the money being now taken from the Fund which I have mentioned—the Education (Scotland) Fund. But this must be regarded as a purely temporary measure pending a more comprehensive effort to deal with the whole question of relief of local taxation. This Minute, which, let, me remind your Lordships, must have the approval of Parliament, or at least must be submitted to Parliament, will apply to heavily-rated districts in general wherever situated, but no doubt under it South Uist will obtain a substantial measure of relief. The relief will be exactly proportioned to the money raised from rates in respect of the year ended May 15, 1910. The greater the sum paid from rates in respect to that year, the less necessity will there be to levy any exceptional rate in respect to the current year. In the meantime I hope I have shown that the education difficulty in South Uist has been seriously exaggerated, and that the greater part, of the difficulty is due not to any action by the Congested Districts Board, but to other causes. The demand notes have been issued, and I trust that the rates will be paid in full. Payment in full now will not reduce the amount of relief which will ultimately be obtained from the operation of the Minute which I have mentioned. Whether the

517/
full amount of the present rate is paid now or later is as broad as it is long, but to reduce the sum to be paid now for last year is simply to increase liability which will have to be met in the succeeding year.
The noble Lords who have taken part in this debate mentioned many points of detail, to which I think your Lordships will not expect me to allude. Indeed, I must apologise for having been obliged to lay before you so many figures and so much detail in regard to this comparatively small matter, though it is a matter of very great importance to those whom it concerns. This is just an illustration of the fallacy of taking these parishes as indicative of the conditions prevailing throughout Scotland, and even throughout the crofter districts of Scotland. There was a vein of hostility running through the whole of Lord Camperdown's speech upon the crofter system. He never allowed an opportunity to pass without an inference or an implication that the crofter system was a bad system and ought to be brought to an end as soon as possible; and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, seemed to suggest that the operations of the Congested Districts Board were of an eleemosynary nature and were making great havoc with the morale and character of the crofter population of Scotland. That has often been said during these discussions. It is not yet realised that there is as wide a difference between the crofter of the west coast and the crofter of the east coast as there is between the crofter of the west coast and the farmer of the south, and I trust that there will be no support for the general and sweeping charges that were suggested by the noble Earl against the whole crofter system.
It is not the case, as the noble Lord suggests, that the crofters of Scotland are as a body either a helpless or a hopeless population. Proprietors who have spoken to me of their crofter tenants have told me that they are the best paying tenants on their properties. And considering that there are between 21,000 and 25,000 statutory crofters, and that the very large proportion of them are men who pay their way and bring up their families and do well in the world, it is to adopt an altogether erroneous view of what the crofter is and what the crofter will be capable of, to accept the description of him which has been vouchsafed this evening. These
518
crofters are the backbone of the Highlands, and those who speak of them in a derogatory way or who describe their condition as hopeless do not remember the condition of the Highlands some twenty-five years ago. You may look in the Reports of the Crofters Commission, who perambulate the Highlands in the discharge of their duties, and in every Report you will see the most gratifying indications, of an improvement in the well-being and the prosperity of the crofter population. Their houses are being improved, their conditions are being improved, and it is undoubtedly an illustration of the advantage of security of tenure and of fair rent that so much progress in the crofter population should have taken place. I do not think there was any other point raised in the speeches which have been made. But if further information is desired by your Lordships on any point in connection with this Report. I shall be glad to endeavour to give it.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, there is important business before your Lordships' House, and I shall not detain you for more than a moment. Moreover, my noble friend Lord Clinton, in the course of what seemed to me to be a most admirable speech, expressed so ably the views which occur, I think, to most reasonable persons with regard to this crofter problem, that I may well spare myself and your Lordships the trouble of recapitulating them. I thought the noble Lord who speaks for the Scottish Office was rather unfair to my noble friend Lord Camperdown, when he taxed him just now with having made a speech which amounted to what I think he called a sweeping charge against. the Scottish crofters.
LORD PENTLAND: Against the crofter system.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I do not think that was at all the object of my noble friend. I, at any rate, do not bear any part in any such charge. What my noble friend did was to call the attention of the House to certain recent operations of the Congested Districts Board, and I must say I think that the facts which my noble friend laid before the House amply justified him in the course which he adopted. The noble Lord opposite suggested that things might have happened differently if the Congested Districts Board had been otherwise constituted

519
and he said that there would have been a reconstitution of the Board had it not been for the action of this House. I confess I do not see that that observation really has much bearing on the case before us. We have no reason to believe that the policy of the present Board is one which is repudiated by His Majesty's Ministers, or that a reconstituted Board would have dealt differently with the problem before them. My noble friend's picture of the condition of things which obtains in some of these districts was a most alarming one. Summed up in half a dozen words, what he had to tell us was that within those particular districts there was insolvency, contempt for the law, and failure on the part of His Majesty's Government to enforce the law. That summarises in half a dozen words the indictment, if it be one, of my noble friend.
The noble Lord opposite did not, I think, unless perhaps quite at tae conclusion of his speech, give us much hope that this condition of things was likely to be much improved. He was not able to tell us that the particular tenants whose cases my noble friend cited were likely to pass from a condition of insolvency to a condition of solvency. He was not able to tell us that the instalments of capital which were due from them were likely to be repaid. He did not hold out, as far as I understood him, any prospect that these people really would, by the action of the Congested Districts Board, be turned into a thriving and self-supporting community. The noble Lord seemed to me to be under a rather mistaken view of what really constitutes the relief of congestion, because he dwelt with great pride on the case of the island of Vatersay, which he said. not long ago was inhabited by two families numbering perhaps ten people but upon which there were now 150 people. That does not to my mind prove the case at all. The question is whether these 150 people are likely to be a self-supporting and economically-constituted community. My noble friend's point is this, that in your well-intentioned efforts to relieve congestion you really may be creating congestion.
Let me say that I, for one, cordially welcome the attempts of the Congested Districts Board to improve the condition of these poor people, and I should certainly not condemn the Board merely because in the initial stages of these transactions public
520
money was generously spent by them perhaps without very much prospect of the whole of it coming back to the public pocket. But there is all the difference in the world between such initial generosity and the perpetuation of a state of things under which these people will become a chronic drain either upon the public purse or upon the purse of the ratepayers. The noble Earl told us a great deal that certainly created in my mind the impression that in some of these cases, at any rate, the operations of the Board had been not only extravagant but unsuccessful. The fact is that the creation of small holdings, no matter in what part of the United Kingdom, cannot be successfully carried out unless those conditions which Lord Clinton so well described are present—that is to say, a suitable soil, a suitable climate, and a population inclined to thrift and agriculture—conditions which would enable these people to profit permanently by your beneficence at the outset.
The danger of dealing rashly with these questions is that, while you may or may not relieve those persons for whose benefit these schemes are undertaken, you may create great hardship and injustice to others. You create great hardship, for example, it seems to me, upon those owners of land who are virtually compelled to surrender their property and to cut it up for conversion into what we should describe in Ireland as uneconomic holdings. You create a great hardship upon the ratepayers, whose burden is already a heavy one and who see that burden increased by these processes. The noble Lord when he was dealing with Lord Camperdown's statement as to the expenditure on schools, said "Oh, that was not the fault of the Congested Districts Board; it was the fault of the local authorities." But I take it that if a number of heads of families with their children are planted down upon one of these islands it is the bounden duty of the local authorities to provide a school for their children, and the increase in the school expenditure and in the school rate follows automatically upon the action of the Board. That is inseparable from the transaction.
My Lords, I will only say before I sit down that I earnestly hope the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland will bear in mind the suggestions which have been laid before him to-night, and that when he comes to deal

521
next year, as we understand he intends to do, with further measures affecting the position of these crofters, he will at any rate remember that there are considerable interests at stake, and that mistaken generosity may be in the end not only very injurious to other classes of the community, but even to the very class for whose benefit it is intended.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I will only trouble your Lordships with a word or two in reply. I am afraid I failed to convey to the noble Lord the Secretary for Scotland the meaning of my Motion. My Motion did not refer to the crofter system as a whole. Every remark I made referred to crofters in the Western Islands, and all that part of the noble Lord's speech which was bestowed to the general crofter system may, if I may say so respectfully, be regarded as wholly out of place. The case I put to the noble Lord was this. I asked, "Have the Government settlements in the Western Islands succeeded?" and I adduced a number of facts which I do not think were ever contested. And going further I asked, "Have settlements which have been made by private proprietors succeeded?" I mentioned all those that I knew, and submitted to your Lordships that there was no proof whatever that they were succeeding, and that such proof as there was went entirely in the other direction. Then the noble Lord said to me "Do you disapprove of our purchasing Vatersay?" No, I highly approve of it, and, as he said, I advocated it. Then he asked, "Do you disapprove of our giving Lady Cathcart a fair price for Vatersay?" No, my Lords, I do not at all disapprove of that. On the contrary, I should have replied in rather uncomplimentary terms possibly to the noble Lord if he had done otherwise. What I did say was this—it was merely a remark in passing—what a strange thing it was that the nobleLord, having for two or three years entirely refused to have anything to do with the purchase of Vatersay, should all of a sudden turn round and for some reason, which I think I can guess at but which is hidden from public cognisance, reverse his whole policy and purchase Vatersay. That is what I intended to animadvert upon, and I must say it still occasions me considerable surprise.
Then when the noble Lord came to the question of relief he said that your Lordships must remember that these islands have received considerable relief under the Old
522
Age Pensions Act. Does he not see what a satire that is on the principle of crofters' settlements in the Western Islands? He says, "As soon as my crofters become seventy years of age they are people who require 5s. a week, because they have got nothing." He puts that argument to us, but it bears entirely the other way. Then he says the school board and the parish council are strongly to blame because they went to law with each other. How could they help it? The law says that the school board is to demand the sum which it thinks necessary for the educational requirements of the parish. The school board demanded £1,600, and the parish council said it was impossible to levy that sum. The noble Lord says, "Oh, but why could not they make a settlement by agreement?" When you have a sum to levy you must either levy it or not levy it. As for saying it is possible to agree, that is just one of those inconclusive arrangements and settlements which the noble Lord is always advocating, and I must confess that it appears to me to be one of the chief reasons why he so constantly finds himself in trouble.
With regard to the £1,600, I simply say, Divide the £1,600 into any number of shillings and sixpences, or anything else, £1,600 is £1,600, and it has to be levied, and to be levied on a rental of £6,000 a year. When the noble Lord spoke about school rates he had the most airy ideas. He spoke of a rate of 2s. 6d. and 3s. 4d., and so on, as if it was nothing. I wonder what his ideas about squatters and school rates really are. I mentioned a great many individual cases, but the noble Lord, in the course of his reply, never alluded to one of them. He never attempted to say that these squatters at Vatersay had not bested him. My Lords, they have; and there they will remain. With regard to the rest of the speech of the noble Lord, I think at this late hour it would not do for me to occupy your Lordships' time in further remarks. I beg to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BISHOPRICS BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, if I do not detain your Lordships at any length in moving the Second Reading of

523
this Bill, I am sure you will not think that it is due to any failure on my part to appreciate the importance and urgency of the subject with which it attempts to deal, but because of the fact that only last year I had the honour of passing through your Lordships' House a Bill on this subject of which this is a copy. Therefore I need not this evening go at any length into the arguments in favour of some change in the law. It has always been felt by members of the Church of England that the Bishop is necessarily the head of all spiritual work and organisation in his diocese, and from time to time attempts have been made, some within our own time, to add to the facility with which that work may be performed by subdividing the dioceses which have outgrown the power of any one man to cope with owing to the growth of population in this country. Nine such dioceses have been established within the last thirty or forty years, I believe.
It may be asked why cannot we be content to go on with the existing law, or why it is necessary to alter the law in order to facilitate the creation of new Bishoprics where such Bishoprics are required. Any one who has considered this subject at all and examined the present position of the Church of England must be alive to the fact that not a few of the existing dioceses have quite outgrown the capacity of any one man to deal with. It is not too much to say that men of the highest capacity and ability are completely overwhelmed at the present moment in some of these dioceses by the mere machinery of organisation and jurisdiction, and have absolutely no time whatever to attend to that pastoral and personal work which is, perhaps, after all, the best work which falls to the hand of any right rev. Prelate in this country.
Under the present law it requires legislation not merely to establish a new Bishopric, but even to alter the boundaries of a Bishopric or to interfere in any way with the income of an existing Bishop. When I represented Bristol in the House of Commons I naturally took great interest in the foundation of the new Bishopric of Bristol. I think I was responsible for the Act which established the Bishopric; but when that was clone it was found necessary to alter the boundaries of the diocese. That required a new Act; and in the third year it was considered advisable that the contribution from the income of the Bishop of Gloucester
524
and Bristol should be somewhat larger than the contribution which had been laid down in the original Act. That required a third Bill to carry it into effect. I had the greatest difficulty, though all these Bills were practically unopposed, in carrying them through the House of Commons because, owing to the arrangement of business in that House, any one member could practically stop the progress of a Bill of the kind. Only last session when a very strong case indeed was made before the House of Commons for the establishment of a Bishopric of Sheffield, though that Bill obtained very general assent, it was found impossible, for reasons of the kind to which I have alluded, to pass it into law.
There is another reason why the present system requires amendment. When legislation has to be of the present fragmentary character merely for the constitution of a single Bishopric, it is impossible that a general scheme may be thought out and supported in the country which would be greatly to the advantage of the Church of England by a proper subdivision of many existing dioceses. Therefore the proposals of this Bill are simply these, that in future it may be lawful for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, with the assent of the Archbishop of the Province and the Bishop of any diocese affected, to present to the Privy Council a draft Order in Council for the constitution of one or more new Bishoprics, which draft Order shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament. The funds must necessarily be provided by the subscriptions of members of the Church of England, or by some deduction from the income of any existing Bishopric on the first vacancy. Nothing can be taken under this Bill from the common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the establishment of a Bishopric. The Bill proposes that the draft Order should lie on the Table of each House of Parliament for thirty days, and if during that time any objection is taken by either House, no further procedure can be taken under the Order, and the matter has to be remitted for fresh consideration to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Then there is another proposal in the Bill for the establishment in a similar way of deans and chapters in eight of the nine new dioceses which have been founded in recent years a d in the new dioceses to be subsequently founded; and further, for an amendment of the Bishops Resignation Act, 1869, which stereotypes the provision of pensions

525
The Bill provides that by an Order in Council the pension may be fixed at whatever sum may be considered right., subject, of course, to the existing interest of the present incumbents.
Those are the simple provisions of this Bill, and in proof of the necessity for them I may, in a few sentences, tell your Lordships what. would be possible within about a year of its passing, if it should become law in the present year. First of all, the great. diocese of York, containing two millions of population, could be divided by the establishment of a Bishopric of Sheffield, which has a population of 840,000, and, I believe, practically the whole of the sum necessary for the establishment of a Bishopric of Sheffield has been already subscribed. Then the diocese of St. Albans, containing a population of 1,336,000, 630 benefices, and 1,050 clergy; the diocese of Ely, extending over three and a-half counties, and with 763 clergy; and the diocese of Norwich, which now contains both the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, with 890 benefices and 1,000 clergy—these could be divided by the establishment of two new Bishoprics, one for Suffolk and one for Essex. I believe that everything necessary has been already subscribed in Hertfordshire and Essex, and nearly all in Suffolk; and the subscriptions have come in not merely from wealthy members of the Church but from a very large number of Churchmen within the dioceses that I have named. That is only one of the schemes that could be carried out if Parliament would enable the powers to be conferred on the Privy Council which I have proposed in this Bill. I do not know that it is necessary for me to say anything more in commendation of the Bill to your Lordships, because last year it was passed without the faintest opposition, and therefore I hope I need not detain you longer in moving the Second Reading of the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I wish to enter a caveat with regard to this Bill. I have no objection to the general principle embodied in the speech of the noble Viscount. My point is that in legislating you ought not to invade private rights beyond what is necessary in order to give effect to the purpose of the Bill. I wish to call attention to the proposal in this Bill,
526
which is quite a new one, to take away compulsorily the rights of patronage, merely paying the patron compensation for the loss. That was not found to be at all necessary in the recent Acts which created the Bishoprics of Newcastle, Liverpool, and Wakefield, and later the Bishoprics of Southwark and Birmingham. You do not alway compensate a patron by paying him compensation, because he has an interest in connection with the appointment of the minister to the church; and in several cases where it was wished to create a new Bishopric the church that might, owing to its antiquity and dignity, be selected as the cathedral, might be in the hands of a patron who would be extremely indignant at being deprived of his patronage. When creating Bishoprics I feel it I o be very desirable that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should, as far as is compatible, have a free hand, but I see no necessity for this invasion of the rights of patrons, and patrons who take a great interest in their patronage will be very jealous of their rights. To take the case of Keble College, for instance, which enjoys a valuable trust for making appointments, they would not like to have that power taken from them.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: Might I point out to the noble Lord that this was in the Bill last year.
LORD SHEFFIELD: I am aware of that, and I spoke to the noble Viscount in private about it and made my objection to it then. There is one other point that I should like to have cleared up. There is no provision in this Bill expressly stating that the patronage of these deans and chapters if they are created should be in the Crown. But that is a small point. I conclude by repeating that I think this is an unnecessary invasion of the rights of patronage and that the point should be dealt with at the next stage of the Bill.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I am satisfied that the merits of the Bill, together with the extremely lucid speech of the noble Viscount, will be sufficient to secure its Second Reading at your Lordships' hands. I regret that my most rev. brother the Archbishop of Canterbury is unable to be present owing to indisposition. He would have wished to testify to his sense of the importance of this measure. I cannot think that the

527
observations which have just fallen from the noble Lord are likely to affect in any way your Lordships' desire to give a Second Reading to the Bill. The point that he mentioned is arguable, and one which may well be discussed in Committee. It only touches, if he will forgive my saying so, in the most fractional way the really important and vital matter which is submitted to your Lordships' House. At this late hour it is quite unnecessary for me to speak at any length on the importance of the matter, but it affects vitally the efficiency of the Church of England. The Bishoprics Bill may sound a simple and uninspiring thing, but that is really what is at stake. If the Church of England has a work to do it is worth while that it should be able to do it well, and whether or not it is to do it well depends upon the reality, the vigour, the efficiency of this diocesan system.
The noble Viscount was entirely within the mark when he said that owing to the growth of the population, owing, perhaps, quite as much to the complexity of the problems with which the Church of England has to deal, and, happily, to the growth of the standard of work which the Church of England is expected to fulfil, there are many dioceses at the present time in England in which it is impossible for the Bishop with the best will in the world, to fulfil his office adequately. It is a difficulty which affects him both in the paternal and in the disciplinary aspects of his work. If he is to be an overseer in point of discipline it is at least necessary that he should see, and if he is to be a father among the people it is necessary that he should be seen. Neither of these conditions can at present be properly fulfilled in many cases. I say nothing of the effect of the present system upon the health of Bishops; that is comparatively a minor matter. I think more might be said of the difficulty of securing in this burden of administrative detail the time necessary for thought and reading, which are essential to any one who is called upon to occupy the position of a Bishop. I would urge that it is a matter which concerns not only the Bishops and the Clergy but the people themselves. Happily there is everywhere a growth of corporate spirit, and that corporate spirit depends for its vitality upon the presence in the midst of the people of a Bishop who is something more than a dignitary appearing at intervals on some ceremonial occasion.
528
I can speak from personal experience, both of the need of the creation of new Bishoprics and of the inadequacy of the present method of procedure. As the noble Viscount has reminded your Lordships, my own huge and unwieldy diocese cries out for subdivision. It is quite impossible for me, even with the aid of that inestimable diocesan agent the motor-car, to undertake the supervision of a population of nearly two millions of people, of 660 benefices, and more than 1,000 clergy, and of an area 100 miles long and forty-five broad, together with all the duties that belong to my office as the Archbishop of the Province. It is proposed, as the noble Viscount said, to create a diocese in Sheffield. No one objects to it in Yorkshire. Every one is cordially in favour of it, even the Nonconformists. At the first meeting a Nonconformist Lord Mayor was in the chair, and he has taken the most active interest in the question ever since. From first to last I have scarcely heard of any objection from any one on the spot. The proposed diocese satisfies all the necessary conditions. It contains a homogeneous population of manufacturing and coal producing people, and it has an obvious and proper centre in the great city of Sheffield. The money has been generously subscribed; £50,000 is required, of which £40,000 practically has already been subscribed. It is only in another place that any difficulty has occurred. Here is the need for a separate diocese, and the means provided by which a separate diocese can be formed. When I speak of the means I ought to mention that £1,000 a year is to be taken from the income of the Archdiocese of York. The Archbishop himself and the people are not only agreed that the thing should take place, but are themselves subscribing the money by which it can be realised.
Now I come to the inadequacy of the present system of procedure. We introduced a separate Sheffield Bishopric Bill in another place. There was everything in its favour. His Majesty's Government expressed their desire that it should pass; the ballot was favourable; the course of the Bill was as easy as could be expected; but at the last moment it fell a victim to the risks and pitfalls inevitable to the passing of a private Bill through the House of Commons. The effect of that failure has, of course, been extraordinarily depressing upon those who have subscribed such a large sum of money. But it is worse

529
than that. It means that until such a Bill can get through Parliament the whole Church life and work of that district is arrested. New beginnings are impossible, and until the Bill passes there is inevitable stagnation. In these circumstances I think it is not too much to ask that facilities should be offered to enable these new Bishoprics to be created without the tedium and uncertainty and the general paralysis of the work of the Church which ensue upon the present position. I will not at this hour even venture to anticipate objections that can be brought. I do not think that in this House they will be brought at all on any question of principle. The principle is obvious; the need is urgent in many places. There are at the present moment, as the noble Viscount has said this evening, three Bishoprics already needed and waiting to be created—Sheffield, Essex, and Suffolk; and where there is no principle that can be questioned, and where no public money is involved, not even from the common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and. where no living soul suffers any grievance whatever, our plea is that the administration should be rendered as simple as the principle is sound and the need urgent.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I only rise to repeat the approval of this Bill which I was able to give last year. I think we may all anticipate a favourable reception and passage for it in your Lordships' House. It is in another place that difficulties are likely to occur, but even there I hope the Bill may meet with an atmosphere of good-will which will enable it to pass into law before the conclusion of the session.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

REGENCY BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, this Bill is a rather rare instance of a measure which, I think, in its contents
530
and substance fully commands the assent of all Parties in this House and in another place; yet it is one which it is most devoutly hoped will never come into operation. We, I believe, should all agree, if the deplorable event should occur which should make the appointment of a Regent necessary, that Her Majesty Queen Mary is the person upon whom the choice of the nation would unanimously fall, not only owing to the fact that the mother of a young Sovereign is obviously the person to whom in his inexperienced years he should look for counsel and support, but also owing to the character and attainments of Her. Majesty herself. The Bill, except in one trivial respect, follows the course indicated by precedent. After nominating Her Majesty Queen Mary as Regent, it states that she would be called 'upon to take certain oaths of office. It provides that the marriage of the Sovereign during the Regency is forbidden without the consent of the Regent in writing, and the assent of both Houses of Parliament; and provision is also made that if the Regent should become reconciled to the Church of Rome, or should marry a person professing the Roman Catholic religion, or should absent herself, except temporarily, from the Kingdom, her office should cease.
The only clause to which I need draw special attention is Clause 4, which provides that—
"The Regent shall not give or have power to give the Royal Assent to any Bill for repealing, changing, or in any respect varying, the order or course of succession to the Crown of this realm, as established by the Act of Settlement, or to any Bill for repealing or altering an Act of the fifth year of the reign of Queen Anne, made in Scotland, intituled ' An Act for securing the Protestant religion and Presbyterian government.'"
As the Bill was originally introduced in another place the clause contained a safeguard against the altering of the Act of Uniformity. In the course of the debate in another place, the general sense of the House being taken, the provision as regards the Act of Uniformity and also as regards the Act of Queen Anne relating to Scotland were taken out of the Bill. That fact caused the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, when the question of this Bill came before the House some time ago, to announce that he would enter a protest. Now, however, the noble Lord, I am sure, will be satisfied with the form that both the Bill and its Schedule have taken. As regards the Act of Uni-

531
formity, I gather that little or no protest was made in another place at the omission of the words safeguarding that. Act, and some reasons were adduced why it would be more convenient that it should not be expressly included. The point, I think, is a very small one, and I do not anticipate that any of your Lordships would desire to re-introduce the words relating to that Act on this occasion. It only remains for me to ask your Lordships to read the Bill a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Earl of Crewe.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am sure that there can be only one feeling in your Lordships' House and that is that hour Lordships give your most hearty and cordial assent to the proposal which the noble Earl the Leader of the House has made. There is, I think, no proposition in which your Lordships would more cordially join than in. this one. We feel that the Government have been well advised, in the lamentable possibility which we do not. care to contemplate, in naming Her Majesty Queen Mary as the Regent who should bear the grave responsibility which would then fall upon that office.
I only rose to mention that there appears o be one small omission at the end of Clause 5, upon which I shall offer an Amendment when the Bill gets into Committee. I do not desire to detain your Lordships upon it now, beyond pointing out that in the possibility contemplated under Clause 5—a remote and almost. absurd possibility—of providing for another Regent, the Government have not provided any Regent to take Queen Mary's place. In those circumstances this appears to me on the face of it to be an omission, but if the Government can explain it when we get. into Committee I shall not press the matter.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, on that point I need only say that I shall consider the matter and deal with the Amendment when it is placed upon the Paper. I believe as a matter of fact that precedent has been followed in this clause as also in other clauses of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House Tomorrow.

TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment, and to be read 3ª To-morrow.
ALDERMEN IN MUNICIPAL BOROUGHS BILL.
  DUKE OF YORK'S SCHOOL (CHAPEL) BILL.
    PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
    Read 3ª (according to order), and passed.

MIDWIVES (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to order).
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The Amendments which were agreed to yesterday by your Lordships' House were not quite in a form that would commend themselves to people who like an Act of Parliament to be strictly accurate. The whole purpose of these Amendments will be readily seen on referring to them. It is simply to make the Bill more symmetrical than it was left when your Lordships' Amendments were passed. We wish to secure, in the first place, that the midwife shall be a certified midwife; and with regard to the others, instead of putting "one person appointed by the Royal British Nurses Association" in one subsection we have moved her to another where that person will find herself in company with others who are to be appointed.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 17, after ("a") insert ("certified").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I think your Lordships will now see that the other Amendments are perfectly simple. The person will be moved into the other clause, instead of leaving him or her where he or she is rather out of place.
Amendments moved—
Clause 1, page 1, lines 18 and 19, leave out ("and" one person by the Royal British Nurses Association")
Clause 1, page 1, line 20, leave out ("four") and insert ("five")
Clause 1, page 1, line 23, after ("Health") insert ("one by the Royal British Nurses Association").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Bill to be read 3ª on Monday next, and to be printed as amended. (No. 143.)

LICENSING (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment.
LORD SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I think I shall be expressing the opinion of all the members of the Committee who sat on this Bill if I take this opportunity of saying that we pay the greatest tribute to the draftsman, whose labours we consider are entitled to the highest praise.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that is a most deserved and proper tribute.
Bill to be read 3ªTo-morrow.

MINES ACCIDENTS (RESCUE AND AID) BILL.
Read 3ª(according to order), and passed.

CHILDREN ACT (1908) AMENDMENT BILL.
Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3ª To-morrow.
House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, Four o'clock.