Sitting of 21 July 1913

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Local Authorities Contributions (Crystal Palace) Bill (No Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 17th day of July, That, in the case of the following Bill, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—
Local Authorities Contributions (Crystal Palace) Bill.
Bournemouth Gas and Water Bill,
Great Northern Railway Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered upon Friday.
Rhondda Tramways (Railless Traction) Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
Manchester Ship Canal Bill [Lords],
To be read the third time To-morrow.
Ascot Authority Bill [Lords],
Leicester Corporation Bill [Lords],
Metropolitan Water Board Bill [Lords],
Watney, Combe, Reid, and Company Bill [Lords],
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [Lords],
Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Trade Boards Act Provisional Orders Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.
Pilotage Order Confirmation Bill.
"To confirm a Pilotage Order made by the Board of Trade under the Pilotage Act, 1913, relating to the London District of the Corporation of the Trinity House of Deptford Strond." Presented by Mr. JOHN ROBERTSON.
Ordered, That Standing Order 193a be suspended, and the Bill be now read the first time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 268]

EGYPT (No. 3, 1913).
Copy presented of Despatch from His Majesty's Agent and Consul General at Cairo transmitting the Organic and Electoral Laws of Egypt, promulgated 21st July, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRUSTEES SAVINGS BANKS.
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 11th July; Sir Frederick Banbury]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 214.]
INEBRIATES ACTS (INSPECTOR'S REPORT (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Ninth Report of the Inspector for Ireland under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900, for the year 1912 (with Appendices); to lie upon the Table.
CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND).
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 6th May; Mr. Staveley-Hill]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 215.]
DEATHS FROM STARVATION OR ACCELERATED BY PRIVATION (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 15th January, 1913; Mr. Herbert Lewis]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 216.]

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the Councils of the under-mentioned local authorities, and confirmed by the Secretary of State of the Home Department, under the Act,—
County of Devon (parish of St. Nicholas, Shaldon);
County of Durham (urban district of Seaham Harbour);
County of Cornwall (parish of Mevagissey); and
Borough of Worcester
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

BAHAMAS.
Copy presented of Rules for the Government of the Prisons within the Bahama Islands made by the Governor in Council on 12th August, 1912, and amended on 10th March, 1913 and 9th June, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS MEDICAL SERVICE COMMITTEE.
Copy presented of Minutes of Evidence of the Committee appointed by the Treasury to inquire into the provision of Medical Attendance in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, with Index to Evidence. Vol. II. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EXTENSION OF POLLING HOURS BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 270.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES.
Mr. FENWICK reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (in respect of the National Insurance Act (1911) Amendment Bill): Mr. Oliver Locker-Lampson; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson.
Report to lie upon the Table.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (CERTIFICATES) BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 271.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Amendments to—
Metropolitan District Railway Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
McBride's Divorce Bill [Lords],
That they communicate the Minutes of Evidence taken upon the Second Reading of the above Bill, as desired by this House, with a request that the same may be returned.

MARCONI'S WIRELESS TELEGRAPH COMPANY, LIMITED.
Copy Ordered "of Agreement between Marconi's Wireless Telegraph Company, Limited, Commendatore Guglielmo Marconi, and the Postmaster-General, with regard to the establishment of a Chain of Imperial Wireless Stations; together with a copy of the Treasury Minute thereon."—[Mr. Masterman.]

LONDON (EQUALISATION OF RATES) ACT, 1894 (ACCOUNTS UNDER SECTION 1 (7) OF THE ACT).
Return ordered "showing, according to the Accounts for the twelve months preceding the 31st day of March, 1913, furnished to the Local Government Board under Section 1 (7) of the London (Equalisation of Rates) Act, 1894:
(1) The amounts paid during the year out of the Equalisation Fund under the Act to the Councils of Metropolitan Boroughs;
(2) The amount of the expenses incurred during the year by the Councils to whom such payments were made (a) under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891 (including expenses of scavenging streets); (b) in respect of lighting; and (c) in respect of streets (other than the expenses of scavenging); and
(3) The amounts expended during the year by the Councils out of the sums received by them under the Act (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 286, of Session 1912–13)." —[Mr. Herbert Lewis.]

SANATORIA.
Return ordered "of Sanatoria approved by the Local Government Board under the National Insurance Act, 1911, for England and Wales."—[Mr. Grant.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Treaty of London.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Enos-Midia frontier, as fixed by the Treaty of London, had the express sanction of the Powers; whether its violation is therefore an insult to the Powers, similar to that which they remedied by force in the case of Montenegro; and whether he can state what steps are proposed by the Powers to obtain respect for their decision?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The Enos-Midia frontier was fixed by a treaty signed by Turkey and the Allied Balkan States in London. That treaty was made under the auspices of the Powers when they were mediating between Turkey and the Balkan States. The Turkish Government till within the last few days more than once disclaimed the intention of violating the new frontier and strong representations were made to them by the Powers to dissuade them from doing so. In view of the latest information in the Press the subject must occupy the attention of the Powers, but I cannot state what action they may agree and decide to take.
  Mr. N. BUXTON: May I ask whether His Majesty's Government adhere to the principle laid down by Lord Salisbury that no territory, once ceded by the Turkish Government should be resubmitted to Turkish rule?
  Mr. ACLAND: My hon. Friend had better put that question on the Paper, and ask my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May I ask whether action is being immediately taken by Great Britain in common with the other Powers?
  Mr. ACLAND: The matter is being discussed by the Ambassadors this afternoon.
  Mr. MORRELL: May I ask whether the Turks 'have actually reached Adrianople?
  Mr. ACLAND: I cannot say.

  Asiatic Turkey.
  Mr. ANNAN BRYCEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government is still negotiating with Turkey with regard to the appointment of British officials in the Asiatic provinces; and to what extent are such British services to be utilised by the Turkish Government?
  Mr. ACLAND: This question has been suspended pending the consideration of reforms which is now engaging the attention of the representatives at Constantinople.

  Cattle Diseases.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state what are the tropical and sub-tropical diseases against which it is proposed to immunise British livestock by inoculation at the Gevernment cattle-testing station at Pirbright prior to their exportation abroad?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis, for the President of the Board of Agriculture): My right lion. Friend desires me to say that the diseases are Redwater and Anaplasmosis. Work will also be carried on at the laboratory with a view to making it possible to immunise against other diseases which militate against the exportation of British pedigree stock.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if, in the opinion of his expert advisers the system of inoculation either with live or dead bacilli as a means of immunisation against or as a remedy for epizootic abortion, as practised by farmers in Cornwall or elsewhere, has proved successful or is likely so to do; and whether, in the light of further scientific knowledge of this disease the Board has abandoned the idea

  1677
  of compulsory notification and departmental restrictions in connection with this disease?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: The experiments and investigations which are being conducted on behalf of the Board are not yet complete, and although there is reason from present indications to hope that the results will prove satisfactory, the Board do not yet feel themselves justified in compelling farmers against their wishes, to accept the recommendations of the Departmental Committee.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the information in the hands of the Board shows that Johnes's disease amongst either cattle or sheep is still on the increase in Great Britain; in what parts of the country is it most prevalent; whether the ætiology and true nature of the disease have yet been determined; and whether any effective means, either of prevention or cure, have yet been discovered?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: Johnes's disease, not being a notifiable disease under the Diseases of Animals Acts, it is impossible to give a definite answer to the first part of the question, but there is ample evidence that it is a comparatively common disease of cattle in all parts of the country. The answer to the third part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the last part it is in the negative. The disease, however, is still being investigated by the Board.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Committee of Inquiry which was dispatched by the Board to India last year to conduct research as to the nature and methods of transmission of foot-and-mouth disease have completed their labours and returned to this country; if not, how much longer is their inquiry likely to last; who are the present members of the Committee; and whether they have presented any interim or other Report to the Board?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: The Commission consists of Professor Sir John McFadyean, principal of the Royal Veterinary College, London; Professor A. R. Mettam, of the Royal Veterinary College of Ireland, and Sir Stewart Stockman, the chief veterinary officer of the Board, with Mr. Wragg, one of the Board's veterinary officers, as secretary. The investigation
  1678
  in India has been completed, but the further proceedings of the Commission must be suspended until the return to duty of Sir Stewart Stockman, who, I regret to say, has been seriously ill, and is still unable to attend to business. In these circumstances no interim or other Report has yet been presented to the Board.

  Agricultural Organisation Society.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what are the new Treasury conditions attached to the Grant to the Agricultural Organisation Society for 1913–14?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: The conditions attached to the Grant for 1913–14 are: (1) that more than one-third of sums received by the society during the current year by way of donation or special contribution shall be regarded as subscription income for the purpose of calculating the amount of the Grant from the Development Fund; that the Grant equal to the subscription income shall not in any case exceed £3,000; (2) that except with the consent of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries the society's expenditure shall not substantially depart from the estimate furnished by the society, and, in particular, that not more than £500 be expended for the travelling and subsistence expenses of the governors. It is left to the board of governors to decide within that limit on what scale and conditions such expenses shall be refunded; and (3) that the society shall not enter upon new schemes or extensions of work (even though their initial expense can be defrayed from the income for the current year) which will commit it to an increase of expenditure beyond £12,000 in future years.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, and to what extent, if at all, it will be left to the Agricultural Organisation Society to initiate, develop, and control the agricultural co-operative credit and insurance movement in England and Wales or whether, alternatively, the society will be expected to carry out the instructions of The Board in relation to such matters?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: My right hon. Friend has asked me to say that it is impossible in answer to a Parliamentary question to define the functions of the Agricultural Organisation Society and the relations between that society and the

  1679
  Board. But he proposes to deal fully with the subject in the Debate on the Board's Vote on Thursday.

  Small Holdings.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture how many agricultural holdings of 50 acres and less there are in England and Wales; how many of these are statutory small holdings formed under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908; and what proportion of the total number of agricultural holdings of all sizes in England and Wales do they represent?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: The number of agricultural holdings in England and Wales exceeding 1 acre and not exceeding 50 acres in extent, according to the latest available Returns, is 292,720. On 31st December last the number of holdings provided under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, was 10,192, amounting to 132,601 acres. This number represented 2.34 per cent., and the number given, in answer to the first part of the question, represented 67.16 per cent. of the total number of holdings in England and Wales exceeding 1 acre. I may add that the amount of land comprised in schemes and compulsory Orders notified or submitted to the Board up to the 12th instant is 170,918 acres, which, at the average size of 13 acres, would provide for a total of 13,150 holdings, equal to 3 per cent. of the total number of holdings.

  Insurance Companies (Payment of Claims).
  Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he will introduce legislation which will prevent insurance companies from insuring the stock of farmers in Scotland, accepting their premiums, and refusing when the claims become exigible to carry out the bargain except after expensive compulsion?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I am not aware that there is any necessity for legislation on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend. The answer to the question is, therefore, in the negative.
  Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an insurance company having its headquarters in Scotland adopts this method of doing business as part of a system?
  Mr. URE: If that is so, there is the remedy of the Law Courts.
  Mr. BOOTH: Is not the remedy for the Scottish farmers to insure in a proper company?
  Mr. URE: Obviously that is one remedy.

  Inverurie Schools (Religious Instruction).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary for Scotland if the Department's instructions in connection with religious teaching at the Inverurie schools and the time-table authorised by the school board for religious instruction had been submitted for approval to the Scottish Board; whether he is aware that religious instruction is being given after the roll call; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
  Mr. URE: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a letter which has been sent to the Inverurie School Board with regard to this matter. I have no reason to suppose that the approved time-table is not now being adhered to.

  Prisons (Hospital Staffs).
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Home Secretary whether at present the members of the hospital staffs of His Majesty's prisons must serve twelve years before they can be entitled to the benefits of Grade I. in the prison service, while warders belonging to Grade II. can obtain these benefits after eight years, and the civil guard and night watchmen after ten years' service; and, if so, whether he can see his way, in view of the character of the duties of the nursing staff, to place the members of the nursing staffs in His Majesty's prisons on the same terms as regards promotion as apply to warders of Grade II.?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The matter is under consideration, and I hope it will be possible to make some readjustment which will be satisfactory to the officers concerned, but I am not at present in a position to say anything definite.

  Stratford Conviction (Swan and Cassidy).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the case of two men, named Swan and

  1681
  Cassidy, who, on Wednesday, 9th July, were convicted of felony before the county justices at Stratford and sentenced to twenty-one days' hard labour; if he is aware that the solicitor for the prosecution read certificates from the clerk of the peace for the county showing that the prisoners were each convicted at the quarter sessions held the previous week on two indictments for burglary, one of the prisoners having then been previously convicted for felony, and stated that there was no power for the justices to convict, as the prisoners had each been previously convicted on indictment; and whether, in view of Section 14 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, he will take steps to deal with this sentence and to call the attention of justices to this provision of the law?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have made inquiry in this case and find that no previous convictions were proved before the justices. I am advised that the justices had therefore jurisdiction, with the consent of the prisoners, to deal with the charges, and I see no reason for action on my part.

  Non-Provided Schools (Dismissal of Teachers).
  Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that under the Education Act, 1902, teachers in non-provided schools may not be dismissed without the consent of the local education authority, and that the London County Council and other great authorities have exercised their power of supervision in such a manner as to provide an effective court of appeal for teachers whom the managers propose to dismiss; whether he has any official information showing that the effective courts of appeal set up under the provisions of the Act by the local authorities have worked satisfactorily to all parties; and whether he will consider the advisability of extending the beneficial provisions of the Education Act, 1902, to the schools under the control of the Home Office by giving to local education authorities similar powers over the appointment and dismissal of teachers as they enjoy with respect to teachers in non-provided schools under the Act of 1902?
  Mr. McKENNA: In the case of industrial schools owned by local authorities it is open to the local authority either to delegate to the managers appointed by them the power of appointing and dismissing teachers, or to reserve to themselves a
  1682
  right to control the action of the managers in this matter. These schools are in this respect in the same position as provided elementary schools. The reformatory and industrial schools, however, which are owned by voluntary managers, are not in the same position as non-provided elementary schools. Their relations with local authorities are contractual only, and a dozen or more local authorities in various parts of the country may contract to send children to the same school. It would not, therefore, be practicable to give to local authorities powers over the appointment or dismissal of teachers in such schools.

  Vivisection Experiments (Return).
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked the Home Secretary if there is any special reason for the delay in the publication of the Return of experiments on living animals for last year; and whether, in view of the fact that no proceedings can be taken against a licensee under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, except within six months from the time when the matter of complaint arose, he will see that such Return shall in future be published at an earlier date?
  Mr. McKENNA: There were one or two points connected with this Return which had to be considered in connection with the Report of the Royal Commission, but this has not delayed the publication very much. I explained to my hon. Friend in reply to a question on 8th July, 1912, why the ordinary date for the issue of this Return cannot be accelerated owing to the labour involved; but it is now being printed, and will be in the hands of Members shortly.
  Mr. G. GREENWOOD: Are not these Returns now being issued much later in the year than used to be the case?
  Mr. McKENNA: I cannot say as to a long time past, but they are not later than they have been in recent years.

  >Seaham Colliery (Death).
  Mr. WINGasked the Home Secretary if he will cause inquiries to be made into the circumstances of the death of John Knapp, junior, aged 14, in the Maudlin seam, Seaham Colliery, on 11th June?
  Mr. McKENNA: The accident has already been investigated by one of the inspectors of mines, and the inspector for

  1683
  the division was also present at the inquest when a full inquiry was made into the circumstances. No other person was present when the accident occurred, but it appears probable that the boy overbalanced himself while riding on the limbers and fell in front of the tubs. The road, which is high and wide, was in good order and the pony was a quiet one. There is nothing before me to show that further inquiry would be likely to lead to the disclosure of fresh information.

  Isle of Man (Constitution).
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Home Secretary whether, when the decision of the Government on the recommendations of the Departmental Committee upon the Constitution of the Isle of Man was communicated to the Lieutenant-Governor, he was requested to communicate the decision to the House of Keys; whether it has been communicated; and, if not, whether he will instruct the Lieutenant-Governor to communicate it at as early a date as possible?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Lieutenant-Governor was instructed to prepare Bills for carrying out the recommendations of the Committee and to submit them to the Insular Legislature in due course. The answer to the second question is in the affirmative. The third question does not arise.

  Shetland and Whalsay Mail Service.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Postmaster-General, if, having now ascertained that the mail contractors have paid no compensation to the families of the three persons who lost their lives conveying His Majesty's mails between the island of Whalsay and the mainland of Shetland; and if he will, as principal employer, take into consideration the justice of paying adequate compensation and giving such instruction as will obviate dangerous crossings by small boats and instruct the contractor to convey the mails by steamer?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I would refer the hon. Member to my answers to similar questions on the 4th and 9th June. I would add that ray information is not that compensation has been applied for and refused by the contractors, but that it has not been applied for. In any case I cannot admit that 1 was the "principal employer." The
  1684
  crossing cannot be regarded as dangerous if my information is correct that no similar accident has occurred for 130 years. The use of a boat in place of the regular steamer cannot be dispensed with on certain occasions, without injury to the main packet service, but these occasions are very few, only about two a year at the time when the steamer is withdrawn for annual survey.

  Telephone Service.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the pressing demand of traders and agriculturists in Tisbury and distict for the opening of a telephone exchange there, and of the fact that more than a year has elapsed since an application was made to him by residents at Tisbury for such an exchange, he will take steps to inaugurate it without further delay?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have already authorised the establishment of a telephone exchange at Tisbury and instructions have been issued for the work to be proceeded with. I fear, however, that it will take several months to complete the installation as the Post Office engineers have in hand an unprecedented amount of new construction work.
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Postmaster-General whether the Wallpaper Manufacturers, Limited, of Greenhithe, Kent, after discussing with a representative of the London telephone service the installation of an additional telephone line, sent a signed application to the controller on the 30th May; that this was formally acknowledged on the 31st May; that the applicants wrote on the 13th June asking when they might expect the installation of the new instrument, and the letter was acknowledged on the 14th June, but no information was given; that they wrote again on the 12th July asking to be wired what was being done in the matter and also drawing attention to the fact that one of their extension lines was out of order and required attention; whether these matters have been attended to and, if so, when; and whether he can state the reason for the delay?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The premises of the Wallpaper Manufacturers, Limited, are situated outside the London telephone area, and their application, which was for a circuit to an exchange in that area instead of the proper local exchange, had to be specially considered. A question of

  1685
  principle was involved which might affect a large number of cases of subscribers occupying premises beyond but not distant from the boundary of the London telephone area. A definite reply will be given to the application within a few days. The letter dated the 12th July (Saturday) in which the Wallpaper Manufacturers, Limited, reported that one of their extensions was out of order, was received on the 14th July, and the fault was cleared on that day.

  Tobacco Cultivation (Ireland).
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he can now state the new arrangements made for the cultivation of tobacco in Ireland and the regulations made for this purpose by his Department; and if he will state the financial support to be given to the industry through the Development Commission.?
  Mr. FFRENCHasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he will state what arrangements, if any, have been made for the development of the growth of tobacco in Ireland under the new scheme; whether the Barony Forth growers will be under the direct control of the Department; and if they will be allotted the 25 acres promised to them?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The Treasury have approved of advances not exceeding £35,000 in all being made from the Development Fund for the purpose of experiments in tobacco production in Ireland, covering a period of ten years. These experiments are to begin in 1914, but the conditions under which the advances will be made have not yet been finally settled. It is proposed to allocate an area not exceeding twenty-five acres for a special scheme in cultivation and rehandling, to be carried out by the Wexford Tobacco Growers' Society, directly under the supervision of the Department. The details of this scheme are at present under consideration. An application has been submitted by the Department for a Grant of a second sum of £35,000 for a scheme on the same lines as Sir Nugent Everard's, to be carried out by Lord Dunraven. If this is approved, it is proposed to take the £6,250 required for the Wexford scheme in equal portions from the two £35,000 Grants. This will leave £31,625 each, available for Sir Nugent Everard and Lord Dunraven.
  Mr. FFRENCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware what subsidy per acre the Wexford growers will get under the new scheme?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The whole matter is under consideration by the Department at the present time, and I think that a satisfactory conclusion will be arrived at.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: In considering this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Wexford growers are themselves practical farmers, and that they were amongst the very first to experiment in this industry
  Mr. RUSSELL: It is in view of that fact that we have taken the Wexford farmers under the control of the Department, and not put them under either Lord Dunraven or Sir Nugent Everard.
  sir THOMAS ESMONDE: Will the North Wexford tobacco growers get any subsidy under this scheme?
  Mr. RUSSELL: No. We have £35,000 to give and we expect another £35,000. That is all the money we have.
  sir T. ESMONDE: When the second £35,000 is given, will the North Wexford tobacco growers get anything?
  Mr. RUSSELL: No.

  Post Office Regulations (Grantham).
  Mr. WARDLEasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that policemen in plain clothes were employed by the town clerk of the borough of Grantham, on Wednesday, 9th July, to deliver papers to the burgesses, such papers being unofficial papers, issued without authority of the town council, though they purported to be official voting papers; whether such delivery is in contravention of the Post Office regulations; and, if so, whether he purposes to take steps to bring the irregularity, if any, home to the persons concerned?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: My attention has not previously been called to this Matter, but I am making inquiry in regard to it.

  Imperial Wireless Chain.
  Mr. PIKE PEASEasked the Postmaster-General whether, in the event of a contract being given to one system or more for the Imperial wireless service, he is prepared to grant licences within the limits of the British Isles for the erection

  1687
  of stations to be used in Transatlantic or trans-oceanic work, particularly to the United States, Mexico, and South America, to other companies which may be expected to prove themselves efficient for the conduct of such work?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As indicated in previous answers, I should not be prepared as at present advised, to give licences for stations which would enable private companies to compete with the State-owned service; but as regards Transatlantic traffic, including communication with any part of the American Continent, I should be prepared—subject to reasonable conditions—to grant a licence to any British wireless telegraph company giving adequate proof of financial standing and technical competence.

  Civil Servants (Half-Holiday).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can now announce the decision of the Government upon the question of granting a weekly half-holiday to all Civil servants?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I fear I can add nothing to the answer given by my right hon. Friend on the 17th instant.

  Development Fund (Harbour Improvements).
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can give any information with regard to Grants from the Development Fund to the harbours of Anstruther, Pittenweem, and St. Monan's, respectively?
  Mr. MASTER MAN: I understand that applications for advances in aid of the improvement of the three harbours to which the hon. and gallant Member refers are still under consideration by the Development Commissioners.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Do the Grants from the Development Commissioners depend upon the pressure of Members of Parliament?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The Development Fund was created in order that there might not be any pressure from Members of Parliament.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an idea when a decision will be arrived at?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am afraid I cannot.

  Road Board (Report).
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Secretary to the Treasury if the Report of the Road Board is available for Members; and, if not, when it will be?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am informed by the Road Board that their third annual Report will be presented to the Treasury during the present week. It will be printed and made available for hon. Members without delay.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Will the tight hon. Gentleman try to get the Report printed in time to enable a discussion to take place before the time for Supply is over?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I will consider that point, but I am doing all I can to push on the Report.
  Mr. C. BATHURSThad on the Order Paper the following question:—To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Development Commissioners and the Road Board, or either of them, have under Section 2 (2) of the Development and Road Improvement. Funds Act, 1910, made a scheme providing for the superannuation or other allowances or gratuities for their employés; and whether any such allowances or gratuities have as yet been paid out of the Development Fund or the Road Improvement Fund under any such scheme?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has exhausted his right to put further questions to-day.

  Steamship "Mount Oswald" (Loss).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the judgment given on 15th July at Newcastle at the Board of Trade inquiry into the loss of the steamer "Mount Oswald," which left Baltimore in February, 1912, with a crew of twenty-four and has not been heard of since; whether he is aware that the owners declined to allow the ship to undergo the necessary docking before leaving port; whether he is aware that the Court found that the ship was unseaworthy when the pilot left her before leaving Baltimore; and if he intends taking any action against the owners of the ship?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): My right hon. Friend has not yet received the official report of the Court of Inquiry in this case, and 'he would wish to consider it before coming to any decision in the matter.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN (for Mr. Worthington-Evans)asked the President of the Board of Trade why some twenty men on 19th June, from the fitting shops, smiths' shops, and die makers of James Russell and Sons, Limited, and some eighty men, on 23rd June, from the wheel shop, Old Park Smithy, and Old Park Foundry, of the Patent Shaft and Axle-tree Company, Limited, were allowed unemployment benefit when other but exactly similar cases on 26th June and 3rd July were rejected, one man who was rejected on the latter date doing exactly similar work to that of five men whose claims were allowed on 19th June, all six men being employed in the same department?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I have made inquiries into this matter and am informed that the facts are not quite correctly stated in the question. The only case in which opposite decisions have been given by a Court of Referees as regards the same class of men in the same factory are those of certain men employed by Messrs. James Russell and Sons, Limited. On the 19th June the Court of Referees for the district recommended that benefit should be allowed in regard to certain employés of this firm. The insurance officer did not accept this recommendation, but referred it further to the Umpire, interim benefit being paid in accordance with Section 91 (1) (e) of the National Insurance Act and the Regulations thereunder. On the 3rd July the Court of Referees had to consider the case of other employés of the same firm, and in the light of further information as to the circumstances under which work at the factory was stopped, recommended that benefit should not be allowed, on the ground that the workmen were disqualified under Section 87 (1) of the Act. In the ordinary course the earlier decision of the Court to grant benefit in the other cases would as a consequence have been brought before the Court for their recon
    1690
    sideration in the light of fresh facts laid before them. This was, however, unnecessary, as on the same day the Umpire had reversed the previous decision of the Court and had decided that benefit should not be allowed in any of these cases. The payment of interim benefit was thereupon stopped. I understand that the other cases referred to by the Hon. Member are in different factories, and that the circumstances are in no case the same. In all cases the payment or withholding of benefit has been made in accordance with the decision of a Court of Referees or the Umpire. While I give the above explanation, I must remind the hon. Member that, the Board of Trade have no power to control or influence the decisions of those independent authorities, except in so far as they can promote uniformity of decisions by appeals to the Umpire.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN (for Mr. Worthington-Evans)asked the President of the Board of Trade why employment, benefit allowed on 23rd June to men employed in the wheel shop, Old Park Smithy, and Old Park Foundry, of the Patent Shaft and Axletree Company, Limited, has not been paid to all the men, some having been in receipt of benefit for two weeks and others not having received any payment; and why a number of men were directed to attend daily and sign the unemployment register for five and six weeks before the Court decided that their unemployment was due to a strike, and that they were not entitled to any unemployment benefit?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I am informed that in all the cases referred to the consideration of the claim by the Court of Referees took place within a few days after the lodging of the appeal. In some cases the men did not lodge their appeals till three or four weeks after the insurance officer's decision to disallow benefit was communicated to them. The men mentioned in the question, with one exception, have been paid the full amount of benefit to which they are entitled. In that case it appeared, after the finding of the Court of Referees, that the particular workman concerned was disqualified for benefit on another ground. This case is still the subject of investigation, but arrangements have now been made to pay interim benefit to the workman in accordance with the recommendation of the Court.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of the question: I did not catch any answer to it?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: "Why a number of men were directed to attend daily and sign the unemployment register for five and six weeks before the Court decided that their unemployment was due to a strike, and that they were not entitled to any unemployment benefit." That does state precisely the difficulty which I have mentioned, that the cases are not on all fours with those previously discussed; but I am afraid I cannot go into details now.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Would it not have been possible to show a little more consideration for these men than to expect them to come day after day for five or six weeks and sign the unemployment register; surely, it, was unnecessary to put them-to that inconvenience?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: They were obeying the ordinary rules.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Is it to be considered the ordinary thing that questions of this kind will not be considered within six weeks?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: No, the question, I said, was not delayed. The men did not lodge their appeals till three or four weeks after the insurance officer's decision to disallow the benefit was communicated to them. It is the rule for unemployed men daily to sign the unemployment register.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he is aware that workmen in London who are insured against unemployment under Part II. of the National insurance Act, and who register at the Labour Exchanges as unemployed, are being compelled to accept employment at places from 150 to 250 miles distant from their homes; that if they refuse to go their unemployment benefit is stopped; that this is a hardship upon men with families and a prospect of getting employment in London; that no period of employment is guaranteed them at the places they arc requested to go to; and that there are workmen in the same trade registering as unemployed at Labour Exchanges in towns scores of miles nearer the places where the workmen are required than London; and whether, in view of these facts, he will take steps to prevent workmen being compelled to accept employment under the circumstances mentioned or to forfeit their unemployment benefit?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: No such cases as those referred to by my hon. Friend have been brought to my notice. As I have frequently stated, the decision as to what employment a workman is entitled to, refuse as unsuitable, without forfeiting his claim to benefit, rests not with the Board of Trade, but ultimately with a Court of Referees or the Umpire, and ample machinery is provided whereby any workman whose benefit is refused or stopped can obtain a decision. In the case of a direct claim to benefit, the work man can appeal from the decision of the insurance officer to a Court of Referees, and the local officers of the Board are instructed to bring this right of appeal to the workman's notice in every case in which benefit is refused or stopped. In the case of a claim through an association, under Section 105 of the Act, any disputed claim is the subject of discussion between the Board of Trade and the association, and failing settlement is referred to the Umpire. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the memorandum setting out this procedure.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think these men ought to be compelled to accept employment 300 or 400 miles away?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: As I said, there has been no case brought before the Department of such a distance as that my hon. Friend cites. If there is any such case it will be looked into, but I would remind my hon. Friend that the Act provides machinery of independent Courts, and it is not for us to overrule them.

    AMENDING BILL (STANDING COMMITTEE).
    Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if copies of the National Insurance Act will be available to the members of the Grand Committee, to which the Amending Bell is referred?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I shall be glad to send a copy of the Act to the hon. Member, and I will arrange for further copies to be available to members of the Committee.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman given any consideration to the suggestion that we should have the reprint continued of the answers concerning the administration of the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think they will go on with the reprint.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as in the case of the last Insurance Bill referred to a Grand Committee, an OFFICIAL REPORT will be furnished?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Prime Minister has already promised that.

    Great Eastern Railway Company (Colchester Accident).
    Colonel IVOR PHILIPPSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the action of the Great. Eastern Railway Company in issuing tickets and dispatching passengers by train from Liverpool Street Station to various places in the Eastern Counties on the afternoon of Saturday, the 12th July, after it was known by the railway company that the line was blocked owing to a serious accident, on the railway at Colchester; whether he is aware that the railway company, while taking money from the passengers for their conveyance, omitted to inform them of the impossibility of carrying out their contract owing to the breakdown on the railway and omitted to make any arrangements for the supply of food, thus keeping many men, women, and children for many hours without food or water; whether he has any powers to prevent such conduct on the part of the railway company whereby passengers were treated worse than would be allowed in the case of cattle, sheep, and pigs; and whether he can make any representation to the rail-nay company or take any other action in the matter for the protection of the travelling public?
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Board of Trade if, as a result of an accident which occurred on the Great Eastern Railway on Saturday last., some thousands of excursionists returning from Clacton and other popular resorts did not reach the London terminus until about eleven o'clock on the Sunday morning; and if he will inquire of the directors of the company why no apparent effort was made by the company's officials either to expedite the passengers' return or to provide them with some kind of refreshment during their fourteen or fifteen hours' detention on the line?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I understand that both lines at Colchester were blocked as a result of the accident and that traffic could only be worked through a siding. Considerable delays were in the circum-
    1694
    stances unavoidable, but the company inform me that several trains both up and down were diverted to other routes. The company further state that in accordance with their standing rules, their booking clerks informed intending passengers that an accident had taken place and that delay would arise on the journey. I pro pose to communicate further with the company on this point, and also with regard to the arrangements for supplying, passengers with food.
    Mr. BOWERMAN: Is the right hon.. Gentleman aware that even the refreshment bars were closed to the passengers, and that amongst them were hundreds of young factory girls who were out for the firm's annual outing?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Any further facts that the hon. Member can give me will be taken into account in communicating with the railway company.
    Mr. BOWERMAN: Will the question be put to the directors how it was that they did not attempt to provide necessary refreshments for the people?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: No doubt that question will be put.

    Donegal Joint Committee Railway (Ireland).
    Mr. HUDSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the suspension of singleline-staff working on the Donegal Joint Committee Railway between Stranorlar and Fintown stations on 2nd July last; and whether such suspension of ordinary electric-staff working was with the knowledge or consent of his Department?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I have asked the Joint Committee for their observations on this matter, and will communicate with my hon. Friend upon receipt of their reply.

    Imports and. Exports.
    Mr. CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the leading country in domestic exports in 1872, 1882, 1892, 1902, and 1912?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The exports of domestic produce from the United Kingdom exceeded in value those of any other country in each of the years specified. In the year 1912 the exports from the United Kingdom and the United States approached each other so closely that the

    1695
    question which was the greater depends on the rate adopted for the conversion of the dollar. In the above answer this has been taken at the exact figure of 4s. 1 1-3d. If, however, the rougher equivalent of 4s. 2d. were taken, as is very usually done, the value of the United States exports would appear slightly the greater.
    Mr. CROFT: May we take it that this is the first time in modern years that any foreign country has approached this country in domestic exports?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I believe so.
    Mr. CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether a tariff has had the effect of restricting the total value of imports into the United States, Germany, France, Belgian-1, Japan, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa; and whether the total value of imports into these countries have increased during the last thirty years to a greater proportional extent than imports into the United Kingdom during the same period?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Imports into the United Kingdom have increased between 1882 and 1912 by a greater amount than those of any of the other countries specified, except Germany, though the percentage increase to which the hon. Member appears to attach importance has been greater in the case of nearly all of them than in the case of the United Kingdom. The question to what extent the tariffs in force in the countries named have restricted the natural tendency of the foreign trade of these countries to expand is one which cannot be answered by references to these statistics, and I am afraid the hon. Member must form his own opinion.
    Mr. CROFT: Will it be impossible for the hon. Gentleman kindly to state these percentage figures, because they are of interest; they were of interest, as in the case of exports, up till this year?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: If the hon. Gentleman will put a question down we will make the calculations for him.
    Mr. CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the total value of exports of iron and machinery from the United Kingdom to Germany in 1912, and also from Germany to the United Kingdom in the same year?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: This information -will take a little time to compile, but I will
    1696
    send the figures to the hon. Member In the course of a day or two.
    Mr. CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the total value of domestic exports of the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States, respectively, in 1872, 1882, 1892, and 1912; and will he state the percentage increase between 1872 and 1912?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Any comparison, including the year 1872 would, for reasons which have been often pointed out, be fallacious. I will, however, have a statement giving the information asked for, so far as regards the other years, printed in the Votes.

    Poet Laureate.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, before the end of the Session, an opportunity will be given to the House to consider the appointment of the Poet Laureate?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): My right hon. Friend is not aware of any such general desire for a discussion of this matter as would justify the Government in giving time for the purpose.

    Fine Arts.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the growing interest in art throughout the nation, and also in view of the fact that the encouragement of art and the care of art treasures are now left to a number of separate bodies, such as trustees of galleries and various official boards and departments, he will consider the advisability of establishing an office whose function shall be to control matters connected with the fine arts, and which shall be directed by a Minister responsible to Parliament?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right hon. Friend does not think that this is a practicable suggestion.
    Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are certain Ministers who have very much lighter work than others, and would it not be well to extend their field of labours in this direction?

    House of Lords.
    Mr. PIKE PEASEasked the Prime Minister whether the proposals relating to the reform of the House of Lords will be in the form of a Bill, and whether it will be introduced in this House?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right hon. Friend cannot anticipate the form which our proposals will take.

    Herring Fishery (Gun Fire).
    Mr. WINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if anything can be done to prevent the firing of naval guns near to the shore during the herring season on the north-east coast, as such practice has a detrimental effect on the coming of the herring and causes loss on those engaged in the herring fisheries; and will he consider the advisability of making arrangements for firing further out to sea or postponement until the herring season is over so far as the north-east coast is concerned?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I am not aware that the movements of the herring are affected by gun-firing. The Admiralty would require definite evidence before allowing the exercises of the fleet to be governed by this consideration.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very great consensus of opinion amongst the fishermen in Scotland upon this subject?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Whenever we receive representations from them we always treat them with a considerable amount of sympathy and all the officers of the fleet are provided with means of avoiding damages to the nets in the waters of the British Isles.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    MEDICAL MESS SERVICE.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that the men in the medical mess service are working on a basis of a seventy-two hours week of seven days' work; and if he can arrange to have the hours reduced or pay increased so as to place the men on a forty-eight hours' basis?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is only at Chatham that the hours are as long as those mentioned by my hon. Friend, the hours at Haslar and Plymouth being sixty-one and sixty, respectively. Steps are being taken to reduce the hours at Chatharn to the level of the other big hospitals. The men are paid for seven days a week, and owing to the nature of their duties, I do not think the case is one in which the forty-eight hours' basis can 'be made strictly applicable.

    SKILLED LABOURERS.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if time worked as skilled labourer, although short of the twelve months qualifying period, will count as part of the twelve months in the event of men, owing to exigencies of the service, being reduced to ordinary labouring and then subsequently again being put on the skilled labouring list?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend appears to be under a misapprehension as to the working of the probationary rate. It is not necessary for a skilled labourer to serve twelve months on that rate. In the discretion of the yard officers he can be advanced to the 24s. a week rate at any period if in their view the quality of his work justifies the advancement. With regard to the suggestion that small and broken periods of work as a skilled labourer should be noted and ultimately added together to make a complete twelve months, I am afraid that course is not practicable, and in any case, in view of the earlier part of my answer, it is not necessary.

    WOOLWICH ARSENAL.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that the management of the Arsenal are transferring men from the metal case department on the plea of lack of work, while private firms are employed at the same class of work for the Admiralty at rates of pay as high or higher than that paid at the Arsenal; and, if so, can he see that the Admiralty work is given on a basis of a more liberal allowance to Government workshops?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I would suggest that the first part of the question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. In regard to the second part of the question I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich on the 9th instant.
    Mr. BARNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the lack of work in the Arsenal is owing to the fact that the Admiralty are putting the work out to be done?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No; on every occasion most careful consideration is given to all cases, as I stated the other day.
    Mr. BARNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the circumstances

    1699
    arising out of this particular allocation of work is that quite a large number of men are transferred to the lower grades?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No.

    WORKS DEPARTMENT (PORTSMOUTH).
    Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that 179 men were sent out of the yard at Portsmouth, being men of the Works Department, because of rain, and lost thereby half a day's wages from their rate of 22s. or 23s. per week; and if, having regard to the low rate of wages, he can see his way to the payment of those wages in full, so long as the men are available for work?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend does not state the date of the standing off of the workmen he refers to; but 177 men were stood off in consequence of inclement weather on the 16th April last. The necessity for standing off these men, who were engaged on outdoor work, was due to wet weather and the impossibility of finding other employment for them. The general question is under consideration with a view to reducing the time which may be lost through standing off to a minimum.
    Mr. BARNES: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, "Whether if, having regard to the low rate of wages, he can see his way to the payment of those wages in full, so long as the men are available?"
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am very anxious the men should lose as little as possible, and that is why I said I would give the matter further consideration.

    Charges against Solicitor (Newcastle- under-Lyme).
    Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the case of Brown and O'Toole v. Bell, tried by Judge Rueeg, K.C., at the Newcastle-under-Lyme County Court, on 15th July, when serious charges were made and proved against the defendant, a solicitor, as to unprofessional conduct in the management of a small estate which had been placed in his hands; whether he has made himself acquainted with the evidence and findings of the judge; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): My attention has been called to the case referred to, and I am causing further inquiries to be made into the matter.

    >West Indian Trade Agreement Act, 1913.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the terms of Clause 8 of The West Indian Trade Agreement Act, of 1913, of the Parliament of Canada; whether he can state if any other British Colonies or Possessions have been admitted by proclamation of the Governor-General to the benefits of the reciprocal agreement; and, if so, which Colonies have been so admitted and what obligations, if any, have been undertaken by them with a view to giving preference to Canadian goods?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): Under Section 3 of the Canadian Act referred to it is provided that goods enumerated in Schedule B to the Agreement shall be charged either—

    (a) As the rate of four-fifths of the duties, if any, imposed on similar goods from foreign countries, or

    (b) At the rates of duty, if any, in the British Preferential Tariff in Schedule A to the Customs Tariff, 1907, or any amendment thereof,

    whichever shall be the lower rate. Section 8 of the Canadian Act extends the concessions of the Act to the United Kingdom and any British Colonies or Possessions admitted thereto by Proclamation. By a Canadian Order in Council of 25th January last the benefits of the British Preferential Tariff were extended under Section 4 of the Tariff Act of 1907 to goods the produce or manufacture of:—
    Swaziland, Basutoland, Bechuanaland Protectorate, Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland Protectorate, Uganda Protectorate, East Africa Protectorate, Protectorate of Northern Nigeria, Colony and Protectorate of Southern Nigeria, Gold Coast, Sierra Leone, Gambia, Somaliland Protectorate, Federated Malay States, British North Borneo, Sarawak, Brunei, Mauritius and Dependencies thereof, Seychelles, St. Helena, Ascension, Friendly or Tonga Islands, Fiji, Falkland Islands, British Honduras.

    1701
    So far as I am aware none of these Colonies or Protectorates has made any special Tariff Concessions to Canadian products in return.

    Vaccination.
    Mr. BARNESasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. E. Tookey, 57, Priolo Road, Charlton, Kent, who made a statutory declaration of conscientious objection on 24th May, 1912, to the vaccination of a child that had been born on 28th January, 1912, her husband being for eleven months after the latter date at work in various distant parts of the world as a marine engineer; whether he is aware that the vaccination officer refused to register the declaration and that he is now threatening to institute proceedings; and whether he can see his way to advise the vaccination officer that a prosecution should not be set up under such circumstances, seeing that the father was unable to make the declaration and that the mother was the person having the custody of the child?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): My attention has been called to the case, and I have communicated with the vaccination officer and informed him that, in my opinion, the case is not one in which proceedings should be taken.

    Motor Traffic (Hyde Park Corner).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the President of the Local Government Board (1) whether the Board has decided to comply with the application of the London County Council for the imposition of a speed limit of 10 miles an hour at Hyde Park Corner, notwithstanding the fact that a Select Committee of this House is still inquiring into the whole question of street accidents in London caused by motor traffic; and whether, in view of the opinion expressed by the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis that reduced speed limits would lead to serious traffic congestion and consequent danger to the public, and that no reduced speed limits have yet been imposed on the arterial thoroughfares of London, he will defer the definite decision of the Board until the Report of the Select Committee on motor traffic is presented to the House; arid (2) whether the Local Government Board propose to impose a 10-mile speed limit at Hyde Park Corner; whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence
    1702
    given at the local inquiry, on behalf of the Commissioner of Police, to the effect that Hyde Park Corner is the busiest traffic point in the world, that the imposition of a 10-mile speed limit would result in serious congestion of traffic, and that congestion is the most prolific cause of accident; whether the Board have taken into consideration the accident figure put in evidence by the police showing that 88 per cent. of the accidents at Hyde Park Corner during the past three years had occurred at speeds less than 10 miles an hour; and whether he will state the grounds upon which the Board has decided to comply with the application?
    Mr. BURNS: I have decided to comply with the application of the London County Council for the imposition of a speed limit at Hyde Park Corner, and I have informed the council accordingly. Before coming to this decision I gave careful consideration to all the evidence given at the local inquiry, including that submitted on behalf of the Commissioner of Police. Having regard to the exceptional conditions of traffic at Hyde Park Corner, and to the number of accidents which have taken place there, I did not consider that I should be justified in rejecting the application.

    Workhouses (Upkeep).
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has seen a statement made at the Leeds Board of Guardians last Wednesday that the workhouse was half empty, the number of inmates being 690 as compared with 1,240 in February, 1910; whether other workhouses in the country are also half empty; whether the decline of pauperism is attributable to recent social legislation; and what, in this state of things, he proposes to do to relieve the ratepayers of the upkeep of the empty buildings?
    Mr. BURNS:I have seen the statement referred to. The workhouse contains 1,072 beds, and the comparison, even if accurate, which my information does not confirm, is evidently between a time of abnormal pressure and one when, owing to the season of the year, and the bulk of trade and employment, pauperism is at a very low ebb. Recent social legislation has, no doubt, had its effect upon the Poor Law problem, and I am naturally anxious to see that no undue multiplication of Poor Law buildings takes place. The first thing that I look for as a result

    1703
    of a reduction in the numbers of inmates of these institutions is further improvement in classification, and this is obviously facilitated when there is a margin of accommodation available.

    Emigration to Foreign Countries.
    Mr. CROFTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that emigration to foreign countries in the first three months of this year has increased more rapidly than emigration to British Dominions; and what steps he is taking, if any, to keep such emigration under the British flag?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The excess of passengers of British nationality leaving for ports in foreign countries out of Europe over those arriving in the United Kingdom direct from foreign ports not in Europe was, during the first three months of the current year, 24.3 per cent. of the balance of outward over inward passengers of British nationality to all countries out of Europe. The corresponding figure for 1912 was 22.7 per cent. These figures do not suggest that interference on the part of the British Government with the free choice by emigrants of their future homes is called for.

    Labour in Canada.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been directed to the warning issued by the Trades and Labour Congress, of Toronto, Canada, to the effect that there is an excessive supply of rough labour in Canada and that there are many penniless immigrants in the country, and that the prospects for the winter are that there will be no room for additional workmen in the industrial centres; and if, in view of the above manifesto, he will direct the attention of the Canadian Government to the extraordinary exuberance of immigration agents and railway companies to induce immigrants to leave this country?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to this matter. I understand that the Canadian emigration authorities in this country have already taken steps to call public attention to the condition of the labour market in the Dominion. Similar action has also been taken by the Emigrants' Information Office.

    Undeveloped Land Duty.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a builder who buys an estate for development by building, but cannot borrow the necessary capital and cannot, except at a heavy loss, sell the estate he bought, is liable to pay Undeveloped Land Duty; and, if so, whether the law will be amended so as to absolve a man from being taxed under such circumstances?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Subject to the exemptions and allowances granted by law, Undeveloped Land Duty is chargeable in respect of the site value of undeveloped land and is payable by the owner for the time being. I do not consider that any amendment of the law is called for in the class of case indicated by the hon. Member.

    Licence Duties.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that under the Finance (1909–10) Act, and its amending Act of 1912, a trustee, who holds a licensed property let to a firm of brewers on lease at £100 per annum, is liable as lessor for the sum of £109 16s. by way of deduction of proportion of increased Licence Duties exacted from the lessees; and whether it is proposed to further amend the Finance (1909–10) Act, so as to render impossible so heavy a duty and so heavy a resulting deduction?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have no knowledge of any authoritative legal decision having the effect described in the question, but if, as I imagine, the hon. Member has a particular case in mind, perhaps he will kindly refer me to it.

    Assistant Teachers (Ireland).
    Mr. JOHN WALSHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what percentage of assistant teachers, who were trained in a recognised training college, are now in grades higher than third grade; seeing that all assistant teachers who are trained are classed higher than third class, according to Rule 109 (c) of the Commissioners' Rules, will he say why they are not correspondingly graded; considering that these teachers, in order to be trained and classed higher than third class, had to pass the highest examination now held under the National Board and that some of them have given nearly thirteen years of their most capable service to the Board in expectation of promotion to higher grade than

    1705
    third, will the Commissioners take such steps as will ensure a snore speedy promotion for these teachers; and what means do the Commissioners intend employing to expedite such promotion?
    The CHIEFSECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Commissioners of National Education inform me that over 5 per cent. of the assistant teachers who were trained in a recognised training college are now in grades higher than the third grade. Assistant teachers who have been trained in a recognised training college rank as "classed higher than third class" for the purpose of qualifying for bonus under the Irish Education Act, 1892. This gives them no claim to second grade, which can be attained by assistants under exceptional circumstances only and by special order of the Commissioners. The claims of deserving assistant teachers to promotion beyond the third grade in cases of exceptional merit are carefully considered by the Commissioners.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland (1) if any steps have been taken to provide a holding for Thomas Brennan (Donal), of Monavea, Crettyard, Queen's County, who was evicted from his holding on the Carter estate, Queen's County; and (2) if he will say what steps, if any, have been taken by the Estates Commissioners to provide a holding for Martin Quinn, of Monavea, Crettyard, Queen's County, who was evicted from his holding on the Carter estate. Queen's County?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I will answer these two questions together. This estate is the subject of proceedings for sale to the Estates Commissioners under the Irish Land Act, 1903, and has not yet been reached in order of priority. When the estate is being dealt with by the Commissoners the applications of Brennan and Quinn will be considered by them.

    Fair Rents (Irish Sub-Commission Court).
    Mr. FFRENCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether.he is aware that a sub-commission court is to be held in Wicklow on the 23rd instant for the fixing of fair Tents; whether he is aware that there are fifteen or sixteen cases pending in Wexford, and that hardship would be caused by those cases being held over for
    1706
    twelve months; and, under the circumstances, will the sub-commissioners arrange to hear those cases either in the present month or in the months of August or September?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The list of fair rent applications to be heard on the 23rd instant at Wicklow, contains only cases from county Wicklow in which applications were received between April, 1912, and February, 1913. There are at present twelve applications pending from county Wexford. All these applications, with the exception of one which was received in November, 1912, have been received since the 1st January, 1913. Under present arrangements a sub-commission will sit for the hearing of these cases either in September or early in October, 1913.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether one of the officers of the Second Wessex Howitzer Brigade, Royal Field Artillery, Territorial Force, although he was for four and a-half years, up to the present year, an officer of the brigade and attended five camps, had only one opportunity to practice on a land range and to gain experience with fuse and shrapnel; (2) whether he will state the establishment strength of the 2nd Wessex Howitzer Royal Brigade, Royal Field Artillery, Territorial Force, on the 1st May, 1913; the actual strength of the brigade on that day; the numbers that attended the annual training and practice camp at Okehampton in 1912; and (3) whether, on the occasion of the 2nd Wessex Howitzer Brigade, Royal Field Artillery, Territorial Force, undergoing annual training at Okehampton in 1912, there were so few gunners that a batters before firing at the ranges was obliged to borrow gunners from another battery to snake up the necessary gun complement?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): On May 1st, 1913, there were ten officers and 253 non-commissioned officers and men on the strength out of an establishment of fifteen officers and 371 non-commissioned officers and men. Six officers and 174 non-commissioned officers and men attended the annual training in 1912. During the training in 1912 the two batteries of the brigade practised independently, and owing to the shortage of gunners present had to borrow from each

    1707
    other the numbers eight and nine to complete the detachments. It is possible that as the brigade practised seawards in 1909 and 1910, and did not practise in 1911 and 1913, an officer had only one opportunity of practise on a land range, but I would point out that fuse and shrapnel are used at sea ranges.

    IMPERIAL YEOMANRY (RIFLE).
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Secretary of State for War what is the length of the present rifle issued to the Imperial Yeomanry; what is the length of the new rifle, and when is it proposed, roughly, to issue the new rifle to the Yeomanry?
    Colonel SEELY: The length of the present rifle is 3 feet 8 9–16 inches without bayonet, and that of the experimental rifle is 3 feet 10 3–10 inches. I am not in a position at present to make any statement as regards the last part of the question.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by 'his reply the other day that he was putting off the alteration in carrying the rifle until the new rifle was introduced, and, as the new rifle is only an inch different, why should there be any difference in carrying it?
    Colonel SEELY: With regard to the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's supplementary question, I meant what I said. With regard to the second part, I do not think the answer I have given is contradictory.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Can the right hon. Gentleman given a clearer reply on the Vote for his salary later on?
    Colonel SEELY: Certainly, I shall be glad to do so. It is difficult to deal with this subject by question and answer.

    OFFICERS' PRIVILEGES.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the increase in the cost of living and the expenses thrown on married officers for removal of furniture on change of quarters, he will extend the same privileges to all classes of officers as are now granted to certain privileged ranks; and, if unable to do this, if he will ascertain if it would be fair and practicable to throw some of the burden borne by married officers on bachelors?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): I cannot at present add anything to the replies which I have given to questions on this subject put by my hon. Friend and the hon. and gallant Member for the Mahon Division.

    NAVAL ORDNANCE VESSELS.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any reply has yet been given to the Petition of the crews of the Naval Ordnance vessels presented in 1911; and, if so, will he state the nature of the reply?
    Mr. H. BAKER: The question is still being considered by the Admiralty, but it is hoped that a decision will be announced shortly.

    LEITH DOCK STRIKE.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely: Whether he has anything to communicate to the House with regard to the strike in Leith, more particularly in regard to attempts at conciliation?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I regret that I am unable to make any statement at present as to a settlement of the dispute by conciliation, but our representative is making a very careful inquiry into the matter, and we shall be glad to use our good offices at the earliest moment at which they can be of any use.

ORDER OF THE DAY

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what supply is going to be taken?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On Wednesday, we propose to take the Home Office Vote.
  On Thursday, the Board of Agriculture Vote, and,
  On Friday, the Treasury Vote.
  sir W. BYLES: When shall we take the Colonial Office Vote?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Colonial Secretary says not until after the arrival of Lord Gladstone's Report, which has not yet arrived.
  An HON. MEMBER: When is the right hon. Gentleman going to introduce the Revenue Bill?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It has been introduced, and I hope the Bill itself will be in the Vote Office -within the next two or three hours.
  Ordered, That the Proceedings upon Report of the National Insurance Act (1911) Amendment [Money], 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.—[The Prime Minister.]

  TREATY OF LONDON (VIOLATION BY TURKISH GOVERNMENT).
  Mr. NOEL BUXTON: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House to call attention to a matter of definite urgent importance, namely, the violation by the Turkish Government of the frontier approved by Great Britain and the other Great Powers, and defined by the Treaty of London, and the consequent need for immediate action by His Majesty's Government in conjunction with the other Great Powers, to put a stop to such violation.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is a little previous in making this Motion. We were told at Question Time to-day that His Majesty's Government -was in consultation with the other Great
  1722
  Powers as to what action they should take, and I think the hon. Member should wait until he sees what is the result of that consultation. I think it would be rather discourteous to the other Powers, while their Ambassadors are considering the matter, to take it out of their hands and discuss it now. I must rule against the hon. Member on these grounds.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTON: Might I urge that, in view of the absence of further opportunities of Debate, it might be valuable that the Foreign Secretary's hands should be strengthened by an expression of opinion in this House; and on the point of urgency, whether it is not a matter in regard to which it is quite possible that the Christian population of Thrace is being exterminated by the Turkish forces; and that further action by the Concert may be increasingly difficult if any delay takes place?
  Mr. SPEAKER: All the observations which the hon. Member has made only point to the fact that it is very desirable that the matter should be left in the hands of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in conjunction with the other European Powers, and the House should not undertake to pronounce upon the matter until the Government have decided upon what course of action they will take. I must therefore rule against the hon. Member on the ground of indefiniteness.

BILL PRESENTED.
  DEVELOPMENT AND ROAD IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  "To provide for the appointment of two additional Development Commissioners (unpaid); and for other purposes incidental thereto." Presented by Mr. CHARLES BATHURST; supported by Mr. Hicks Beach, Mr. Eustace Fiennes, Mr. Hills, Sir Luke White, and Mr. Winfrey; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 269.]

  IRISH LAND BILL.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to amend the Law relating to the occupation and ownership of Land in Ireland; and for other purposes relating thereto."
  As I have a good deal to say the House will, I am sure, forgive me if I plunge at

  1723
  once into the thick of this important measure by inviting its attention to the actual state of land purchase in Ireland at this veritable moment of time. It is two-thirds through, and that is really the governing fact of the situation and gets rid, happily, either of the necessity or, indeed, the relevancy of any preliminary discussion or disquisition as to the best mode of carrying out land purchase in other countries. I want the House, if it kindly will—I shall trouble it with very few figures—to get these figures into its mind as the basis and groundwork of my subsequent statement. The value of the land sold, or actually agreed to be sold, under the Act of 1903, amounts to £85,410,602, and the land sold or agreed to be sold under the Act of 1909, amounts to £11,225,234. Therefore, you have, adding those figures together, a total of purchase money representing transactions either carried out or agreed to be carried out, amounting to £96,635,000 odd. If you add to those figures the £3,845,591 which has been advanced under the Land Purchase Act for the building of labourers' cottages, you get a total of £100,481,427. That is under the Acts of 1903–9, plus the money provided so far for the labourers' cottages.
  If you add to that the £24,779,000 odd representing the purchase money of transactions under Land Acts prior to 1903, you get a total of £125,260,000 odd. That is what I mean when I say that this great transaction is two-thirds of the way through. That is what has been done, and the question the House is now concerned with is what remains. That raises what has hitherto in our Debates been called "the size of the problem." It was always a difficult one to solve, very difficult, and in 1903 it was estimated by very much the same advisers who are now by my side in Ireland that. £100,000,000 would complete the transaction. If that estimate had been right our troubles, my troubles, would be nearly over, but I do not wonder in the very least that it has not proved accurate, considering the difficulties that then stood in the way of making the estimate; because even now at this stage of the proceedings, I feel a certain hesitation in estimating what the remaining size of the problem is, but, of course, difficult as it was in 1903, it ought to be much easier in 1913, and I have no doubt it is. I, therefore, think that we may pretty safely assume that the size of the problem re
  1724
  maining untouched by any agreement or by any completed transactions may be taken at the sum of £60,000,000. To that sum of £60,000,000, which is what we need to complete this great transaction, I must add another £1,000,000 in order to place upon a permanent and satisfactory footing the most beneficent work, a necessary corollary to land purchase, of building labourers' cottages. Forty-one thousand of these cottages have actually been built. Some of them are very ugly, some of them are not so ugly, and some of them are really quite beautiful, but they are all of them healthy, and, if anybody requires usury for his money, I think we may pronounce this at all events most productive expenditure, and the interest is to be found in vigorous labourers, in healthy children responding o education, and in the revivification of a whole countryside. There are already a large number—the actual figures, I think, are 41,852—of cottages built, some 9,000 authorised but not yet built, and some 10,000 included in schemes not yet authorised. We, therefore, require to complete certain transactions and to build some 10,000, or possibly rather more in addition, and I consequently include in the size of the problem £1,000,000 necessary to complete and place upon a substantial and permanent footing this most beneficent operation.
  Turning back to the figures which I have already given and which represent what has been accomplished, we naturally inquire how these great sums of money have hitherto been raised in order to carry out this work so far as it has been carried out. It is rather interesting just for the moment to consider how that has been done. Prior to the Land Purchase Act of 1891, a most beneficent Act, there was no issue of Land Stock. There was no such thing, for good or for evil, as that Guaranteed Irish Land Stock. The investing public were not invited, previous to that date, to produce out of their pockets, by way, of course, of loan, the necessary money. Under what are called the Bright Clauses and the Ashbourne Act, definite sums of public money were from time to time set aside to feed these transactions and repayment was secured by annuity, which was fixed first under the Bright Clauses at 5 per cent., of which 3½ per cent. was interest and 1½ per cent. sinking fund, and was afterwards reduced from 5 per cent. to 4 per cent., of which 3⅜ per cent. was interest and ⅞ per cent. sinking fund. Then came the Act of 1891, which, as I

  1725
  have already stated, created for the first time Irish Land Stock, carrying 2¾ per cent, interest. Under its provisions the tenants' annuity was, in the large majority of cases, a 4 per cent, annuity, the interest being 2¾ per cent, and the sinking fund 1¼ per cent. I think that afterwards the ¼ per cent, was knocked off. The right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) originally promised in his Bill to pay the landlords in cash, but in those days they preferred stock, stock being then at a premium. They defeated the Government, if I recollect rightly, on this proposal. But the Government, being a strong and sensible Government, did not go out. They accepted the landlords' view and allowed them to have their own way. They paid them in stock, which was, under the provisions of the Act, issued to them at face value, and was realised by the landlords—for some years, at all events—at a profit.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY Mr. MAURICE HEALY rose—
  Mr. BIRRELL: The hon. and learned Member will have his opportunity of correcting any small inaccuracy into which I may fall. I tremble a little when I see him rise in his place. The Acts, financially, were sound, but the one fault to be found with them at the time was that they did not make land purchase go. Land purchase did not proceed with that rapidity it was most eminently desirable it should, and one reason for the fault was that the Act did not offer any inducement to landlords to sell their estates as a whole. The sale of each holding was, so I am informed, an individual transaction between the landlord and the tenant, and a great number of holdings on an estate might be sold or there might only be a small number sold. There was, in fact, no inducement held out to the landlord, either by bonus or otherwise, to part with his estate as a whole, and therefore we had a long series of isolated transactions. However, whatever the reasons, it is undoubtedly the fact that land purchase did not go as fast as those concerned in the settlement of the Irish problem desired it should. I will not stop to describe the various efforts made during the years immediately before 1903 to accomplish this one great work of making land purchase go. I will pass on at once to the famous Land Conference between landlords and tenants, representatives of whom met around an Irish table and both agreed, patriotically and properly, to do whatever
  1726
  they could to make land purchase go. In order to do that, it was necessary, obviously, that the landlords should become willing to sell, because unless; there -was this goodwill, land purchase was bound to proceed very slowly. It was equally obviously necessary that the tenants should be made anxious to purchase, and these were the two most desirable points that had to be achieved in the scheme. As Land Stock had definitely fallen in price, it became necessary, in order to accomplish the purpose that landlords should be paid in cash, and in order to make the tenant a. willing purchaser, it was also necessary—I put this bluntly—that it should be made cheaper for him to become a purchaser than to remain a tenant—two very sensible and practical proposals. They were accomplished by provisions to the effect that the purchase annuity should, practically speaking, always be less, by some 15 or 20 per cent., than the second" term fixed fair rent.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Fifteen to twenty five per cent.
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes, 15 to 25 per cent-less than the second term fixed fair rent. The landlords on their part agreed that they would be satisfied if they were provided with a sum in cash, the interest on-which would produce for every £100 rent a little over £90. That was a reduction, and a not unreasonable reduction, having regard to the cost of collection, which was dispensed with, and with it any future risks, of collection. These were the two great points. The landlord got 10 per cent, less than his rent, while relieving himself of certain obligations which might or might not have absorbed the whole of that sum, and the tenant secured that the purchase annuity should be less than the second term rent. It is fair to the tenant to remember that, under a third term rent, he would have had an opportunity of getting a further reduction as time went on, but this he forewent. That was part of the transaction. Nothing was said at the Conference about a bonus or additional gift to go straight into the landlord's pocket; that was a lubrication—a very useful lubrication—which was subsequently brought to light. These were the terms, roughly speaking. I cannot pretend to give an absolutely mathematical account, but they were the terms which were incorporated in the Act of 1903, which secured to the landlords a cash payment and a bonus of

  1727
  12 per cent. on the amount of the purchase. The more money they got, the more was the bonus; the less they got, the smaller was the bonus they received. The total cost of purchase at the time was calculated at £100,000,000, and the bonus was necessarily started at a sum of £12,000,000, subject to Parliamentary readjustment from time to time. It was supposed that, in about twenty years, at an annual output of some £5,000,000, this great transaction of land purchase, the conclusion of which is so much to be desired, would have come to a termination.
  The money wherewith to pay the landlords was to be obtained in the open market out of the pockets of investors by an issue of Guaranteed Land Stock carrying 2¾ per cent. interest—a most admirable security, with the whole backing of the British Government and of the British Empire, so to speak, behind it, with what was then considered to be a very fair rate of interest. It was represented, and I am quite sure it was intended, that the tenant's annuity, which was carefully calculated at the rate of 2¾ per cent. interest, with ten shillings in addition to create a sinking fund, would make the whole transaction self-supporting—that is to say, that at the end of a certain number of years, varying a little, but practically about sixty-eight and a half years, it would be possible to secure repayment without any loss to anybody of the whole sum, while securing the necessary result of land purchase in the meantime. The only free gift contemplated by Parliament—contemplated by the Imperial Government—was the bonus of £12,000,000. It is rather difficult to see how this view could have been taken, having regard to the then price of the 1891 Two and Three-quarter per Cent. Stock. I have always supposed—I may hive been wrong—that Mr. Ritchie, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was responsible for this scheme, had in his mind the fact that an annual sum of £160,000 Irish money, dedicated almost entirely to educational purposes, and called the Ireland Development Grant, was by the Act of 1903 deflected from its original purpose and appropriated year by year in making good the loss which was, of necessity, to be incurred if the market price of stock was below par, the landlords being paid in cash. Everybody will understand what is meant by excess stock. If, in order to get £100,
  1728
  wherewith to pay for the purchase of an estate, you have to issue £113 of stock and become responsible to pay the interest on the £13, and the sinking fund during sixty-eight and a half years, there is an odd £13, for which nobody is responsible but the State. The £100 is provided by the tenant's annuity and the sinking fund. He only pays his tenant's annuity and sinking fund on £100, but in order to get £100 you had to incur a liability for £113. The Act of 1903, at all events, went through the formality of providing what was to happen in this very contingency. I am not now going into that, except to say that the loss by law fell, or was to fall, upon the Irish counties in certain proportions, and was to be deducted from the sums which otherwise they would receive and devote to public purposes within their boundaries. The first issue of stock under the Act of 1903 was at 87. It afterwards rose to 92, but since then it has constantly fallen until to-day, I believe, it stands at 70¾. This Act of 1903 succeeded very well in making land purchase go in certain parts of Ireland. I do not know that it can be said positively that it was a very great success in the North, though as to that I speak with no great degree of confidence. It certainly was a failure in the West, almost a complete failure, and that for reasons pretty obvious. The Act benefited the strong purchaser and the well-to-do landlord, but it was not particularly applicable to the poor landlord and to the uneconomic tenant in the West. It was no good his buying his holding, because his holding would not support him. If he was to buy a holding at all, it was essential that he should buy an economic holding and be put upon a piece of land upon which he had some chance of living and thriving Therefore, in the West of Ireland, the one part which needed it most, the one part which appeals most to people, at all events in this country, was left very much in the cold.
  4.0 P.M.
  Apart from that, the Act of 1903 was a great success. I do not at all wonder at it, and I rejoice most unfeignedly and honestly, without any drawbacks or considerations of any kind. I say it was worth all the money it cost, but its finance bred from the beginning great difficulties and troubles. When I came along, in 1909, to deal with the problem, the loss on excess stock was just beginning to fall upon the counties—that is to

  1729
  say, the annual sum of £160,000 a year available from the Ireland Development Grant. It was absorbed in making up the loss on this excess stock, which had to be issued in order to raise the money. The Treasury calculated that the loss on excess stock might ultimately amount to something like £1,000,000 per annum, while as regards past and pending transactions it was estimated that the annual charge for excess stock would amount to over £400,000. This liability was, by the terms of the Act, which is sometimes called my Act, taken over by the Treasury. Some people may say it was an easy job to get the money, but it took a good deal of argument, discussion, shoe leather, and brain power to accomplish that purpose. All past and pending transactions under the Act of 1903 were made good upon the original terms. What preyed most heavily upon my mind was this: There were 169,000 tenants who had entered into these preliminary arrangements, who had left off paying rent to their landlords and were, in lieu of paying rent to their landlords, paying interest at the rate of 3½ per cent, to the Land Commission. There were 169,000 persons in Ireland, actual living, breathing Irish tenants, who were, in lieu of paying rent to their old landlords, paying it to the Land Commission, and thinking all would be well. All was well. These obligations were taken over, and what would have been a catastrophe of too terrible a character to contemplate was prevented.
  Having made good all these transactions—some £50,000,000 of arrears, as they were called—this much-abused Act, which bears my name, provided that in all future transactions vendors should be paid a 3 per cent. Stock at, its face value, with a bonus, upon a graduated scale this time, varying inversely with the increase in the purchase price, the tenant's annuity being at the rate of 3½ per cent., 3 per cent. being for interest and ½per cent. for sinking fund. In order to secure this bonus, I had to repeal the limitation in the Act of 1903, which fixed the bonus at £12,000,000, in order to enable me to have the money wherewith to pay the new bonus fixed by what is called my Act. It did more than that, because by the Clauses relating to the the Congested Districts Board, which was reconstituted and its area very greatly enlarged, its income was also enlarged by a sum of £163,750, an income which, added to what it already possessed, was spent=1730
  upon the improvement of the conditions of the people in the West in making their holdings economic, and in generally promoting their economic welfare. The result of that has been that in the very part where land purchase had hardly moved at all, within an area which is now one-third of Ireland, this Board has been able to purchase for the relief of congestion and the improvement of the people 1,485,774 acres of land. It is not too much to say, and I appeal to hon. Gentlemen from all parts of Ireland, whatever their political opinions may be, that since the passing of the Act of 1909 Irish land purchase has proceeded even more quickly in the West than it ever did in any other part of Ireland. I must not stop to enlarge upon this part of the work, although it is naturally the most attractive to anybody in my position, for it is the redemption of a whole countryside and the revivification and remaking of a great population. I only wish that hon. Members of this House, during the vacation we are giving them, would take the opportunity of visiting for themselves these parts, which are not quite so far off as Vancouver Island, but which are equally instructive, where they can see for themselves first, the difficulty of the work that has to be done, and, secondly, the way it has been done. They would be grateful to the admirable men, Mr. Doran and Mr. Micks, and the small army of inspectors and sub-inspectors who are engaged not only in happy work, but a most successful work, all of which is due, to some extent, at all events, so far as money is concerned to the legislative efforts of this House.
  However, I do not dispute the fact that, outside the large area of the Congested Districts Board, land purchase is proceeding far too slowly, and as, in my opinion, it is essential for the well-being of Ireland and for its peace and order that land purchase and this system of land purchase, which is now two-thirds through, should be completed as quickly as possible—it is no use being impatient with inevitable delays—it should be completed if possible in the course of the next ten or fifteen years. The Government, I am glad to say, has given its mind to the problem of how this acceleration of speed can best be made. I should be very glad were I in a position to say that the present state of the Money Market rendered it possible to adopt a system of cash payments. I always like to be able to pay cash for everything. One reason why it is very

  1731
  important to pay cash for everything is that it is the best way of keeping down prices. I believe it is the only honest way of keeping down prices. If you are prepared to pay a man for anything he has made that you want, good red gold, you are far more likely not to give him more than his stuff is worth. If, on the other hand, you have to offer him, in whole or part, depreciated stock, fix it how you may, by what valuation you like, you will find that you are giving rather more than it is worth in order to make up to him the substantial hardship of the fact that you are paying him in something which, if he has to do so, he will only be able to realise at a loss. Therefore I wish most earnestly that I were in a position to complete these transactions on the terms of cash payment. But I am not able to do so. The best that I can do, the best the Government can do, is to make the arrangement now proposed, which will enable us to pay half cash and half stock. That is the proposal which, when this Bill is printed—if the House is kind enough to allow it to be printed—will be found incorporated in the measure. Half cash and half stock, to be issued to the vendor just as it is under the Act of 1909, plus, if he comes to voluntary agreements, a bonus in cash.
  It is not, however, now proposed—this is an important matter—to obtain the half cash necessary to work off the outstanding £61,000,000, or whatever the figure may be, and the event proves it to be, by the public issue of Land Stock. If, therefore, this arrangement receives Parliamentary sanction, the only further public issues of Land Stock will be for the money required to complete pending transactions under the two Acts of 1903 and 1909. That outstanding amount may be taken to be, speaking again roughly, some £24,000,000, requiring an issue of stock which may, it is hoped, be worked out in the next four years. It cannot fail to be an immense relief to the Money Market, that mysterious entity, to be told that a period will thus be put once and for ever to the further public issue of Irish Guaranteed Land Stock. I see the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) half rising to ask me where is the half cash for this £61,000,000 to come from? The National Debt Commissioners, as a matter of fact, as appears from an answer given a short while ago by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to some
  1732
  hon. Gentleman opposite, are already by far the largest holders of the Irish Land Stock that has already been issued. They have found out, and I do not wonder at it, that it is a very good investment for their surplus funds. I am glad to notice that my Friend Mr. Bowles has also seen a. very good investment in it, because in the famous Income Tax case it was discovered' that he was a holder of £60,000 of this admirable stock, which only shows how shrewd a man Mr. Bowles is, not merely as a lawyer, an amateur lawyer, but also as an expert investor of his own money. But the National Debt Commissioners, who are already by far the largest holders of Irish Land Stock, are in a position to advance out of their funds, as and when-required, the necessary annual sums in cash to provide one-half of this sum, whatever it may be—£61,000,000 I have taken it to be—which is necessary in order to complete land purchase in Ireland at the earliest possible date.
  In order, however, to make that transaction possible, it will be found necessary to add one-eighth per cent. to the tenant's purchase annuity. That purchase annuity will therefore in future stand at £3 12s. 6d.. instead of £3 10s. The National Debt Commissioners will find the cash from their surplus balances on the basis of the price of Consols, but an essential part of the scheme is to provide for a fixed rate of interest throughout the period of the loan on all moneys so advanced by the National Debt Commissioners. They very properly require a fixed rate of interest;. and in order to ascertain what is a fair rate of interest on the sums so to be advanced by them, you take Consols at an average price of 75, and if you take Irish 3 per cent. Land Stock at an average price of 82, you will find, by the laws of arithmetic, that the rate of interest is determined at a sum of £3 6s. 8d. per annum. As these figures are necessarily a little hard to follow, I propose, if I get leave to print this Bill, to circulate a White Paper which will be of an explanatory character, but just to show that I can do it if I am driven to do it, I will make it as plain as I can by single concrete instance, You must bear in mind all the time that in addition to half stock and half cash, the vendor will receive a bonus calculated in a particular manner, and on a particular scale, which will appear in the Bill, and which will be partially explained by what I have to say.

  1733
  For the purpose of this one concrete example which I wish to give, I must, of course, make assumptions, and I start by assuming that a particular tenant pays twenty-two years' purchase of his rent. The landlord will then be entitled to receive in cash a bonus of 12 per cent. The purchase money is paid to the landlord, half in cash and half in Guaranteed Three per Cent. Stock at its face value, together with the bonus. Here is a man with £100 rental, paying twenty-two years' purchase of his farm. That makes the purchase money £2,200. You pay to the vendor half that sum in stock at 82. I have taken it at 82 which was the figure which was in our mind when the calculation was made. It is rather less than that at present, but it may be more. Stock at 82—£1,100 worth—brings in £902, if the landlord sells. Then he gets £1,100 cash in addition to the £902 which he would get if he realised his stock, and he gets the 12 per cent. bonus—£264. These three figures added together make a total cash payment to the vendor of £2,266, if he realises his stock and has the whole sum in cash. If he invests it in trustee investments, what can he obtain at the present moment? We have made calculations at 4 per cent., but I am told by people who know more about these things than I do that you can, without risk or difficulty, obtain 4½. I remember very well in the Bill of 1909, when I increased the landlords' power of investment of the moneys received under these Acts, I had the valuable assistance of the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) who, when he likes, can be as helpful as when he does not like he can be a hindrance, to persons desirous of obtaining legislation, and we inserted increased powers of investment, and I rather think a slight increase could be made in those powers, and I propose in the Bill to make a certain suggestion in that direction to which I invite the critical, but at the same time friendly, attention of the hon. Baronet. But taking it that he can only get 4 per cent., he will then get, as the usury on his £2,266, £90.64 which secures him in that respect what I call, without prejudice, land conference terms. That is the position of the landlord. The position of the tenant is that his annuity at the new rate, with half-a-crown per cent. more — three and five-eighths per cent. on £2,200 is £79 15s., which, deducted from his original rent of £100, shows a percentage reduction of £20 5s., so that I think in that respect we have met even
  1734
  land conference terms with regard both to the landlord and to the tenant.
  We now come to the third party in this transaction, the State, and here it is a little more complicated, but I will read the figures slowly, and you will afterwards have an opportunity of verifying them at your leisure. Interest at 3 per, cent, on £1,100 Guaranteed 3 per Cent. Stock—of course that goes without saying—is £33. That is the interest payable on the stock. Then there is the interest on £1,100 cash. I compute that. in 2½ per cent. Consols at 75. That makes £1,466 13s. 4d. worth of Consols, representing £1,100. That makes the interest £36 13s. 4d. Then there is the per cent, sinking fund on £2,200—that is £11. Add the three figures together, and the total charge against the purchase price is £80 13s. 4d., and you get from the tenant's annuity, £79 15s.—showing a balance against the State of 18s. 4d. The charge in respect to the cash 'bonus of £264, obtained in the same way, with Consols at 75, at 2½ per cent. on £352 Consols, is £8 16s. Then there is the ½ per cent. sinking fund on the £352–£1 15s. 2d.—making a total charge of £10 11s. 2d. If you add that to the balance of the charge in respect to the tenant's annuity of 18s. 4d. you get a total charge against the State of £11 9s. 6d. a year, the capital value of which is calculated to amount to 13 per cent. on the whole of the tenant's advance of £2,200. The National Debt Commissioners have no difficulty in providing the moneys which may be necessary—£5,000,000, £6,000,000, or £7,000,000 per annum—in order to carry out these transactions, and they have power already, in case of any depletion of their funds, to borrow by the issue of Consols.
  The transaction, therefore, is one which I think can be recommended to the House with a view to achieving the pre-eminently important object of presenting to the country, to the investor, and to the world the fact that we are now approaching the end of this transaction, socially so beneficent, financially so difficult. We are able to assert that, after you have issued enough Land Stock for £24,000,000 of money outstanding, to complete the pending arrangements which have to be financed upon that footing, you are then really at the end of the transaction so far as you are bothering the investor to produce his money. Thereby, I hope you will raise very materially the price of this stock, I mean the stock that is

  1735
  already out in the market, and of the new stock which is to be issued to the vendors in respect of their land. That, I think, is an enormous advantage. I hope the House will keep these two points in their mind—the necessity, first, of bringing this transaction to an end and of showing and convincing everyone that it is coming to an end, and that the market will not be flooded and injured, as markets, I am told, invariably are if you constantly keep on for an indefinite number of years, watering down the stock by the issue of stock of the same denominations.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALYmade an observation which was inaudible.
  Mr. BIRRELL: Certainly. Half the purchase-money has to be issued to the vendors in stock at its face value, the other half will be paid in cash. In regard to the position of the landlord, he has half stock and half cash. It is a wonderful arrangement of things that the higher the interest he gets on the cash that he has for investment the lower no doubt is the stock, but, on the other hand, the higher the stock, if the stock rises in value, the lower will be the interest that he can safely get on his cash investment. Therefore, the landlord who is in a position—of course, many are not—both to keep his stock and to invest his cash at the 4 per cent. or 4½ per cent. now available would really be in as good a position, not as he might wish to be, but as persons holding that particular kind of property in that particular way can well expect to be put into by a Government full of consideration for the necessities of their case, and most anxious to complete land purchase at the earliest possible date. I hope that, with the assistance of my explanatory White Paper, I shall have put the House fairly well in possession of the proposals of the Government upon that point.
  With reference to the other provisions of the Bill, it has always been considered by everyone—I have never heard any speaker on the opposite Benches or any writer on the subject who had not always contemplated the probability, as this matter approached its natural termination, in default of landlords and tenants coining to some satisfactory arrangement of compulsory purchase. After you have carried through a transaction like this, and after two-thirds of the Irish tenants have
  1736
  come under the Land Purchase Acts, you find that great numbers of them have received great advantages—and everybody must admit, if they are candid, that they are great advantages—under these Acts. They have come into the position of paying less than second term rents for their land, with the knowledge that in the course of years, a considerable term of years, but still not a desperate time, they will become the owners in fee. It is not to be supposed that other tenants on the other side of the wall can be expected to remain content under a landlord who, for any reason whatever, is unwilling to sell to them. The compulsion to be fair must be applied both ways. There are such things as unreasonable tenants, just as there are unreasonable landlords, and as there are a great many more tenants than landlords, there must be in proportion a greater number of unreasonable tenants. You must have compulsory powers of that sort to carry out all that is required. Those who are anxious to carry everybody with them in that way see that there ought to be an arrangement whereby in. the event, not in itself to be anticipated, of compulsion being necessary, there should be proper machinery, and proper judicial Commissioners to fix, after full consideration and the hearing of all sides, a fair price to be paid by the tenants. In Irish Land Purchase you must remember that you are not merely dealing with two individuals—a vendor and a purchaser. You are dealing with a vendor and a whole host of purchasers, and you have to make sure that what they contract for is what each is willing to give for his own holding. And there is therefore an enormous amount of negotiation between the landlord and his tenant in getting each tenant to sign a paper saying that, if the purchase is carried out, he will bear the price which has been fixed. [An HON. MEMBER: "How much? "] That is the whole question.
  All these transactions between landlords and tenants in Ireland are more difficult and complicated than people imagine. They are difficult even when you are dealing with the purchase of the whole estate. When that has been done by the Estates Commissioners and Congested Districts Board they have not only to receive the consent of the landlord. They have to enter into preliminary arrangements with the tenants. They say to the tenants, "If we offer the landlord so much, you must be under an obligation to pay so

  1737
  much for your strip of land." Therefore, it is an occasion for fair arrangement, and for compulsion, so far as you can get it, on both sides, so that a landlord who is willing to sell and wants a fair price would know that, if some held out while others were willing to buy, the tenants who would not buy would have the price fixed either by the Estates Commissioners or the Congested Districts Board, or whoever the Commissioners were who were appointed to determine the fair price for which they ought to be made liable in taking over their holdings, or, at all events, that they would be disabled from having a fair rent fixed thereafter. These are points upon which the House, when it comes to consider them, in detail, will have to be satisfied that we have arrived at a fair and just manner of estimating the price. There is an appeal from the Judicial Commissioner on points of law, but no appeal on the price. If we are to put a fixed and fair valuation on the land, why then the 'Commissioners will do that without taking bonus into consideration. There will be no bonus in the case of compulsory sales. The price of the land will be fixed at a fair price by the Judicial Commissioner after hearing all parties. Knowing what each tenant is willing to offer for his particular holding, the Judicial Commissioner will determine what is a fair price to be paid. We believe that, except in a very few cases, compulsory purchase will not be found necessary at all.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there are any provisions for the purchase of small towns or any reference to the evicted tenants?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No; very likely some towns may be dealt with, so far as they are incidental to an agricultural community. The hon. Member knows how the small towns have been dealt with under the existing law. I do not wish to swell my Bill more than I can help, and I invite Irishmen to approach this question in a way which will render it possible to bring it to completion within a short period of time. There is another Clause to which I wish to refer, namely, the Investment Clause. I propose to extend somewhat further the securities in which trustees may invest with the sanction of the Public Trustee. I feel that, after careful consideration, there will be no difficulty in making a slight addition
  1738
  to these securities. I want to put in a Clause to prevent, so far as I can, the absorption of holdings by local speculators. It is beginning to enter into the matter. Under the Act of 1903 the maximum advance to a purchaser was £7,000. It was reduced by the Act of 1909 to £5,000. Nevertheless, cases have occurred where several holdings sold within these limits have become absorbed by one local person, who is thus beginning to recreate some of the difficulties which this machinery was set up to put a stop to. I therefore hope that the provisions in this Bill to prevent the system of adding holding to holding may be successful. There are technical Clauses in the Bill with which I need not trouble the House.
  There is in the Bill a very necessary Clause indeed, both in the interest of the Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners, to enable them to resume land now held under leases. It is rather anomalous that whilst you can take land from the freeholder, or the judicial tenant, you cannot take it from the leaseholder. These leases are bound to absorb land, which is absolutely essential if the House is to carry out the necessary proposals in the way of securing an economic holding and making the Irish tenant farmer thrive on his property; there should be power to resume the holding in these cases, just as much as any other holding belonging to anybody else. There is therefore, a. Clause of that sort. There is also some legislation necessary in connection with bog and turbary. These matters lead to enormous difficulties with respect to land purchase in Ireland. When I survey the whole of this field and consider what a mass of people are involved—each person as keenly alive to his interest in every bit of land he has got as the most enthusiastic bibliophile. is about every duodecimo in his library—and how they are prepared to argue that matter with you at great length, I am amazed at the great success which has already crowned land purchase in Ireland. I look forward to the time when this great transaction—one of the most gigantic we have yet. dreamt of undertaking—shall be completed. I can only say in conclusion that I cannot help regretting the absence of one, who in his absence I shall call my right hon. Friend, the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Walter Long). He is unable to be in his place to-day, and no one sympathises more with him than we do in his having had to undergo so much

  1739
  pain. We are rejoiced to hear that he is now recovering, and we trust that he will soon be restored to health.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman include in his statement what he promised a few days ago, a reference to the provision for labourers' cottages?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I invited the hon. Member to listen to my speech. In the very forefront of my argument I said that we look forward in this proposal to taking £1,000,000 in order to complete a great number of schemes already framed, but not authorised.
  sir J. LONSDALE: When shall we see the Bill in print?
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Apart altogether from the merits of the particular scheme for settling the question of land purchase in Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman has made a good many very interesting declarations, and I would like to say, in the first place, that one of the most interesting declarations he has made has been with reference to the subject which the hon. Member alluded to a moment ago, namely, the completing of the work of erecting labourers' cottages in Ireland. The position in which that matter stands, even at the present moment, is that there are a number of schemes which have been approved and cannot be carried out because the money advanced for that purpose is running short, or has already been allocated. There is no work to which this House ever set its hand which I think has been more beneficial to the people of Ireland than the erection of these cottages. Everybody who has visited Ireland in recent years, whatever his political opinions may be, has been struck by the number and the comfort of the cottages which have been erected, and the extraordinary contrast which they make with the old style of mud-walled hovel in which the Irish people lived in the past. There is just one thing I desire to say, and it is, that the people of Ireland will be intensely gratified by the statement that the right hon. Gentleman proposes in conjunction with the settlement of the land question to provide £1,000,000 additional for the erection of these houses. I would like to say that his hope and ambition with reference to land purchase is, that he would put forward a scheme which would finally settle the whole question once and for all. I am not sure that he is right in his
  1740
  evident belief that £1,000,000 will finally settle the question of the labourers' cottages. I think that probably more than that will be required to provide all the cottages which are and will be needed. Simply entering that caveat, I desire to say that there will be intense satisfaction in Ireland that this additional £1,000,000 is to be provided for cottages which are necessary. The right hon. Gentleman has given the House what I may call the history of the land purchase question. Into that I will not follow him, except to this limited extent, that I desire to remind the House that in reciting the history of land purchase in Ireland, the policy of that purchase ought not to be forgotten. The policy of land purchase originated with the Irish Nationalist party. Land purchase was the main plank in the programme of the Land League founded by Mr. Parnell, and it was received by a great proportion of public opinion in this country at. a Socialistic policy, and was denounced as confiscation, and when we hear, as we often do hear, and read statements made by representatives of the Unionist party to-day claiming for themselves the credit of having inaugurated land purchase in Ireland, I think it only right, when a question of the history of Irish land purchase is entered into at all, that it should be made clear how that policy came to be initiated and adopted by any party in this House. So far back as 1879, at the very commencement of the Land League movement. Mr. Parnell laid down his doctrine of land purchase for the settlement of the Irish land question, and at one of the very earliest meetings of the Land League, held in Ireland, in Westport, in the year 1879, Mr. Parnell used these words:—
  "In Belgium. Prussia, France, and Russia, the land has been given to the people, the occupiers of the land. In some cases the landlords have been deprived of their property in the soil by the iron hand of revolution. In other cases, as in Prussia, the landlords have been purchased out. If such arrangement could be made without injuring the Irish landlords so as to enable the Irish tenants to have the land a their own and cultivate it as it ought to be cultivated that would be for the benefit wed prosperity of this country."
  So, at the very commencement of the Land League, and almost at the very first meeting of the Land League campaign, Mr. Parnell enunciated that doctrine.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: It was not the beginning.
  Mr. REDMOND: It was the beginning for all practical purposes. It was then for the first time that it was put in the

  1741
  forefront of the National political programme, and then for the first time that any really serious agitation in support of it arose in Ireland, and men's minds in this country were for the first time really aroused by the proposal. That policy, so put before the country by Mr. Parnell, was not adopted by the Unionist party in this country until many years of strife and struggle, and, I may say, of bloodshed, had passed over Ireland, and many hearts were broken and many roof trees torn down and many families scattered throughout the world. Not until that happened was this policy adopted, and therefore I protest against the idea that the Unionist party in this country are entitled to claim for themselves the credit of having initiated the carrying out of land purchase in Ireland. However, I pass that by. I would not have mentioned it at all, but that in the history of land purchase which the right hon. Gentleman professed to give that fact in fairness ought not to have been omitted. I pass it by, and I thank God most fervently that that policy has been adopted and has been adopted by all parties in this House. Every party in this House is equally responsible for the completion of land purchase, responsible whether Home Rule is carried, or whether Home Rule is not carried, and I repeat and emphasise that assertion, because of the declaration that has been made by Unionist leaders and Unionist newspapers, that if the Home Rule Bill is passed Imperial credit will be withdrawn from that settlement of the Irish land purchase question. I rejoice, therefore, most heartily at the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman, that he proposes to do his best, at any rate, to settle the question completely once for all, and to do so speedily.
  I need not dwell, even for a moment in passing, on what the result of land purchase has been, so far as it has worked up to the present. Everyone who knows Ireland knows that wherever Land Purchase has been carried out, a large measure of peace and contentment reigns to-day, that the land is being cultivated as it never was cultivated before, and in some cases, I believe, produces 50 per cent. more than it did before, and anything, therefore, which would tend to break down land purchase in Ireland, before Home Rule or after Home Rule, would be nothing else than a crime as well as an act of the grossest treachery on the part of
  1742
  any political party in this House. But in view of Home Rule coining, it seems to me that the urgency of the complete settlement of this question becomes greater than ever. Land Purchase is, under the Home Rule Bill, a reserved service. The Irish Parliament is to have no power to deal with it, and it is to rest entirely in the hands of the Imperial Parliament and the Imperial Government, and if there were any danger that after Home Rule were carried, the Imperial Parliament and the Imperial Government would lend themselves to the policy of breaking down land purchase, and preventing it being completed, a situation of the most serious character, menacing the peace and prosperity of Ireland, and the relations between the two countries would exist. From the Home Rule point of view, I regard the immediate completion and settlement of the question as of the most urgent character. Therefore, I welcome the intention expressed. But the right hon. Gentleman has thought it right to defend the Act of 1909. Two things -the Land Act of 1909 undoubtedly did. It enabled the £50,000,000 work of agreement, which had been entered into for sale, to be financed and carried out, and since the Act of 1909 these agreements have been financed and carried out at a more rapid rate of land purchase than I believe was ever attained since the Act of 1903 came into existence.
  At the time that the Act was introduced there were over £50,000,000 of agreements in arrear, which could not be dealt with, and as the Act of 1903 stood the loss on the flotation of Land Stock for the purpose of financing these agreements would fall almost wholly on the ratepayers of Ireland. There was only one barrier in the way—that was the Irish Development Grant, amounting to £160,000 a year, and that was entirely disposed of, and had proved insufficient, and when the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Bill the wiping out of all those £50,000,000 worth of agreements must have absolutely stopped, or else the loss on the flotation of the stock for the purpose of financing them would have fallen upon the Irish ratepayers, and the amount of that loss would have been really startling. I have a pamphlet issued by a leading official of the Government on this matter, in which he said:—
  "Agreements amounting to £6,000,000 purchase money were pending. To finance these agreements a sum of about £250,000 per year for a period of sixty-eight and a half years would have to be provided by the Irish ratepayers, and were all the agricultural land in

  1743
  Ireland to be sold, the charge on the ratepayers would amount to an annual sum of £877, 000."
  Therefore, the Act of 1909 was absolutely essential if those agreements were to be wiped out. The Act was passed, the Treasury took upon their shoulders the entire of the loss on the flotation of stock for this purpose, and already the figures show that in the short period of years which has intervened between the passing of the Act of 1909 and to-day more than half of those agreements have been wiped out, and, therefore, land purchase has worked at a rate of £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 a year, and more rapidly than ever it has worked before. Therefore, not only has the Act worked in that respect more rapidly than any other Act, but more money has been advanced for land purchase in these intervening years than ever was advanced before by the Treasury.
  Another respect in which the Land Act of 1909 was an unqualified success has been eloquently dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman, and that is the way in which it has worked in the West of Ireland: I will not delay the House by again emphasising the fact that it was the condition of things in the West of Ireland which really carried the Land Act in 1903, and the West of Ireland was the only part of the country where the Land Act of 1903 became almost a dead letter. The figures which I have here differ somewhat from those which the right hon. Gentleman has given. No doubt his are more correct, but they differ by very little. Before the Act of 1909 the Congested Districts Board had bought or agreed to buy, not in any one, two, or three years, but in the whole period of nineteen or twenty years, during which they had been in existence, 470,000 acres of land to the value of £2,261,000. Since the Act of 1909—that is, in the two or three years which have elapsed since then—the Congested Districts Board have bought, or have agreed to buy, 998,000 acres of land to the value of £3,685,000—that is, the operation of the Land Act of 1909, so far as the West of Ireland is concerned, has been that, in two or three years, more land has been bought than in the nineteen or twenty years which preceded it. Generally speaking, it is true, as the right hon. Gentleman stated, that new agreements under the Land Act of 1909 have fallen off. When the Act was passing we entered our protest against the increase in that Act of the annuity to be paid by the tenant, but strange to say it seems as
  1744
  if that increase in the annuity were not one of the reasons at all why new agreements have not been made, because it is a strange thing that although the tenant's annuity under that Act has been increased, the reduction which the tenants have obtained in the working of that Act have not diminished—in fact, I am not sure if they have not, to some extent, increased.
  The reason that the Act of 1909 has not worked, so far as new agreements to purchase are concerned, undoubtedly in my view, has been the fact that, instead of cash, you offered the landlords stock in payment of the purchase money, and it is quite easy, seeing the state of the money market, to understand why landlords have been prevented from selling by the operation of this provision. Landlords who have been paid in stock and who have suddenly to realise that stock to pay mortgages or family charges, and so forth, were liable to incur large losses, and quite indefinite losses. The object of the Government, in introducing this Bill, is to remove the cause of the non-working of new agreements under the Act of 1909, and they have proposed a scheme whereby they say that by the payment of half the purchase money in cash, by a rearrangement of the bonus, and by another increase of the tenant's annuity, they will be able to bring about an arrangement whereby the landlord will get what is called "Conference terms," and if they are able to establish that, then they come with a second proposal, and say, "If we can show that we are really offering the landlord Conference terms, which they agreed to, then we will accompany that offer by a system of universal compulsion, compelling them to accept the suggestion that is made."Let me for a moment deal with that suggestion. First of all, let me say that no one sitting on these benches, and representing Irish tenant farmers can view with indifference the proposal to increase the annuity to be paid—that is, to increase the payments by the tenants. While I say that let me say this also: So vastly and supremely important is it that this whole question should not be allowed to drag along any longer, and that the whole of this land purchase question should be settled once for all, here and now, in the course of a very few years, that I do believe, especially in view of the working of the Land Act of 1909, so far as the reduction in the annual payments is

  1745
  concerned, that the Irish tenant would probably agree to make this concession in return for a proposal which really would here and now settle the whole thing. As to the rearrangement of the bonus, I think that is all to the good. The bonus under the Act of 1903 was a flat rate of 12 per cent. in all cases, no matter what the purchase money was. The bonus under the Act of 1909 was altered. A new schedule, or sliding scale, was proposed whereby the purchase money was under sixteen years' purchase, in one case the bonus was to be at the rate of 18 per cent., and then the sliding scale went up to where the bonus disappeared altogether, for twenty-four years' purchase and upwards. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, I understand, is a revision of that scale. Although he has not read out to us the new scale, I gather that the old scale has been amended and changed in such a way as to make it still more the ease that the lower the purchase money the higher the bonus and vice versa. That I believe is all to the good, and will, I believe, be considered by the landlords themselves probably, in the long run, as all to their advantage, too.
  As regards the payment in cash, I most deeply and sincerely deplore the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has not made a proposal for the payment of the entire purchase money in cash. I and my Friends urged this upon him and the Treasury with all the power at our command. I am sure that his own desire is the same as ours, in fact he said so to-day. I deeply deplore that it has not been done. I feel convinced that if the proposal were for the payment of the whole in cash, it would be quite easy to put forward a scheme that all parties in Ireland as well as in this House would agree to. I am sure that if the Irish landlords were given the full amount in cash they would make no serious bones about this question of compulsion, which really could only be brought into operation in those few outstanding cases of utterly unreasonable landlords who, against the interests of their own class, were holding out to the end and refusing to sell. So far as the tenants are concerned T. do not believe that even this hard suggestion of a small increase in their annunity would be allowed by them to stand in the way of a measure which held out the prospect of a full and speedy settlement of the whole of the land purchase question. Allusion has been made to Land Conference terms. Let me read one sentence from the Report of the Land
  1746
  Conference. Here are the terms that they unanimously agreed upon as fair to be received by the landlords:—
  "We consider it necessary that landlords should receive such a capital coin as, invested at 3¼ per cent., will yield a return equal to second term rents or their fair equivalent, less cost of collection where such exists, but not exceeding 10 per cent."
  What are the Land Conference terms to-day? Not a sum of money which invested at 3¼ per cent. would produce this money, but a sum of money which, invested at rates of interest which can be obtained to-day, would produce a second term income, less 10 per cent.. Everyone knows that in the present state of the Money market landlords can easily get in Trustee Securities —I am glad to know that the right hon. Gentleman is going to enlarge the Trustee Securities under the. Act–4½ per cent. for their money. Therefore the Land Conference terms to-day would be that the landlords should receive such a capital sum as, invested at 4½ percent., would yield a return equal to their second term rents, less the cost of collection, 10 per cent. In this matter I speak for all my Friends, and we are now, as we have always been, anxious that the Land Conference terms should be obtained by the Irish landlords. For my part I would willingly co-operate with anybody in endeavouring to obtain a settlement whereby they would obtain that. The right hon. Gentleman could easily have done that, and provided the whole amount in cash, but, honestly, I do not believe—I speak, of course, without having had much consideration, and without having had an opportunity of investigating this matter as it will have to be carefully investigated, after the Bill has been printed and circulated—that the scheme, only half cash and half stock, would enable Irish land-lords to obtain what I, for my part, agree it is fair they should obtain—that is, full Land Conference terms, which were agreed upon before the Act of 1903. I regret extremely that the right hon. Gentleman has not been successful, and that we have not been successful in getting the whole purchase money in cash. Under these circumstances, of course, it is quite evident to the House that we have no responsibility for this Bill. People talk very ignorantly and very glibly about our dictation to the Government. So far as this Bill is concerned this is not our Bill; it is the Government's Bill. If it had been our Bill we should undoubtedly have endeavoured to provide the whole amount in cash, believing that thereby we might have been able to come to an agreement with

  1747
  the Irish landlords and settle this thing absolutely, not for a very short space of time, but once and for ever. I would like to say on this matter that I am not without hope that still better terms may be obtained than those offered in this Bill. I am not without some hope and some belief that the united representation of the representatives of all parties in Ireland concerned in this matter might have upon the Government a most salutary effect, and also upon the Treasury. I am not prepared to abandon hope that in that way we might be able to prevail upon the Treasury to go further than they have up to this moment.
  I say that especially in view of the connection of this question with Home Rule. I believe that, if it were possible, such a united representation ought to be made. The completion of land purchase in my view is a necessary and vital part of the Home Rule settlement, and if the Irish landlords can be got to take that view, I, for my part, would be only too willing, if I might be allowed, to co-operate with Irish landlords in pressing upon the Government and upon the Treasury such an advance in the terms of this Bill as will mean, as I have said, a full and complete settlement of this question—a settlement really without any loss or sacrifice on the part of the landlords at all. With reference to the other parts of the Bill, I will be briefer even than the Chief Secretary, who said he would he brief. Many things have been omitted from the statement and description of the Bill given by the right hon. Gentleman which I think ought to be added before this Bill could be called or regarded as a thoroughly satisfactory Bill. But, of course, I have not seen the Bill.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Oh, oh, oh!
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND:I do not care a snap of my fingers whether the hon. Gentleman believes me or not. I am quite sure the House of Commons will believe me when I say that I have not seen the Bill, and I do not know whether there is any Bill in existence at this moment.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALE: You have been consulted.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I have been consulted in this sense, that I have pressed my views on the Government, and, unfortunately, those views have not been carried out. Until I have seen the Bill and had an opportunity of scanning its
  1748
  provisions, I will not express any opinion as to the other parts of the measure, which may omit things I desire to see in and may deal with other things I desire to have dealt with in a way I do not approve. But the one great and satisfactory thing in other portions of the Bill is to be found in the system which it sets up of universal compulsion. Without a system of universal compulsion I believe this land purchase question cannot be finally settled. In the Act of 1909 you gave compulsory purchase powers to the Congested Districts Board, and they have not been used. Why? Because, as has happened everywhere in similar cases, the moment compulsory power is going to be brought into existence the necessity for this power disappears, and estates have come into the Congested Districts Board and been bought by them at the most astonishing rate of rapidity since compulsory powers were granted. You also, in 1909, granted compulsory powers outside the Congested Districts Board area, to the Estates Commissioners, but only in certain limited cases.
  We did our best in 1909 to get those compulsory powers made universal, and we failed; and now I understand, from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, that he intends in this Bill to introduce provisions which will make compulsory powers universal all over Ireland—that is to say, that the power which the Estates Commissioners have at the present moment, so far as congestion is concerned, will become a universal power dealing with all estates, whether there is congestion or whether there is not. I suppose this Bill under the existing circumstances of the moment may not pass now unless it is an agreed Bill. All I say is, in my belief, it can be made an agreed Bill; and so far as we on these benches are concerned, our position is simply this: On its merits we believe in the policy of land purchase. We say that the future prosperity and happiness of Ireland largely depends on the speedy completion of land purchase. We say that this country and this Parliament, and all parties in this Parliament, are bound in duty and in honour to carry land purchase to a successful issue. Every single party is so bound and so responsible. We say it is a wise and cheap policy for this country, and it is one which, whether Home Rule is granted or Home Rule is not granted, in the end must be carried out. For my part, I end by saying, as I said a moment ago, that so vital a portion of the

  1749
  Home Rule settlement do I regard the completion of land purchase to be, that I would be willing to do everything in my power to so advise one party or the other to this remaining dispute in Ireland, as to bring them absolutely together, so that an agreed Bill might be passed, if the Government could be brought to see that view, which is universally entertained by all parties and all opinions in Ireland.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: It is some
  comfort to some of us that the Government should even go through what I am afraid is but the formality of introducing this Bill. I hope we may take it to some extent as an act of reparation for the Bill of 1909, and the methods by which our warnings to the country against it were strangled at that time. Frankly, if the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken has some complaint to make against the Government, I certainly do hold that Ireland in general has not been treated quite fairly by the Government in this matter; I say by the Government, I do not say by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. Early last year we made it plain, so far as our constituents are concerned, that the completion of land purchase must be an essential condition of a Home Rule settlement. We withdrew our Amendment in Committee upon the promise of the Chief Secretary on behalf of the Government, and the House will remember it was a promise given under the most solemn and even portentous terms, that they quite agreed, and that they would introduce their land purchase proposals at the earliest opportunity. The whole of last Session passed, and the present Session, although the subject was mentioned in the King's Speech and nothing done, so far as I know, except, the consultations with the hon. Gentleman behind to redeem that promise, and now, in the dying weeks of the Session, the endeavour to get away from that solemn promise takes the form of the formality of the introduction of a Bill which the right hon. Gentleman knows thoroughly well cannot be debated in detail, and which, forsooth, is simply thrown at our heads under the old formula of take it or leave it. To make matters worse, the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, I regret to notice, has quitted the House, on the very eve of the production of this Bill, for purposes of his own land campaign in England, denounces land purchase in Ireland, and draws a most unjust and untruthful misrepresentation
  1750
  of the whole system of land purchase in Ireland, and denounces it all as a swindle upon the Irish tenants, a landlord's swindle on the Irish tenants, and a swindle upon the British taxpayer.
  Our constituents instructed us early last year to take any course we might deem fit as to the subsequent stages of the Government of Ireland Bill unless the complete abolition of landlordism were made part of the Home Rule settlement. I do not impute to the Government, and I certainly do not impute to the Prime Minister or to the Chief Secretary, that the Government deliberately kept us in the dark, putting off to the last moment as to what their intentions were, but I do say that it is not a fair way, for a Government that has been depending for its existence on Irish votes, to deal with Ireland as to a question which the Chief Secretary himself declared, with exaggeration, but very pardonable exaggeration, to be more important to Ireland even than Home Rule itself. The hon. and learned Gentleman behind has not accepted and has not either taken or left this Bill; neither will wie, and we certainly will not give the smallest excuse for pretending that it is we, at all events, who are standing in the way of its further consideration or discussion, if it be really intended that it should be discussed any further. On the contrary, for my own part, I will join most willingly with the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) and with the Chief Secretary himself in appealing both to landlords and to tenants to consider the proposals of the right hon. Gentlemen with moderation and with goodwill, remembering how much depends for landlords and for tenants and for everybody else in Ireland upon putting an end to the present halfdead-and-alive condition of land purchase, and on the concluding of this operation. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Waterford that it is a shame that the objections of the landlords are not met to what he undoubtedly justly considers is an objection, namely, that they do not get the price of their property in hard cash, but I confess that even with the offer of half cash, I am not sure that the landlord's bargain is not rather a better one than the tenant's, and one thing is perfectly certain, that, for my part, I am not going to bind the opinion of the tenant farmers of Ireland to any final judgment whatever as to a Bill which actually raises their annuity instead of lower-

  1751
  ing it, and which dangles before their eyes in a highly suspicious way just three years' purchase more than we in Cork paid for first term rents and judicial rents under the Act of 1903.
  While on the subject, I desire to say one word of acknowledgment of the Chief Secretary's success in obtaining this additional loan of £1,000,000 for the agricultural labourers. It really is the only crumb of comfort for us that there is in the Bill, and I hope that comfort will not evaporate in kindly words, as, I am sorry to say, the rest of the Bill is likely to. As for the other classes of tenants left out of this Bill, the tenants in towns, and as to the evicted tenants, who are also wholly left out of this Bill, beyond a doubt the Bill will be a bitter disappointment and disenchantment. If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford has any grievance as to the disregard of his opinions by the Government, we at all events can say that we have been subjected to the usual boycott in the concoction of this Bill, and we acknowledge no responsibility whatever for it. There are three tests to my mind of what a successful Bill should be. The first is that the tenant's annuity should be lowered to the old figure; secondly, that the bonus should be made again a substantial attraction; and, thirdly, that the landlords should be paid promptly and honestly their money by the Treasury. Of course the right hon. Gentleman's statement was as luminous as his statements always are, but so far as I can understand his rather complicated financial statement, I am not at all sure that this Bill answers or satisfies any one of those three tests. This I do know, that so far as the tenants are concerned beyond a doubt with the compulsion in this Bill, and owing to the increase in their annuity, insult is actually added to injury by this annuity being raised to £3 12s., and the tenants will be handicapped to the extent, as I have said, of at least two to three years' purchase in their negotiations for terms in addition to something like four years' purchase, which the tenants on non-purchased estates have lost already by allowing themselves to be dissuaded from making their bargains ten years ago on a reduction of 40 per cent., which we were ready to advise them.
  I was amused at the promptness with which the hon. and learned Member for Waterford intervened in this Debate upon
  1752
  a subject on which he has remained absolutely silent for the last two years, when the whole fate of Ireland was trembling in the balance. Certainly his punctuality in turning up on the present occasion, when there is some question of some kudos to be obtained, is strong confirmation for the statement made from a remarkable quarter in Ireland the week before last, that land purchase has become fashionable. This sudden enthusiasm for land purchase is, to say the least, edifying coming from an hon. Gentleman who tore the Irish party asunder to make war on the Act of 1903 at the time when that Act had been endorsed by every pledge that could bind men of honour, by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, and by every man who was then a member of the party, with one exception, the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). That hon. Member then denounced the Act as the Chancellor of the Exchequer denounces it now, as a landlords' swindle. He prophesied that the Canadian cattle would all be let in, and that the Irish cattle trade would be ruined, and that the peasant proprietors would all be beggared, and he and his Friends have certainly given pretty wide latitude to the present Board of Agriculture to make good his prophecies. He prophesied that that Act would end in universal national bankruptcy, although at, the present moment, ten years after that Act was passed, apparently the view of the same Gentleman is that Ireland is so prosperous that the addition of £1,500,000 per year to the overtaxation of Ireland is a mere bagatelle. We heard to-night of the Land Act of 1903 being a dead letter in the West. Yes, but why? The hon. Member went down to the West to make war on his own leader and on his own party, and he told the people if they would only boycott the Act, and if they would only rush into the Land Courts, the rent fixing Courts, that in a. few years third term rents would utterly beggar the landlords, and that all would have their farms for thirteen years' purchase. This Bill of to-night is a commentary upon all those prophecies and upon the statesmanship of this Gentleman. For the life of me, I could not when I read that statement, understand at first sight why all this enthusiasm for land purchase about a Bill, which beyond all doubt if it ever comes into law with compulsory provisions, instead of giving the tenants their land at thirteen years' purchase, will put upon them worse terms by at least two or three years' pur-

  1753
  chase than the Act which was denounced as a flagitious landlords' swindle.
  The true explanation is, I am sorry to say, that it was very well known that this measure will not pass, and is not intended to pass, and the Gentlemen who succeded, to a large extent, in wrecking the Act of 1903, at all events in the West, are in some trepidation for fear lest their real attitude towards land purchase is beginning to be discovered in Ireland. Their one hope is now in the blessed word "compulsion"— even the very moderate and ineffective trial outlined by the Chief Secretary—and even if it has never to be put into force, may save their face and enable them to put off the tenants who have been unable to purchase with the old cry, that it is all the fault of the landlords. It is nothing of the kind. Mr. Commissioner Bailey, in his evidence before the Secret Committee, stated quite truly, that the landlords of the mass of unacquired land would be only too happy to be compulsorily bought out if only they could get their money from the Treasury. The main guilt lies with the Treasury, who have not paid their debts to Ireland, and with those Irish Members who, in their hatred of the Act of 1903, by their votes enabled the Chancellor of the Exchequer to repudiate that treaty, and to repeal the Act of 1903, not in the interest of the Irish tenant, but, as I heard the President of the Board of Agriculture admit in this House, in order to save the British Treasury. The Chief Secretary is extremely sensitive to our criticisms upon his action in these matters. I do not at all find fault with him for that. Sensitiveness is one of the tests and penalties of honesty in a politician. But it sometimes looks as if the Chief Secretary would be well advised to compare notes with any one of his predecessors. The fact is that his bed is a bed of roses compared with that of any Chief Secretary, Tory or Liberal, who entered Dublin Castle before him. The right hon. Gentleman has fallen upon happier times. One real trouble the right hon. Gentleman never had in Ireland was the cattle-driving campaign. He really ought to remember who it was at the critical hour Went down and denounced cattle driving to an Irish audience largely composed of cattle drivers, and pleaded for fair play for his policy at a time when certain gentlemen who are now so high in his confidence were giving cattle-driving their blessing.
  We do not for a moment say that the right hon. Gentleman is anything more
  1754
  than the victim of circumstances. So far as personal ill will towards himself is concerned, there is no such feeling in any part of the House—certainly not on the part of myself or of any Friend of mine. He has had the unique good fortune to capture by his playful wit even those who are in some respects opposed to him. But personal charm is one thing and Governmental action is another. We never for one moment attributed to him any personal malevolence in reference to this campaign against the land purchase scheme. He was the victim of circumstances, just as he was in reference to that rather unlucky venture of his, the Irish Council Bill. That Bill no doubt he regarded as a damnosa hæreditas. There again, it is certainly not I of whom he has to complain that he was betrayed by any sudden change. It was not I who went to the friendly breakfast table of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and a day or two afterwards, as soon as the word came round, moved the rejection of the Bill. I dare say it is not his fault, but the right hon. Gentleman is largely in the position of being personally conducted through Irish politics in the same way that English tourists are conducted by the gentlemen to whom he referred just now through all the pretty show places of the Congested Districts Board, and he must not complain if, like the innocent. English tourists, he has carried away some mistaken ideas. All that we have ever charged him with is that he has allowed himself to be the unwitting instrument of Irish advisers who have hundreds of times declared in public their hatred of the Act of 1903, and under their influence he undoubtedly fathered a, Bill which, whatever else may be said about it, has practically slain land purchase. This has been done under the influence of figures which any practical farmer in Ireland would laugh at, No figures can get over the fact that £22,000,000 worth of land was sold in the years before the Act of 1903 was repealed, and that not more than a million pounds' worth of land has been sold since outside the congested districts.
  Our position in this matter is unchanged and unchangeable. We stand by the terms of 1903. Both British parties alike, as the hon. and learned Member for Waterford has just recalled, solemnly pledged themselves to those terms. I am sorry to say that up to the present it is the Liberal Government alone who have broken those terms in conspiracy with the Irish enemies of land purchase. More than that, I

  1755
  venture to say that even from the narrowest financial standpoint the attacks upon what is called "Wyndham finance" are utterly unjustified, and are mere sham pretences for evading England's debt to Ireland. As land purchase is now fashionable when it is dead, so it, has become fashionable to praise Mr. Wyndham now he also is dead. It has been repeated again to-night that the Wyndham finance had broken down. Members of Mr. Wyndham's own party might possibly have had some justification for finding fault with the finance of his Act, but it could only have been because it was too favourable to Ireland. It was only becauso you then gave Ireland the only generous bargain England has ever given her. The astounding thing is that Irish Members of Parliament have managed to persuade themselves in some mysterious way that it is a positive grievance for Ireland to be well treated for once in her life, and their denunciations have been reserved for us who have offered the most mild criticisms of this impoverished British Treasury. The other night, while the Chief Secretary was praising the Act of 1903, I could not help overhearing behind me —I was meant to hear it; it was hissed into my ear—the words, "Yes, indeed, a present of £16,000,000 to the landlords!" I will say nothing about that except that it is rather a severe censure on the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, who was one of the high contracting parties to that engagement, and upon perhaps the greatest living friend of Ireland in the Liberal party, Lord Morley, who stated that £22,000,000 of Imperial money would be cheaply spent in bringing about a settlement. When the hon. Member made that remark in my ear, he had quite forgotten that both British parties had pledged themselves that this bonus of £15,000,000 or £16,000,000 was to be a free Imperial gift from the British Exchequer, and neither he nor any of his colleagues have had one word of objection to utter when, under the so-called Home Rule arrangements, the Government actually propose to saddle upon Ireland that £15,000,000 or £16,000,000.
  Mr. Wyndham did not foresee—no human being could have foreseen—what has happened since to the state of Imperial credit—certainly not through any fault of Ireland. No one could have foreseen that Irish Two and Three-quarter per Cent,.
  1756
  Stock would fall to a fraction over 69 the day after the Chancellor of the Exchequer's denunciation of land purchase at the National Liberal Club. I distrust all these Stock Exchange transactions. I have my own suspicions as to how far Government brokers have considerable power in these fluctuations. I take the speech of the right hon. Gentleman here to-night. It is proof conclusive that, even taking things at their very worst as to the state of the Money market, it is a most monstrous untruth to pretend to the English people that this transaction involves any enormous or overwhelming burden upon the British taxpayers. The right hon. Gentleman has informed us that £60,000,000 remains to be raised for purchase. I have not been able to work out how much that would actually involve in losses on flotation to the Government; but I think all parties are practically agreed now in Ireland that at the very utmost the completion of land pur-
  chase could not cost the British Exchequer more than £500,000 a year— 2500,000 in a Budget of all but £200,000,000, less than one-third of the money which the Treasury have wrung from Ireland
  alone by one Act of robbery, the Budget. It seems to be strangely forgotten that the basis of Mr. Wyndham's calculation was that the Treasury would be reimbursed in a few years for those losses on the flotation of land loans by savings in the Land Commission charges, and in the constabulary charges. Mr. Wyndham estimated this at a quarter of a million in a year. Does anybody indeed doubt but that those savings might have been effected only for the conspiracy to wreck the Act of 1903, and to keep the country in a state of sham agitation in order to make the Act unworkable. The hon. Member for Mayo within the past few days has been speaking. He referred to Lord MacDonnell—who by the way has
  become fashionable. He said:—
  "We do not sneer at Lord MacDonnell. We regard him as a man of great experience; yet he has never been allowed to use his powers in Ireland except for a very brief period. We want to open careers in Ireland to men like Lord MacDonnell."
  Really it is almost incredible that a statement like that should have been made, because there was a career open to Lord MacDonnell in Ireland, a career in which he did the most magnificent work. For his conduct in that career he was destroyed before he was driven out of the country, by one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues who referred to him an "

  1757
  Indian satrap, a man half policeman and half civil servant, who was the worst enemy that ever came to Ireland since Oliver Cromwell." However, I must not be diverted from my point. My point was that before Lord MacDonnell was driven out of the country by these Gentlemen who are so interested about opening up a career to able men, he had actually succeeded in making a saving of £200,000 on the constabulary alone. What did hon. Gentlemen who sit behind me say? They started what they called a "really virile campaign," but which I have always called a "really sham campaign," the only result of which, for the Irish tenants, was the scourge of extra police taxes, and the forcing of the constabulary back to its old position. As to the land campaign, what were their achievements? Ender the Act of 1909 they insisted upon the creation of a whole regiment of monstrously expensive land inspectors and rent-fixing Commissioners. The Rent Commissioners have pleased nobody, for the reductions they have made have been of a most infinitesimal character. The land inspectors have simply caused endless delays in land purchase. In consequence of these transactions they have swollen the charges of the Land Commission in Ireland to over £700,000 a year, the greater part of which, I venture to tell this House, is spent, not in promoting land purchase, but in deliberately obstructing it. That sum alone would have been sufficient—the Chief Secretary will not deny it—and far more than sufficient, to have covered the entire possibilities of loss to the British Exchequer for the completion of land purchase. Now that all this mischief is done, what is the last wrong—I do not like to use a stronger word about it, though I might well have described it as a robbery, instead of a wrong?
  The Government have actually proposed, in the Government of Ireland Bill, to debit against Ireland the whole £700,000 Land Commission charges which they themselves have so monstrously created. More than that, they are actually proposing to saddle upon Ireland fifteen or sixteen million of the bonus which was to have been given by both parties in this House as a free Imperial gift. You might as well really proceed against the emancipated slaves of the West Indian plantation for the twenty millions which this Parliament gave to their owners. Our position is this: That the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from motives of parsimony, killed the Purchase Act of 1903; and, I think, one has
  1758
  only to read between the lines of the speeches of the Chief Secretary and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford to know that he has killed this Bill to-night. The right hon. Gentleman rather piteously said that he envied Mr. Wyndham his Chancellorship of the Exchequer.
  So do we. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has succeeded in making the two former Bills abortive, and I am afraid it is almost equally certain that he will make the present one abortive, too. As to the pretence that the Treasury cannot find the money, I am only sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not here to hear the terms in which. I should have liked to tell him how we spurn and laugh at that pretext.. You can find money in millions and tens of millions for any other purposes except for Irish purposes. More than that, over £400,000 or £500,000 of the sum it would cost you for the abolition of landlordism in Ireland, on terms perfectly satisfactory to both sides, you have already, because you have wrung from Ireland over one million of money more under the Budget than you solemnly pledged yourself to take. While I have spoken thus strongly, I desire to conclude by saying that so far as my Friends and myself are concerned, we are to-night on this matter just as we have been on other matters, willing "to let the dead past bury its dead." [Laughter.] I do not know what is the meaning of those extraordinary noises. If hon. Gentlemen who are guilty of them would articulate their opinions afterwards, I shall be very glad to listen to them.
  I say at once—and my words have proved it over long years—that I am willing now, as I have been any time in the last ten years, to respond to the appeal of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford for united representation of all the Members from Ireland, with the promise that that united representation which we have been struggling for will produce better terms from, the Government. I cannot help lamenting that in this case, as in the case of the Bill, of 1903, the Government have consulted, so far as I know, no section of the Irish representatives except their own unconditional partisans, the very men who were responsible for postponing the abolition of landlorism for a generation. The hon. and learned Gentleman told us to-night, as Lord Crewe told us in the House of Lords, that, this Bill could only pass as an agreed Bill. Yes, but what steps have been taken,

  1759
  to make it so? I do not at all say that even yet there may not be the possibility that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford has hinted at, that if not in this Session, at all events before next Session, there may be an appeal to the good sense of Irishmen of all shades of opinion—to their common sympathies and to their common interests. I know what little encouragement the right hon. Gentleman has had in attempting anything of that kind up to the present, and the danger of offending certain interests. But I take the opportunity of expressing to the Prime Minister in particular our thankfulness for the statesmanship with which he has realised the magnitude of this great problem, and, I will add, for the magnanimity with which he has striven to avoid any mere party point in its solution.
  Beyond that, I, for one, cannot go at the present time. I would express my own deep regret that after having waited for two years, I am afraid this Bill is going lb inflict another bitter disappointment upon the tenants who have already purchased. I believe as well that a grievous injury will be done by the Government of Ireland Bill by confronting the Irish Parliament with this inevitable state of social and agrarian anarchy in addition to the other troubles. The Chief Secretary appears to have entirely omitted from his Bill the evicted tenants. We have always argued that an equitable settlement of the evicted tenants' question was an essential condition of a treaty of peace between Irishmen. Probably some £20,000 or £30,000 in the way of compassionate allowance to settle all the more notorious claims that arc outstanding would suffice, and to my mind it would be a most mistaken piece of economy, for so small a sum, to take up a harsh and impracticable attitude, as these are the people who inevitably will be amongst the first claimants upon the meagre resources of the Irish Parliament.. I conclude by appealing to the Chief Secretary that in respect to the Bill that he will at all events arrange its framework so that it will not be made impossible for us to raise the question of the evicted tenants and the town village purchasers in Committee if the Bill arrives at Committee.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL: I do not rise to make any attempt to criticise the position of this Bill. While I accept the disclaimer of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford that he
  1760
  has never had the good fortune to see a copy of the Bill, I must congratulate him of having known something of its proposals; if he did not, he has been singularly fortunate in the preparation of his manuscript notes. Like the hon. Member for Cork, my colleagues and myself, Unionist Members from Ireland, are not in the confidence of the right hon. Gentleman opposite even in regard to an important matter of the kind referred to, which it was suggested might become the basis of the Bill. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has consulted any of the leading representatives of the landlord interests in Ireland upon the subject. All I know is that, speaking for myself and my colleagues, we only heard the outline of the Bill this afternoon, and we knew nothing more of these proposals. They are somewhat complicated, but there are two considerations that suggest themselves at the very outset with regard to these proposals. The first is this: If they are so simple, and if they are likely to meet with such general approval, why were they not adopted in 1909? Why, instead of adopting them in 1909, did the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues go out of their way to introduce a measure which, as the facts and figures prove, paralysed land purchase from that day to this? The next consideration is this: Why, if they are so simple and likely to be so popular, were they introduced so late in the Session? One would have thought that in a matter of this kind of such vital and far-reaching importance, if the Government meant business they would have introduced these proposals which they suggest are likely to be so popular and to lead to little or no discussion, and to become an agreed Bill, at a stage of the Session that would have made it possible for the Bill to become law; and, above and beyond all, why has the Bill been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman within a few weeks after one of his own colleagues, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and a colleague upon whom he will have to depend in putting this Bill through, had declared that the whole of Irish land purchase was a fraud and a swindle upon the British taxpayer'? The outlook is not very hopeful for the future of the Bill, and the action of the Government does lend itself to the suggestion that it is really only a window-dressing measure and that the right hon. Gentleman has very little hope or intention of ever seeing the Bill upon the Statute Book.

  1761
  I am not an authority upon the financial questions raised by the Bill, and therefore I do not propose to go through them, even after the very clear explanation the right hon. Gentleman gave, and the illustration he took which undoubtedly, I think, did help the House to follow his proposal. I confess there was one conclusion at which he arrived which I hope is true, but I should be surprised if it works out, namely, that while the tenant's annuity is to be increased to £3 12s. 6d., the result of the operation will still be to give him a reduction of 20 per cent. upon a second term rent. All I can say is, if that is the result of that operation, I do not think the tenant will have very much reason to complain of the additional one-eighth on his annuity. Also I say, from the opposite point of view, if the right hon. Gentleman's valuations are right, and if they will result in the landlord getting "Conference terms," then I do not think the landlord has any reason to complain, and if the result of the whole operation has been, that the right hon. Gentleman has been so successful as to bring about results of that kind which will give the tenants 20 per cent. reduction upon second term rents, and at the same time give the land lords' Conference terms, I think the right hon. Gentleman would be singularly fortunate, and if he goes on with the Bill, he will have gone a long way, I think, towards reaching a solution of the land purchase problem in Ireland. I say, however, I have to suspend judgment. We must wait until we see these figures, and have time to consider them more closely. There is one matter upon which I wish to put in a word by way of warning or rather of caution, and that is with regard to the proposals for general compulsion. I do not like compulsion in these matters in any way whatever or in any form, but it certainly ought not to have been introduced until art attempt is made to show it was necessary. Has that arisen? The working of land purchase does not suggest it has arisen, and the reason I say the time has not arisen for the introduction of compulsion is this: Land purchase on any general system was only introduced in 1903, and six years of voluntary agreement shows that more than one-half, considerably more than one-half of the entire holdings in Ireland, were sold by voluntary agreement. It is not fair to say that the delay since has been in any way due to a disinclination to come to terms. The delay since 1909, as the introduction of
  1762
  this Bill admits, was due to the action of the Government in 1909 in practically revolutionising the whole system of 1903, abolishing the zones, doing away with the bonus and legislating in 1909 upon such lines as the right hon. Gentleman had to-night to admit, and what is common knowledge, that since then outside the congested districts, land purchase has been practically at a deadlock.
  Therefore, I say no case it appears to me, has been made, or could be made upon the facts up to now for the introduction of compulsion. I do not at all say, and never have said, that if, by the time this operation of land purchase has become practically general, and that you have exhausted all that can be done by voluntary agreement, that if there is a small residuum of tenants on the one hand and landlords upon the other who will come to no terms, and listen to no arrangement, that then, and then only, you might not introduce compulsion. But so long as things are going on as at present, so long as you have landlords and tenants tumbling over one another, the one to buy and the other to sell, and so long as there is no evidence of any disinclination on the part of the tenants and the landlords to come to terms upon the lines of the Act of 1903, and so long as the only time that that did not apply was owing to the action of the Government themselves in introducing in 1909 a Bill which has since strangled land purchase, and until we have better evidence than that on the part of the landlords to refuse to sell and the tenants to buy, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman he is only needlessly encumbering his Bill, and needlessly inviting opposition by introducing this idea of compulsion, which might be reserved, and safely reserved, for a much later stage; because I think I can assure him if this Bill becomes law and his view of the reduction that it will give, namely, 20 per cent. reduction to the tenant upon second term rents, and the landlord's Conference terms are right, I venture to assure him these compulsory provisions will not be necessary, and that, in any case, it is a mistake in a Bill intended to promote good feeling and voluntary agreement to hold a pistol at the head of either the landlord or the tenant. As I said, I am not going into any details of the Bill; it is a matter of vital interest to Ireland. I have always proclaimed that. I think this idea of land purchase is one of the greatest advantages and blessings that Ireland has derived, or ever could derive,

  1763
  from its connection with the Imperial Parliament. I am in favour of promoting it and helping its working by every means in my power, and I do not intend to do anything which would check the progress of this Bill, if in the next Session it is proposed to press this arrangement and promptly see it put upon the Statute Book.
  Mr. GODFREY COLLINS: The Chief Secretary has held up this afternoon a pleasing picture for the settlement of the Irish land question. This difficulty has arisen through readjusting the situation between the State, the landlords, and the tenants, each of whom wish to place the burden upon the shoulders of the other
  two. It transpired this afternoon what may happen if this Bill became law, and the right hon. Gentleman took two factors. He, first, took the term of purchase of twenty-two years; and, secondly, Consols at 88.
  Mr. BIRRELL: Consols at 75 and Land Stock at 88.
  Mr. COLLINS: I venture to think that there is no certainty that this state of things will come about. The experience of the last forty years has proved the Treasury have always taken too sanguine a view as to their ability to carry through land purchase in Ireland, and what has happened in the last forty years may very well happen in the years to come. If one may judge from events, Consols may still fall much further, in which case the burden to be placed upon the Imperial Exchequer may be a very considerable factor. The right hon. Gentleman told us this afternoon there would be no public issue of Land Stock, and that the National Debt Commissioners would take the stock instead. I understand from that that the National Debt Commissioners, instead of purchasing Consols in the open market with the available money, would take this stock instead, so that, in other words, from this stock being passed over into the hands of the National Debt Commissioners their ability to buy Consols in the open market would be drained to that extent. I might remind the House of the specific pledge given by the Government in 1903 when their great Land Act was passing into law. The Government, speaking on that date, said that the Irish Government intended to reduce their estimates by £250,000 a year to compensate the Imperial Government for the bonus of £12,000,000. I ask where is that
  1764
  reduction? I fail to find it in the cost of Irish Government. The Government from that day induced the British taxpayer, not only to lend money to the Irish landlord and the Irish tenant at a very low rate of interest, but they also induced them to hand over this large sum of £12,000,000 as a bonus, holding out hopes they have never been able to fulfil. Using the words of the Prime Minister, I think I can well describe these methods as sloppy methods of finance. From what I have been able to gather from past Debates and past Acts dealing with land purchase, I had hoped the Chief Secretary this afternoon would take his courage in both hands and raise the annuity not only from 3½ per cent. to 3⅝ per cent., but raise it to 4 per cent., because in the Acts passed from 1885 to 1903 that was the rate of annuity fixed by this House and under these Acts the terms of purchase were 17½, years, the rate of interest being 4 per cent.
  Mr. BIRRELL: On first term rents.
  Mr. COLLINS: Since the 1903 Act the British Government lent their money at 2¾ per cent., and the terms of purchase have been increased from 17½ years to 22 years.
  Mr. NEWMAN: On second term rents.
  Mr. COLLINS: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me the exact difference? It shows that there is a considerable difference of opinion as between first and second term rents. The point I am trying to make is this: That through the British Gevernment lending money at a low rate of interest, it has increased the purchase money paid by the Irish tenants to the Irish landlords, and if the rate of annuity was fixed at 4 per cent., I venture to think that these Amending Acts would not be necessary for this purpose. Perhaps the sinking fund might have been reduced or increased, but if the rate of increase had been 4 per cent. and the rate in the open market 3 per cent., the sinking fund would not have been 1 per cent., and there would have been a difference between the rate of interest and the total of 4 per cent., so that when money rises in value as it has done to-day, it would have been easier to adjust the new terms in future years. This difficulty which faced the Chief Secretary in 1909 would have been far more easy to adjust from time to time. When all is said and done this is merely a Bill to lend British gold to the Irish tenant. After what hon. Members opposite have said

  1765
  regarding the Irish tenants and the Nationalist party, -what right have they to vote for this Bill? If they are prepared to trust. Irish tenants with British gold, should they not be prepared also to trust the Irish people with their own methods of Government? I would like the Chief Secretary to consider whether it would not be possible to raise these annuities at 3¾ per cent., in view of the uncertainty that might exist in future years so that there need be no further Amending Bill dealing with Irish Land Stock.
  Mr. DILLON: On behalf of the Irish party I heartily welcome the tone and temper of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College (Mr. Campbell). If the Irish landlords will approach this question in the same temper I do not see anything to prevent us coming to a friendly settlement with the Irish landlords and settling this matter by consent. One thing I want to say is, that while I am, and have always been, in favour of giving fair and even generous terms to the Irish landlords, where I have differed in the past, and, I am afraid, to some extent differ now from the hon. Member for Cork, is that I have always insisted in getting a quid pro quo for the tenants, and that there should be give and take on either side. I thought in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College there was evidence of that spirit of give and take. He approached the question of compulsion in a reasonable spirit, although I wholly differ from his conclusions. The right hon. Gentleman asked what is the necessity for compulsion? I desire to answer that question now, because it is vital to the whole of this Bill and the settlement that may be based upon it. I will endeavour to answer the questions. The necessity for compulsion is that in the past, in the working of these Acts, while landlords who were the least objectionable and troublesome, either to their tenants or to the Government of the day, were more reasonable in selling and treating their tenants reasonably, the most troublesome landlords often held out. If the Government attempts to solve on a great national scale a problem such as the Irish land question, and if public moneys are provided at low rates of interest on such a scale—we have heard to-day in the House that the problem has already been solved and the solution tested, with results so magnificent and so encouraging as we all admit and know them to be—then I ask,
  1766
  is not the Government entitled to demand compulsion in order to secure the full public benefit which wilt flow from the carrying out of this measure.
  Let us for a moment look at the absurdities that arise owing to the want of compulsion. Take the case of Lord Clanricarde. He has been the puzzle and the torture of successive Chief Secretaries for close upon twenty-five years, and various Bills have been passed to get rid of that problem, and it still survives and defies the Government. Is it to be tolerated that while this great policy is going on and hundreds of landlords have given no trouble to the Government that Lord Clanricarde is to be allowed to keep the whole side of a country in a state of ferment and disorder when no man will stand up here and defend his action. The whole of the Clanricarde question which has been a source of disorder and even of bloodshed in the past could have been settled if there had been a compulsory measure placed in the hands of the Government. Let me take one other case. I am only taking this as a sample of the necessity for compulsion. I will take the case of Lord Ashtown. He is a very well known man, and I mention his name because he has been a great champion of Unionism and he is the author of "Facts from Ireland," which I should describe as lies from Ireland. Lord Ashtown is an opponent of the whole policy of land purchase, and the other day, in the "Outlook" newspaper, there appeared the following letter, on the 21st June, from Lord Ashtown:—
  "It is stated that Mr. Wyndham conferred upon Ireland that great Act, the Irish Land Purchase Act of 1903, which altered the whole complexion of the home Rule demand. I do not blame Mr. Wyndham for bringing in this Act, as he received his first lessons in Irish politics at the feet of Mr. Arthur Balfour. If the object of the Unionist party is to drive Unionists with capital and education out of Ireland then it is certainly a great Act, for it has carried out that policy to perfection. The Land Purchase Act has, as you say, altered the whole complexion of the Home Rule demand. It has immensely strengthened the hands of the agitators who put forward the Emile Rule demand with the object of gaining their disloyal ends, and unless the Irish policy of the Unionist party is changed there can be no resistance to Home Rule in the South and West."
  That is the opinion of Lord Ashtown, who at the very moment is a terrible source of disturbance in Ireland and the only storm centre we have in that country is on his property. Lord Ashtown also owns a vast area of cleared land in the county of Galway which is urgently needed for the settlement of the country, which he is wholly unable to utilise, which is really only waste country,

  1767
  and through which you may travel for miles without seeing a human habitation, and yet Lord Ashtown calmly tells the Government that he regards land purchase as a wicked policy, playing into the hands of the agitators, and he will not sell unless compulsion is brought about. There are many counties in Ulster where land purchase is not going at all so smoothly as in Leinster and Munster, and there are many parts of Ulster in which there are many Orangemen supporters of hon. Members above the Gangway who, if you ask them whether compulsion is necessary, would be found just as hot for compulsion as the Nationalists are, and I shall watch the action of hon. Members for Ulster on this question of compulsion with interest. The Congested Districts Board were endowed with compulsory powers, and the Estates Commissioners did very little owing to the action of the House of Lords, who mutilated the Bill of 1909. It amuses me very much when I hear men denouncing that Bill to recall the action of Lord Castletown. After the Bill had come back from the House of Lords he made a speech in which he said that if the Irish party defeated the Pill of 1909 they dare not go back to Ireland. That was not true; but we were denounced by a champion of the Irish landslords, the moment it got out that there was some doubt about our attitude, because they wanted to get their money on the arrears of the purchases which were already entered into, and they knew well that if the Act of 1909 did not pass they could not get their money, and the whole thing would have been tied up indefinitely.
  Why did we allow the Act of 1909 to pass? It was not our Act. Even as it was originally introduced it was in many points opposed by the Irish party, and it. was so mutilated by the House of Lords that the Chief Secretary, when it came back, said he felt that he was standing amid shattered ruins. We allowed it to pass because of the generous provision it made for the rescue of the West of Ireland from the position in which it had been left. When I hear hon. Members denouncing the Chancellor of the Exchequer in violent language—that. is not a good policy when you want to get something out of him—as the enemy of the Irish people, and mean and sordid in his relations with the people of Ireland, I can never forget the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in making that very fine and generous provision for the Congested Districts Board
  1768
  which has produced such splendid results as we have heard the Chief Secretary declare to the House to-day. Furthermore, I will say this about the Chancellor of the Exchequer: People are continually referring to our action in allowing £1,500,000 extra taxation to be placed upon Ireland. In dealing with that question you must take into account Lloyd-Georgian finance as a whole, and I say that since the Union no Chancellor of the Exchequer has done so much for Ireland as Lloyd George has done. What are the causes of compulsion? I have frequently told the Chief Secretary that his compulsory Clause would be futile for a very simple reason. Even the compulsory Clauses for a congested district give the following terms: A landlord who is compelled to sell gets cash instead of stock, he gets priority over those who are not compelled, and he gets his bonus as if there were no compulsion at all, and that turns the whole of the compulsory Clauses into a perfect farce.
  It is said that most of the landlords were only too anxious to be compelled to sell. Why not? If I were an Irish landlord, I would not dream of selling without being compelled. You are far better off under that Act if you are compelled to sell than if you agree to sell. That turns the whole of the compulsory Clauses into a farce. The House of Lords took care of that. I was perfectly confident at the time that the compulsory Clauses would be extremely hard to work, and that they would be more or less a total failure owing to these blots, which I trust will now be removed. There is another reason why compulsion has not worked, and the Chief Secretary knows it well. The whole history of the various Irish Land Acts is a history of the Irish Courts defeating the objects of them. No sooner do we pass an Act of Parliament on the Irish land question than the judges in Ireland set to work to drive holes through that. Act, and by a series of judgments they have tied up and interpreted the Clauses so that they have almost paralysed the Act of 1909. Take a case which occurred the other day, when the Congested Districts Board, in spite of the difficulty I have pointed out, applied the compulsory Clauses to Lord Clanricarde. What did he do? He went to the Master of the Rolls in Dublin and moved by some process of law, the name of which I do not know, and obtained an injunction. Lord Clanricarde resorted to every device to obstruct and to lay the proceeding and to

  1769
  inflict expense on the Court, and when all was done, and the final offer was made to Lord Clanricarde, he proceeded to the Master of the Rolls and obtained judgment. I heard the hon. Member for East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) say,
  "You have Cherry in the Court of Appeal."
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I said, "You have the Chancellor and Cherry, who are a majority."
  Mr. DILLON: I am glad of it, but I do not know when he will get to the Court of Appeal, and what the result will be, though I know Lord Clanricarde intends to go to the House of Lords.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: You have Haldane there.
  Mr. DILLON: I do not know whether the present Chancellor will be there by the time Lord Clanricarde gets there. This Act was passed in 1909 to get rid of the Lord Clanricarde difficulty. We are now in 1913, and we have got to the Master of the Rolls, and our only comfort is that we may get to the House of Lords. I say, again, that we ought to have, and I trust we shall have, such a system of compulsion as will be a reality, and that, amongst other things, there will be no bonus when a man is compelled. The bonus was given as an inducement to a landlord to sell voluntarily, and it is a perfect farce to hand over the bonus when he refuses to sell. Furthermore, I hope some provision may be made—and I appeal to tine Chief Secretary on this point—to cheek the outrageous flood of litigation that has arisen under these Land Laws. There is a Clause in one of the recent Acts which the. Land Judge has taken as an indication that he is to give costs in every case against the Crown or against the Land Judge's Court where a landlord appeals. What is the result' Every solicitor in Dublin tells his client to appeal without fear on every point of law that can possibly be raised, because a large bill of costs is run up, and the Treasury have to pay it. If these points are attended to, and the compulsory Clauses made watertight, so that they cannot be interfered with, as they were interfered with in the Lord Clanricarde case, then I do not believe—I have frequently expressed this view before—that you will be obliged to apply compulsion in more than one or two cases in Ireland. All you will have to do will be to initiate compulsion, because the landlord, knowing that in case of compulsion he will have to sell without
  1770
  a bonus, will naturally come down and agree to sell. You will have no compulsion, and the machinery will work smoothly. It is the great object of carrying out that particular side of land purchase in Ireland that we should not be driven to the machinery of compulsion, which, compared with voluntary sale is expensive, odious, and irritating. Men often ask me, "Do you really mean to say that it will be a practical policy to wind up land purchase by compulsory sales?" I say, "Certainly not, but if the Clauses are properly framed you will have no compulsion, because the moment you initiate it the landlord will come forward and say, `Stop that, I will sell.'"
  There are one or two points in the speech of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien), on which I should like to say a word or two. Re spoke of the Chief Secretary dangling before the eyes of the Irish tenants twenty-two years' purchase. I did not understand the Chief Secretary to indicate that there was anything in the Bill about twenty-two years, and most certainly if there were I should join in a most vigorous protest against it. What the Chief Secretary did was to take a supposititious case to illustrate his meaning. He said, "Supposing the tenant pays twenty-two years' purchase, it works out in the following way." I do not believe that any tenant would agree to pay an increased number of years' purchase, and I think I can prove quite clearly that the landlord can get 90 per cent. of his rent which I always considered very generous on a considerably less number of years' purchase. I should like to know where the English landlord is who pockets and spends 90 per cent. of his rent. I have met many English landlords who say they can consider they are very well off if they get 50 per cent, of their rent. It is 90 per cent. of the gross rental that the landlord claims in Ireland. That is the modest claim. I really think it ought to be thoroughly understood by English landlords that is the claim and basis on which they wish the settlement to be made. Mark you, it is 90 per cent. of the gross income from the estate secured on a security infinitely more staple and sure than any Irish landlord's estate. I think I can prove that a very much lower number of years' purchase than twenty-two years—and this is a very important matter—would on the basis of the present state of the Money market give what are called "Conference terms" to the landlords.

  1771
  The Chief Secretary alluded to one matter which I consider to be of primary importance, and that was the new settlement of the bonus. The hon. Member for Cork gave three conditions on which he said the Bill must be founded in order to be a useful and satisfactory Bill. One was that the annuity of the tenant should be reduced to at per cent. It is impossible for any practical man to believe that we can induce the British Treasury to pay cash, if we reduce the tenant's annuity to 3¼ per cent. That means stock and no cash, and I cannot agree with the hon. Member. Then he said, "Restore the bonus in such a form as to make it a real inducement." Do I understand him to mean that it is to be restored to a flat rate? The present bonus is more in money, and it costs the Treasury a good deal more than the old bonus, but the hon. Member said, "Restore the bonus, so as to make it a real inducement." I ask him, "Does he mean to go back to the flat rate, because, of all the absurdities that ever came out of this House, the flat rate was the greatest. What right has a man who gets twenty-five years' purchase for his estate to a bonus? Yet he got more than a man who sold for fifteen years' purchase. I never heard of such a scheme. Take the classical case of the Duke of Leinster, a millionaire, who sold his estate for more than £1,000.000, got tyenty-five years of his rent, and pocketed £100,000 or £4,000 a year as a reward for selling his estate for twenty-five years' purchase. I say that the grading of the bonus has been an enormous gain to the tenants in Ireland, and a very great advantage to the whole system of land purchase, and I hope and trust that the Chief Secretary, when he spoke of a change in the bonus, meant a further grading of the scale, and never for a moment intended to return to the flat rate.
  I think that a great deal could be clone to make this scheme work, and to bridge the difficulty between the landlord and the tenant by handling the bonus a little more generously without any overwhelming cost to the Treasury. It is a very great inducement to the landlord. I have known cases myself where it has acted as a most powerful temptation over and above its value. In many cases the landlord was very much embarrassed for the want of ready cash to provide for his younger children, and,
  1772
  perhaps, his wife, and he was extremely anxious to get the bonus, because it might be the only cash that he would handle for years. That was an enormous advantage. I believe a great deal in the bonus as a means of bringing about, what I do desire most eagerly to bring about, in spite of the hon. Member for Cork, and that is an amicable settlement of this question. I would suggest to the Chief Secretary whether he could not devise a method by which a large proportion of the bonus would be paid over to the landlords as the agreements are signed. At present, one of the great grievances the landlords have, is that when they sell their estates and consent to a reduction of the interest they do not get the bonus. It lies sometimes for four or five years at a time, whilst they being poor landlords are hard up, and is not paid until the transaction is completed. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should adopt some scheme by which the bonus or a pro portion of it could be paid to the land lords when the agreements are signed. I come now to the figures. I have calculated it out very carefully, and I make out that on twenty years' purchase at 4¼ percent. interest and with the bonus the landlord would get £98 in the £100, not 90 per cent. at all, but 98; and that. on an eighteen years' purchase, by a slightly increased grading up of the bonus, which would really not cost the Treasury very much, the landlord would get £89 in the £100, which is practically Conference terms. Therefore, it is not a question of twenty-two years' purchase; it is a question of eighteen or nineteen years' purchase at the most in order that the landlord should get 90 per cent. of his gross income. Anybody who works out the figures will find that I am correct. Even without the increase in the bonus, nineteen years' purchase would bring the Conference terms.
  Let me ask this question. Is it unfair, in the present state of the Money market, to calculate on 4½ per cent.? Look at what happened in the city only the other day. There was a Montreal City loan of £1,600,000. I venture to say there could not be a better security. The loan was issued at 4½ per cent., and it is said that three fourths of it is still in the hands of underwriters. I believe these cities offer as good security as any in the world. Take the City of Winnipeg. They issued a loan a day or two ago at 4½ per cent. at the price of £97. I really do not know whether this is covered by the Clause in the Act of

  1773
  1909, but what is to prevent the Government bringing in these Canadian City loans for the purposes of land purchase. I am convinced at this moment the Irish landlord would get for his investment 4½ per cent. in an infinitely better security than is afforded by his Irish estate. His interest would come to him by post, without a single atom of trouble, and he will not have to go hunting after tenants, which, we are told, may be a matter of difficulty when Home Rule has been passed. I think it would be perfectly possible to work out this finance if the Treasury could only be induced to make a sacrifice and pay in cash. It would thereby be possible to work out the Conference terms, and, perhaps, something above Conference terms, say eighteen years' purchase on second term rents. In spite of all that has been said by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, I am prepared to face the Irish people on the issue of eighteen years' purchase. The hon. Member said just now that we went in terror of the people of Ireland, but if we are so very unsound on land purchase, is it not strange that they should persist in returning us to this House? I have no fear on that ground whatever, and if the Government can see their way to do this, and if the landlords can see their way to support us in the demands for cash payment, I will undertake to support the 3¾ per cent. annuity If my head is taken off for that, I cannot help it.
  The real point at issue is for the Government to make this Bill a complete measure, a measure which will remove all the blots and weak points that have been discovered in the working of the Land Act, which will furnish the Estates Commissioners in Dublin as well as the Congested Districts Board with a really effective system, and which, too, if it is accepted, wild clean up this business completely. If they do that I think they will find as regards the finance of the Bill that the chief point to be pressed on the Government is payment in cash. That will go a long way to remove the objections of the landlords. It will undoubtedly inflict a slightly greater burden on the Treasury, but it will settle this question once and for all, and it will command the goodwill of all parties concerned. At the same time I cannot take up the attitude adopted by the hon. Member for Cork in denouncing the British Treasury for its action in saddling Ireland, as he describes it, with the £12,000,000 of bonus to be given to the landlords. I would ask how have they
  1774
  saddled it on Ireland He also said that they had saddled £700,000 a year on Ireland in connection with the Land Commission. How have they done it? They have saddled it on Ireland by paying it themselves. It is only a book debt. It is entered, it is true, in certain Treasury White Papers, but there is not a single word about it in the Home Rule Bill. According to the Treasury White Paper it is a book debt against Ireland, but Ireland does not pay it, and, therefore, it is not the case that the Government have saddled it on Ireland. As far as I comprehend the problem, the Treasury have kept faith with us. But I would strongly appeal to the Government to consider whether it would not be worth while to make this further concession. They have gone half-way already. Let them complete it. and settle this question of land purchase. Let them indicate their willingness to do it, and then this Bill will become an extremely popular Bill in Ireland—in the South and West, and even in Ulster, for all Irish farmers are equally anxious to buy their farms on good terms Ulster farmers will never be able to do that without compulsion. The acceptance of this proposal would do a great deal to smooth away all the difficulties and to pave the way for the success of the Home Rule Bill and the system which it proposes to set up, and if we are able to come back at the. beginning of next Session—there is no time, I fear, to do it this Session—and say to the Government that both the Irish landlords and the Irish Nationalist party have agreed on a settlement, the Government, in carrying it out, will strike one of the best blows they have yet delivered to smooth the way for the passage of the Home Rule Bill.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman asked me one or two questions with regard to the investments by Irish landlords under the present Bill. I have not looked up the Clause, and, therefore, I cannot say accurately what interest is actually obtainable under it. I think the hon. Gentleman is more or less correct when he states that under certain circumstances, by certain investments, probably nearly 4½ per cent. may be obtained. That is more or less true. It may be 4¼ per cent. or 4⅓ per cent., but that would only be in certain investments, and not in all the investments sanctioned under the existing Clause. The hon. Member talked about Canadian cities being included in the list of authorised investments. I do not want

  1775
  to go into that for a moment. I would only say I think a little caution is necessary there. Say that at the present moment 4¼ per cent. or 4⅓ per cent. is obtainable. It does not follow that that rate of interest will always be paid. Indeed, I hope that if we are enabled to arrange our own finances a little here, in all probability there will be a decrease in the rates of interest to be obtained, and if that occurs here it will follow elsewhere, so that it is uncertain what rate of interest is going to be obtained in the future. I do not think you can very well say at the present moment, when there is an increase in the rate of interest which can be obtained in valuable securities, that that is going to be permanent, and that the whole future of investments of landlords in Ireland can be based on that. I object very strongly to the compulsory Clauses because, as hon. Members know, I object to compulsion in every case, unless it is to make a man obey the law, when I have no objection.
  Mr. BIRRELL: You do not object in the case of railways?
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not want the railways to be compelled to make contracts with the State.
  Mr. BIRRELL: That is not the point. I was suggesting that the hon. Baronet does not object to landlords being compelled to sell their land to a railway company for any public purpose.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That is quite true, but, then, that is for the general benefit of the State. I do not know that this is quite an analogous case. At any rate, compulsion on the owner of land to sell his land to a railway generally results in a very high price being paid by the railway company for it, and I do not think that a similar high rate would be received by the landlord who sells under this Act. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions. I did not quite follow where the National Debt Commissioners are going to get this money from. As far as I know, there are only two sources open to them. One is the use of the sinking fund and the other is the use of moneys which will be received by the Post Office Savings Bank. Fresh deposits which come in, which would in the ordinary course of events be invested in Consols, might presumably be diverted to this new form of investment, and so, in the
  1776
  same way, the sining fund, invested in various Government securities, might be entirely put into the new stock to be created under the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to bring in. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that if that is so it is merely shifting the burden from one shoulder to another. The fact that you are going to buy this new Irish Stock with Post Office Savings Bank money or sinking fund money will not improve English funds generally It may alleviate the difficulty in this particular instance, but it will not make the general credit of the English nation better, for it is only going round in a circle, and it does not alter the amount of money that will have to be provided. I understand that £60,000,000 will have to be found, in addition to about £24,000,000. I do not know whether it is new stock or money that will have to be issued on the market, but there will have to be a sufficient sum of money found to settle the bargains entered into prior to the Act of 1909. Ts that right?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No. It is £60,000,000 of new money. That is an addition, and; it is £24,000,000 of outstanding money.
  sir J. LONSDALE: I venture to think the right hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying £24,000,000, as the amount required for purchase under the Act of 1903 is £37,500,000.
  Mr. BIRRELL: Whatever the amount is, it has got to be found
  Sir F. BANBURY: I understand there is a sum of about £24,000,000 which has to be found to meet obligations already entered into?
  Mr. BIRRELL: That is so.
  Sir F. BANBURY: And that the further obligations will amount to £60,000,000?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes.
  7.0 P.M.
  Sir F. BANBURY: And that the £24,000,000 will be found in the ordinary
  way, and the £60,000,000 in the new way
  foreshadowed by the right hon. Gentleman? I have made a rough calculation as to the amount of money which would have to be found by the English taxpayer, and I ask the Home Secretary whether I am right: So far as I can make out, the result will be, allowing for the sinking fund which
  must be put by in order to recoup the National Debt Commissioners at the end of sixty-eight years, and also allowing for

  1777
  the bonus and the interest upon the bonus if the whole of the £60,000,000 is found, the British Treasury will have to find 5 per cent. on the £60,000,000, or roughly £3,000,000 a year. I am leaving out of the calculation any loss on the £24,000,000 that has already accrued, and am dealing only with the £60,000,000 which will have to be found if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament—that is to say, English taxpayers will have to find £3,000,000 a year.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: The money is no a free gift.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The tenants pay that.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I understand that the bonus is a free gift, and that the Irish tenants will not pay it. The rate of interest which will have to be paid to the National Debt Commissioners is £3 6s. 8d. To that you will have to add 10s. per cent. for sinking fund, which makes £3 16s. 8d. The tenant will pay £3 12s. 6d., and the difference between the £3 16s. 8d. and the £3 12s. 6d. is the loss which will have to be provided by the British Treasury. In addition to that, there is the interest on the bonus and the sinking fund necessary to provide for the repayment of the bonus. I think I am correct in my figures, although I may be wrong. I make out that in these circumstances there will be an annual loss, as soon as the whole £60,000,000 has been advanced, of £3,000,000 to the British Treasury.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna):No.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I think I am right in saying that the Irish tenant will not pay a sufficient. sum to recoup both sinking fund and interest. If I am right, there must be a loss which will have to be borne by the British Treasury. I am, for the moment, taking the rate of interest on Consols as it is at the present moment. At present they return £3 9s. The interest paid to the National Debt Commissioners is only to be £3 6s. 8d. Assuming that Consols remain at their present price there will be a further loss by the National Debt Commissioners, because they might have invested their money to greater advantage than under the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. It is only fair to say, how-ever, that if Consols go up, there will be a reverse operation, and that the National Debt Commissioners will then reap a benefit.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: If they go above 75.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That again is a speculation, into which we need not enter at the present moment. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) said it was very hard that 25 years' purchase should be given to a millionaire, and he mentioned the Duke of Leinster. I do not see that there should be any difference between the number of years' purchase given to a millionaire or a poor man, for the number of years' purchase is the value of the property. The rich man has as much right to receive it as the poor man. Unless I am mistaken, the Duke of Leinster was not the only man to receive twenty-five years' purchase for his estate.
  Mr. DILLON: I said I thought it was about twenty-five years' purchase.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Say it is twenty-four and a-half.
  Sir F. BAN BURY: I say it is the value of his estate which the landlord ought to receive, whether he is a rich man or a poor man. Is it not a fact that the Duke of Leinster was not the only man to receive twenty-five years' purchase for his estate? So far as my recollection goes, an hon. Member below the Gangway, and a very leading hon. Member, in fact, no less a Member than the Leader of the Irish party is supposed to have received twenty-five years' purchase for his estate.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Twenty-four and a-half.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Then he was in the same position as the wicked duke. I do not think it was very wise of the hon. Member to have brought up the illustration of the duke, inasmuch as he did no worse than his own leader. I desire to say a few words upon the financial aspect of the question. The hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. Godfrey Collins) said that if the annuity had been fixed at 4 per cent. all this difficulty would not have arisen. I think the hon. Gentleman was right. Why was it not fixed at 4 per cent. Because the original object of Irish land purchase was not to bring forward a scheme financially sound, but something which would enable the Irish tenant to purchase his land without paying too much for it. As a matter of fact, all the old economic principles were thrown to the wind. I voted against the Second and Third Reading of that Bill, and am glad I

  1779
  did so, because it seemed to be financially unsound, and because I object to the State interfering in order to settle disputes between two people to the detriment of the one and to the advantage of the other. The whole original scheme was unsound. It is quite impossible to suppose that any large sum of money could be borrowed at 2,4 per cent., just as it is unlikely that 4 per cent. will always remain the rate of interest. That being so, the scheme was bound to come to the position in which the Government now find themselves, in which they have to get part of the money by asking the British taxpayer to put his hand into his pocket and find £3,000,000 a year, or whatever the sum may be, in order to assist the Government out of the difficulty.
  You could not now revert to a 4 per cent. annuity, because you would then have three different sets of tenants—the first who bought at 34 per cent., the second who bought at 3¼ per cent., and the third who bought at a 4 per cent. annuity. That would lead to feelings of disappointment between the different sets of people, and probably stop Irish land purchase altogether. Having once embarked upon a bad operation, we have to go on with it. Whether it is advisable to go on with it by the method proposed I am not certain. There is another method, that is, by being economical and causing the value of British funds to rise. Then all this difficulty would disappear. That method has not been followed by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Speaking for myself, I do not quite see, if we are going to have Home Rule, why the English taxpayer is to be asked to pay another £3,000,000 a year in order to provide the Irish tenants with their landlords' land. I cannot help feeling that the English taxpayers would not approve of this method. If we are going to have Home Rule, then let Ireland look after itself, but do not let us have Home Rule, and at the same time act as a wet nurse to Ireland, and put our hands into our pockets and find additional money for Ireland. I do not know whether I have stated the actual financial scheme correctly. As the right hon. Gentleman has not contradicted me I suppose I am right. I hope the Home Secretary will be able to say if I am wrong in stating that when the £60,000.000 has been raised and the whole matter settled there will be a loss of 5 per cent., which will have to be paid by the State.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: The hon. Baronet as taken what with him is rather an unusual course, namely, he has discussed the terms of a financial measure which he has not seen. I therefore do not blame him in the least for the somewhat exaggerated statements he has made. I would say that it would have been better if this Bill had been introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule and printed, and then a day given for its Second Reading, so that we could have seen the actual terms of the measure. As I understand the course the Government have taken it is this: that they are bringing in a Bill to-day which will never have a chance of being discussed on Second Reading so far as this Session is concerned, and yet exaggerated and unfounded statements such as that made by the hon. Baronet. will go forth to-morrow that this Bill will cost the English taxpayers—as though we never contributed at all—something like £3,000,000 a year. I therefore strongly complain of the course the Government have taken in bringing in the Bill in this form, when really we have now come to what I may call the mere residuum of Irish land purchase finance. In the old times we discussed these measures from the point of view of principle. The country rocked with anticipation when measures of the kind were brought in, the House was crowded, the landlords were interested, some of them protested, and a great national question of State policy was laid down. We have now come to a mere question of pawnbroking. This is a pawnbroking transaction so far as the lending of money is concerned. Therefore, as we have to discuss it from that point of view, I think that my hon. Friend the hon. Baronet, if I may so call him, will be well advised to tell his constituents that every shilling you have lent to the Irish people for land purchase you have got back, and that you have not only got. it back, but that as pawnbrokers, you have made a large profit on the transaction. Those are the net facts so far as
  Irish land purchase is concerned. England has been the gainer, not merely in moral effect, not merely in the soothing effect that it has had upon the country, but you have actually got our money in your pockets, and I think that to a large extent you could finance the present measure by applying the system of the sinking fund and the return that the tenants have made on their own loans—that is, if you went from the Act of 1870 to the present time I think there is.

  1781
  sufficient money repaid by the tenant to vivify the finance of this Bill. Certainly no one can ever forget, however Nationalist he may be, and however much he may admire the Chief Secretary, the startling statement he made that the conclusion of land purchase is a matter of more importance than Home Rule itself.
  If that be true, how conies it that it is upon 21st July, and under these conditions that the measure is brought forward? I welcome. the labourers' provision in the Bill, but why put it into this Bill? Why not pass a separate Bill for it? What is the advantage of these petty Treasury tricks? Are we to swallow anything that we may object to in this Bill because you propose to lend £1,000,000 in another direction? That is a most unfair way of legislating, and it is only in regard to Ireland that that method is adopted. This money is urgently needed for labourers' cottages. The labourers also pay back their money. The Irish ratepayers make good a portion of the loss and, so far as the Government are concerned, every shilling of the money that is lent for labourers' cottages is repaid; therefore why you should mix up this question of the amount that you are going to advance for the labourers with this measure at this time of the year I really cannot understand. The Government, I think, should remember that. the right hon. Gentleman pledged himself this year he would make good some loan for the Irish labourers' cottages. Is this the way it is going to be fulfilled, that we are to accept the Bill as a whole because this very desirable provision is included in it? So far as I can gather from the reception the Bill has met with the Government have no excuse whatever for not giving a day to the Second Reading. I do not quite remember the date at which the Land Bill of the 'nineties was brought in. I think it was late as this, but I shall certainly look it up, and if the Government find, as I think they might, that there is a general desire to have another day for the Second Reading, after we have seen the text of the Bill, I should very much like that the Government should be pressed by hon. Gentlemen behind them, especially as they have not seen the Bill, to give a day for the Second Reading.
  Another question I should like to ask is, has this Bill the approval of the Treasury? That seems a strange question to ask, and I would not have asked it, except that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the Budget was being passed went out of his
  1782
  way to declare, as regards Mr. Wyndham's Bill, that it never had the approval of the Treasury. Is this a Treasury Bill? I think we should be enlightened on that pointy either now or on the Second Reading. I should like to ask the House to consider on this question of Wyndham finance, as against what has been called the Birrell Act of 1909, what is the question upon which all this pother is proceeding. Hon. Members behind me talk as if there were some tremendous questions which arose upon which the Wyndham Act made shipwreck. They said that the Trish taxpayers were being swamped, or were threatened with being swamped, by increasing rates, and the British Treasury was being overwhelmed with the demands of Ireland, and therefore it became an absolute necessity for the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Government to put Irish finance on a right basis.
  Will the House believe that all this talk that has gone on for seven or eight years upon this question of ruin to the Irish taxpayer and the swamping of the Treasury by our demands, all turned on the question of a loss of £400,000 a year? That was a tremendous stumbling block for the Treasury when it is Wyndham's finance, but you strain at a gnat and you swallow.a camel. Hon. Members behind are horrified at £400,000 for land purchase but they will vote for £1,400,000 increased taxes through the Budget. The Irish taxpayer has been frightened by this tremendous burden of £400,000 which was to hang round his neck, and the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) said to-night,
  "Did we really contemplate going back to the flat-rate system of Bonus. Would any of us dare to raise a sacrilegious voice and go back to the Wyndham proposals?" Well, I would, and the case of the Duke of Leinster has no more terrors for me than the case of John Redmond. If the hon. and learned Gentleman owned an estate worth £1,000,000 I should have been very glad if he had got a large sum as a bonus for the sale of his property. It would have been a great pleasure to me to be able to congratulate him. The suggestion that you are to attack the Duke of Leinster and say, "Why should the Duke of Leinster get a bonus, and why should John Redmond not get a bonus?" at once brings up that system of individous comparison of which, of course, the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) was keen to take advantage, and he said, of course, that the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) was mala-

  1783
  droit in bringing the comparison forward. Not at all. On the contrary he was very adroit. He meant it. He said the Duke of Leinster—that was his skill—but he suggested the case of John Redmond. That shows that the hon. Member is, as he always has been in the House, a very great master of Parliamentary satire.
  I therefore say I am not ashamed to ask for the rest of the landlords of Ireland the same terms that many hon. Members below the Gangway receive, and whether it is a flat rate or a humped rate, so long as it tends to settle the Irish land question I am in favour of that rate, and the testimonial that is to be given to this flat rate is that it has sold half the land of Ireland within something like five or six years, and that you have been peddling with your rate, crooked or straight, or flat or whatever it is, and you have sold hardly any of the land. Your system looks lovely on paper, but it has not worked. Then the Member for East Mayo referred to the litigation concerning the Clanricarde Estate, and sometimes we owe a great deal to Mr. Speaker for his indulgence, but I certainly was surprised to hear the attack which the hon. Member made on the Irish Master of the Rolls in connection with the judgment of Lord Clanricarde's case. I had always supposed that it was a rule in this House that you are never to allude to a case which is sub judice. The hon. Member not only told us that the case was sub judice, but he announced, I suppose from some communication that he has had from Lord Clanricarde, that Lord Clanricarde was going to take the case to the House of Lords. If that be so, is it not all the more desirable to bring up that case in connection with compulsory purchase in the House of Commons? What would be the effect of it? He was good enough to repeat a remark he overheard me make to the hon. Member (Mr. W. O'Brien) that if the Master of the Rolls had made a mistake he would be corrected by the Court of Appeal. Of course, it is a very easy thing in the case of a man so disliked as Lord Clanricarde to attack a judge and say, "We have great difficulty with the Irish judges and we are really surprised at the way in which this Birrell Act has been worked." I will venture to say, without having read the Section which the Master of the Rolls had to construe, that in all probability it is one of those Sections which the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) had
  1784
  a hand in drafting, and, if it is, I do not wonder that the Master of the Rolls has construed it as he has.
  But be that as it may, what does it point to in connection with this question of compulsory purchase? I prophesy that such a speech will have this result: that there will be a demand made immediately that this Bill gets into Committee, that even if Home Rule should become law the judges who are to decide upon this question of compulsion shall be judges appointed by the Imperial Government and not by the Irish Government. That will be the result of the hon. Member bringing up to-night the decision of the Master of the Rolls, because that learned judge has only construed the very difficult Sections in the way any honest man would construe them; and even if the hon. Member had the appointment of the judges who are to decide this matter, even if their name was Muldoon, they would not come to a different decision from that come to by the highly learned man, the late Attorney-General under the Liberal Government, now the Master of the Rolls. He touched only upon one aspect of compulsion, which is not the true aspect of it, for I venture to say that once, instead of applying the true solvent to this problem, which is the advance of money upon easy terms—compulsion by temptation, instead of by law—you fall back upon the theory that the Courts of Law, either under a Home Rule Government. or any other Government, are going, after argument on both sides, to give a man less for his property than what it is worth, the hon. Member for Mayo is making a great mistake. Would he like to sell his shop at Ballaghadereen for less than it is worth? Would he like to take a decision as to the amount he is to receive for it of a tribunal I should appoint? His acceptance of the decision would be a touching illustration of his perfect confidence in my impartiality. In the same manner, in dealing with this question of compulsion, the notion that you can go to the Courts of Law and suggest to them that a man should get undervalue for political purposes is one that the Courts will lend themselves to political prostitution. I say they will do nothing of the kind, either under Home Rule or any other rule.
  Compulsion may be required in some cases, but where may I look for a settlement of this question? You can only look for a settlement in the Provision of money,

  1785
  and the promise held out by the Government of this country that it would provide sufficient money at easy rates. Certainly it is an extraordinary thing that you, who are going to buy oil wells, and whose Navy is costing £40,000,000 or £45,000,000, and which only cost about £15,000,000 when I came to this House, when it is only a question of £400,000 a year, should kick up all this row and humbug in regard to what is practically merely a flea-bite. It is nonsense to talk as if you were dealing with some great mountain which you had to clear away. You are taking three times that amount from us year by year. Why, then, remit this whole question to compulsion? Those who leave the financial side of the case and go to the legal side are only deceiving the people. Everybody knows the way in which price on compulsion have been treated in every tribunal. There is another device of the hon. Member for Mayo, as to enlarging the range of investments, and really in this matter he seems to think that the Chief Secretary ought to be labelled, "Follow the man from Cooks." It is not that he lays down canons, but he pontificates. He is now taking us to Winnipeg. The system of investments is to be greatly extended, I suppose, as far as Bogota! I was a party although I grumbled at it to the extension of the list of Trustee investments in the Act of 1909. You may get a good kind of security in some of these places, but when the hon. Member talks about the City of Montreal and of Winnipeg, pointing out that their loans have not been taken up in the City, it shows that he does not know anything about it. Why have they not been taken up? Because everybody knows, except the hon. Member for Mayo, that Canada at present is suffering from huge over-investment in land. Canada is bored with these investments. Accordingly, there has been the greatest difficulty in floating such loans. Canada has overdone it. I agree with the hon. Member that there are some excellent securities in Canada, and if the right hon. Gentleman has been persuaded by the hon. Member for Mayo—although he has not seen the Bill, it is strange that he should guess at the contents—to add Canadians to the list of Trustee Investments, for my part I shall offer no opposition.
  I think myself that the securities added in 1909 did little good. If further experiments are to be made, you may leave them to the Public Trustee in Ireland. If you look at the list he sanctions, you will conclude that he will sanction one in
  1786
  Kamschatka before he would sanction one in county Cork. Go to Winnipeg, go to Montreal, "over the hills and far away," and you will be sure of a first-class security. I do not know whether, now that oil schemes are coming up for the Navy "Oil shares, Limited," would not look splendid in the schedule of the new Act. "Guaranteed Oil Shares" would read splendidly, and so far as I am concerned I shall offer no opposition to that extension. Perhaps it will have the baptismal blessing of the hon. Gentleman. There is only one other remark I wish to make. The Government have boasted, not unnaturally, that by their late Act they have advanced matters in Connaught somewhat from the previous state of things under the Act of 1903. I agree that they have appointed a very large staff at very large salaries indeed. I think Mr. Doran has £2,000 a year. At all events, there is no doubt that he has a highly-paid staff, who have undoubtedly done something for the West of Ireland. To that extent, Connaught, which had been a black spot on the map, has recently advanced considerably. Let me tell the lion. Member that if Connaught had been allowed under the Wyndham Act freedom and fair-play, as Munster was, the people of Con naught, who are just as good judges of a bargain as the people in any other part of the country, would long since have been purchased out. When the hon. Member for Mayo went down to his constituents, he said: "I am sorry to say that this Bill has been working entirely too smoothly, and I wish to God—" He brought in
  the sacred name; a speech from him without it would not be complete. "I wish to God I had power to stop it." Naturally, the people of Connaught took his advice. They were told that if they would only wait until the sweet by and by in 1913, 1914, or 1915, they would get better terms. Now the murder is out. The step which the Chief Secretary has taken in order to get the landlord something like 90 per cent. of his rent, is based on purchase at twenty-two years. This is the end of the boastful talk about relying upon virile methods, and now they declare that the Treasury has done splendidly. Virile methods ! I would rather them call them methods of Parliamentary eunuchs. For the sake of the miserable sum of money, about £400,000, you have had this question before you for four years, and you have attacked the men who have made Ireland peaceable. You have attacked the scheme which has

  1787
  brought peace to Ireland, and when hon. Gentlemen say that we are now showing some bitterness on the question, let English Members recollect that we said the Act of 1909 would not work. We had the honour of being expelled from the Irish party for saying so, although we voted for the Act in July, 1909. We were expelled in January, 1910—the greatest honour of my life. Now we come here four years afterwards, and, after everything that we said, and every prophecy that we made, has been verified, you turn round and bring in an entirely fresh scheme. It only shows, of course, that the Government, though extremely well intentioned, were misled by the talk of thousands of pounds going to men like the Duke of Leinster. I would like to know how much will go to Lord Clanricarde under the compulsory provisions. At least a million of money. That is what he will get under the sweet Christian name of "compulsion." It is statesmanship to give that money to him with compulsion, but it is anti -Nationalist and unChristian to give it to the Duke of Leinster, who had the good sense to sell voluntarily, and when he was the only landlord in Ireland who could boast. that every house and fence and improvement made on the Kildare estate was made at his own expense. That is the man who is singled out for attack to-day on the ground that gross extravagance has been committed in giving him a million of money. For the sake of the county Kildare I am very glad he has got it. It is one of the most peaceful counties in Ireland. I believe that white gloves were given to the judge at the last assizes, arid I would advise the hon. Member for East Mayo when next he is attacking land purchase and arguing against the Duke of Leinster getting £1,000,000, to go down and tell the tenants on his Kildare estate that land purchase has brought them to the verge of bankruptcy.
  Mr. NEWMAN: Really I am sorry, speaking for the Irish landlords, that the hon. Member for East Mayo has brought forward the names of the two noblemen to whom he referred and the question compulsion. I am exceedingly glad, however, that the hon. Member has come round to our ways of thinking, though I am genuinely sorry that he has mentioned compulsion, because compulsion will frighten a certain number of Irish landlords and make our task more difficult. I think that
  1788
  a Member for an English Division ought, perhaps, to apologise for intervening in a purely Irish Debate, but it so happens that eight years ago I took advantage of this much talked of 1903 Wyndham Act. I was the first landlord in the county Cork to sell, and what was more fortunate still, I was the first landlord to get paid. At the present moment I am still trustee for the biggest unsold estate, I suppose in Ireland, and I happen to be for my sins a member of the executive of the Irish Landowners' Convention. In introducing his Bill in 1908 the Chief Secretary for Ireland said that he never approached a task of more responsibility than the introduction of that Bill. I think that he has done the same to-day. He has approached this task with an earnest sense of responsibility and I would like to thank him very much for the way he has presented this case to us, and, undoubtedly, thanks to him, and thanks to the Government too, we have the small crumb of comfort to-day that we have the opportunity, at any rate, of exchanging our views on land purchase with each other and telling the Government what we want. I have no doubt that a Bill will be introduced later on, on which discussion and Debate will hinge during the next autumn and winter in Ireland, and I dare say that if the Government is in power next July we shall be discussing in Committee a Land Purchase Bill. But personally I am sorry that the Government did not bring in this Bill sooner. I was childlike enough to believe that the sentence in the King's Speech really meant something, and I had hoped that the measure would be brought in sooner, and that it would be settled tins Session, and not next Session. That will not be the case now, and we have only got to look forward next year for a Bill.
  With regard to the Act of 1903, I may say at once that we in Ireland regard that Act as a treaty between two parties, the landlord party and the tenant party, and —something more than that—it was countersigned by the Imperial Treasury of the day. Of course, it was founded on compromise, and that is why it was such a success. I say, equally, that we in Ireland regard the Act of 1909 merely as a party measure, which tore up the 1903 treaty and which did undoubtedly stop land purchase. So far as that goes we have evidence of the Estates Commissioners, who were examined before the Secret Committee, that land purchase was stopped to a great extent by the Act of 1909. There-

  1789
  fore, to-day we are back as we were in 1908. We are listening to-day to the Chief Secretary requesting ways and means to get this great scheme of land purchase going again and bringing it to completion. Putting aside for a moment the effect of the 1903 Act, which has been so widely discussed, on Imperial finance and on the Irish ratepayer, I do say this—and I think that every hon. Member below the Gangawy will agree with me—that the Act of 1903 was, for our purposes, ideal. I have the resolution that the Irish Parliamentary party passed with regard to the conference on which that Bill was founded:—
  "We endorse in the fullest manner the agreement arrived at by our representative."
  Why was that Act so admirable, so ideal, and so popular, and why did it receive such a measure of praise from all classes and parties in Ireland? It was a purely voluntary bargain between landlord and tenant. There was no compulsion in the matter. It was an Act easy for us to work. As hon. Members in all parts of the House know, you had to strike a bargain between two zones, and if you made such a bargain, then the tenant got one happy result. Under the 1903 Act the average result to the Irish tenant was that on first term rents he got a reduction of 6s. in the £, and on second term rents he got a reduction of 4s. in the These were reductions of 30 and 20 per cent. respectively.
  I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made an attack on Irish land purchase the other day. He did un doubtedly misrepresent what happened to the Irish landlord under the 1903 Act. He misstated the figures altogether. The selling price to the landlord under the 1903 Act, for the first five years at any rate, averaged for first term rents 18½ years' purchase, and for second term rents twenty-two years' purchase. In my native county (Cork) they got a little less. If the landlord wanted to get his net income, less 10 per cent., he had to invest his money at a shade over 4 per cent., about 4¼ per cent., which he could not always do. In those days investments were not quite so easily placed as now. Trustee investments did not give the yield which they do now, and if the trustees were at all strict the landlord was not able to get his income. Of course, he had the bonus of 12 per cent. But I would remind hon. Members that a lot had to come out of the bonus before the landlord was able to put anything in his pocket. He had to
  1790
  pay the agent and the solicitor, and a hundred and one other things, and if he got out of the 12 per cent. 7 per cent. into his own pocket he was a very lucky man. However, he did get some bonus. The Act was supposed to be going to ruin the British Exchequer, the British taxpayer, and the Irish ratepayer, and the Act of 1909 was introduced to save the Treasury. The President of the Board of Agriculture said that. It is no good for us now to cry over spilt milk. We have got to look to the future. Under the new arrangement which may be come to three interests have got to be consulted. First, there is the Imperial Treasury which is the most important; then there is the farmer; and the third, and perhaps the least important, is the landlord. All these have got to be consulted in any arrangement
  Take the case of the landlord first. Suppose it was the case of a willing buyer and a willing seller, suppose he can sell to anybody—which he cannot do for he has got to sell to his tenants—then under normal conditions at the present moment the average Irish landlord would be entitled to ask a higher price for his land than what he asked for in 1903, because prices of agricultural produce in Ireland have gone up, and are going up every year. I move for a return showing the prices of agricultural produce in Ireland, five years by five years, and ten years by ten years, and in pointing out how prices have gone up I will compare the five years 1897 to 1901 with the five years 1907 to 1911, and I shall be able to prove that if the Irish landlords expect the same terms as in 1903, they cannot be accused, as they are being accused, of being greedy men. I have taken five staple products for comparison. In 1897–1901 the price of oats per cwt. was 5s. 4½d. In 1907–1911 it was 5s. 11¼. The price of potatoes per cwt. in 1897–1901 was 3s. 1¾. In 1907–1911 it was 3s. 4¾d. The price of butter in the first period was 93s. 4d. per cwt. and in the second was 103s. The price of pork per cwt. was 42s. 11d. in 1901 and 52s. 11d. in 1911. One and two year old store cattle, which are a pretty important item, were, in 1901,
  £6 12s. 1d. per head, and in 1911 they were
  £7 14s. 2d. That is a good rise all round, and in his evidence before the Secret Committee Mr. Estates Commissioner Bailey said:—
  "Undoubtedly agricultural prices have been rising in Ireland steadily for the last few years."
  Again, if agricultural prices are up, Imperial credit is down. It no longer rests

  1791
  upon a 3 per cent. basis, but on something like a 4 per cent. basis, especially so far as Irish land purchase is concerned. What we desire to obtain is what will give us our net income on second term rents, and as the question of investment has been raised I, for one, do not despond as to obtaining 4½ per cent.
  8.0 P.M.
  I only wish that I could, on behalf of the estate of which I am trustee, get enough money to invest in those Winnipeg 4½ per cents. I should rejoice to think that the Government are going to arrange that the Public Trustee in Ireland and the average trustees of Irish estates should be empowered to invest purchase money in such things as Winnipeg 4½ per cent, and Saskatchewan 4½ per cent., or any 4½ per cent. you like to name. I would a great deal rather have my money invested in China, even with the conditions existing at the present moment, than in Ireland if civil war broke out. At any rate, what we do not want is to be paid in depreciated stock and then have the Government, as they do at present, making us clear up the Government charges in cash. We say that that is absolutely unfair. We have got to pay off the Government charges in cash and we get paid in depreciated stock. I confess that I do not quite understand what will happen about the bonus; it is not going to be a flat rate, and the Act of 1909 was not at all satisfactory in that respect, especially when the arrears of the tenants were added to the purchase price, which, as we suggest, would be a flat rate of two and a half years added to the purchase price. So much for the landlord. What about the tenant? Of course a tenant, where a neighbour is bought out, will not accept very much worse terms. I was very pleased when the hon. and learned Member for Waterford stated that the tenant will not object to pay the reconsidered annuity. The hon. and learned Member must remember also that the circumstances are now very different from what they were formerly, and had the tenant right has a bigger value than it had ten years ago. A great deal has been said about the great generosity of the Treasury to Ireland in the matter of land purchase under the 1903 Act. It is pointed out what money they have risked, and how badly they have been treated. But what risk did they run under the Act of 1909? As far as I know, they ran no risk at all. First, there was a great fall
  1792
  in securities, and the Irish Development Fund was called upon, and £160,000 was available to meet the charge on the stock. Out of the £800,000 there came to Ireland, as her share under the Education Act, £180,000; England got £1,400,000, and Scotland had £200,000. The Grant under the Education Act has been doubled so far as England is concerned, and trebled so far as Scotland is concerned, but it has stood still so far as Ireland is concerned.
  If you build on that figure alone, under the finance of the Wyndham Act, there ought to be something like £500,000 coining to us, which would keep the Wyndham Act going for a long time. Another thing I complain of is that, on this Irish land purchase scheme, land purchase has not been allowed to stand on its own basis. I was struck by a remark of the hon. Member for North-East Cork, who said that a big loan could be found for the Soudan, but nothing could be found for Ireland. Suppose a by-election had happened in the county Cork, and suppose the question of land purchase were raised, it is conceivable that the Government might have come forward with a promise of money for Ireland, just as it gave a loan of £3,000,000 for the cultivation of cotton in the Soudan in connection with Lancashire. Money can be found for the Soudan, Uganda, and East Africa, and it should also be found for Ireland. I would suggest that land purchase should be allowed to stand on its own merits, and should not be mixed up with congested districts, labourers' cottages, and other questions. We landlords want to see land purchase through on fair terms. We do not think compulsion necessary. I believe myself, if the Session could be extended, that in Committee we would be able in a few weeks to come to an agreement on this Bill. At any rate, there will be a discussion during the winter. I hope we shall have a conference, and I firmly believe that next summer, even with Ireland on the verge of civil war, we shall be able to come to an agreement. On behalf of the landlord party, I thank the Chief Secretary for the way in which he has introduced the Bill.
  Mr. McKENNA: I have listened to the Debate, and I think I am justified in saying that my right hon. Friend has every reason to congratulate himself upon the reception with which his proposals have met. I only rise in order to answer some questions that were put by my right hon. Friend, and which he wishes me to reply

  1793
  to at once. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) put two specific questions. One was, "Where do the Commissioners get their money from?" He alluded, of course, to the half-payment in cash which it is proposed to make to the landlord. The answer is very short and simple. The money will be obtained from the Post Office and Trustees Savings Bank Fund. He next asked, "Whether it was true that the cost of raising this £60,000,000 in order to complete the whole of land purchase sooner would be no less than £3,000,000 a, year to the Treasury?" It is perfectly obvious that in no circumstances could the raising of £60,000,000 a year cost the Treasury £3,000,000. Even if no annuities were paid, if the Treasury bore the whole cost, if they made a free Grant of it to the Irish landlord, it would still not cost £3,000,000 a year. The fact is that the bon. Baronet has made a miscalculation in his figures, and has multiplied the true figure by ten. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy), in the course of, if he will allow me to say so, an extremely witty speech, used some figures which I regret I cannot agree
  He went to the opposite extreme, and has said that the whole cost of land purchase to the Exchequer only works out at £400,000 a year. I do not know whether I understood his statement aright. [An HON. MEMBER:
  "The whole loss."] The whole loss to the Exchequer.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I have always understood, speaking without book, that the highest loss to the Treasury at any time during the period of the Wyndham Act was not greater than £400,000 a year.
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. and learned Gentleman is strictly accurate in that case, but he must remember that there are -under the Wyndham Act still a great many millions to be raised, and the cost of raising the millions owing to the increased expense of flotation is rising higher and higher. When the hon. and learned Member comes really to recognise what the cost to the Exchequer will be on account of the expense of issue, he will find that the cost to the Exchequer under the Wyndham Act, if the Wyndham Act were allowed to go on, would be not £400,000 a year, but no less than £1,000,000 a year. If he compares that £1,000,000 a year with the expenditure upon the whole of the country, he must remember that Ireland represents only one-ninth or father less than one-ninth, and that
  1794
  £1,000,000 a year which he speaks of so lightly with reference to recent expenditure would, on the scale of the United Kingdom, amount to £9,000,000 or £10,000,000 a year. That, I think, would be a very excessive charge to make for land purchase over the whole country. Let me remind the House very briefly what, this proposal does. In the first place, my right hon. Friend's illustration of the working of the Bill on a period of twenty-two years' purchase, does not mean that in every case that twenty-two years' purchase will be paid by the tenant; it is only given by way of illustration. I would remind the senior Member for the City of Cork, who spoke in terms of just praise of the Wyndham Act, that the average number of years' purchase paid by the tenant under the Wyndham Act has been 24½ years.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: No, no.
  Mr. McKENNA: The average for the whole operation of the Act is 24½ years.
  Mr. HUGH BARRIE: The right hon. Gentleman is confusing the first and second term rents. The average for the second term rent is 22¼.
  Mr. McKENNA: The average for the whole of the Act is 24½ years.
  Mr. NEWMAN: With a onus added?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, no; the average number of years' purchase on which the tenant ought to pay annuities has been twenty-four and a half years. [Horn. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Those are the figures given to me. Hon. Members will have an opportunity of examining the figures themselves. The suggestion made by my right hon. Friend for the purpose of calculation is twenty - two years' purchase. Even if we accept the figure of the hon. Member opposite of twenty-two years, it is less than the average number of years' purchase which the tenant had to pay under the Wyndham Act. Under the system of the sliding scale bonus, for every six months less than the number of years' purchase that the landlord receives,. he shall get 2 per cent. more bonus up to the maximum of 80 per cent., that is to say, that the landlord who is content to sell to his tenant for twenty and a half years will get 18 per cent. bonus. If he sells for less then he will still only get 18 per cent. bonus. The landlord who asks from his tenant more than twenty and a half years' purchase will get 2 per cent. less bonus for

  1795
  every six months longer period purchase than he requires. The effect of that sliding scale is this, that between twenty and a half years' purchase and twenty-three years' purchase the landlord will get almost the same amount of money.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Do I understand you to say that this is part of the measure which the Chief Secretary introduced to the House to-day?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, my right hon. Friend stated there was a sliding scale.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: He did not mention details.
  Mr. McKENNA: My right hon. Friend has asked me to mention the scale of the bonus which I am now giving. It is 2 per cent. up or down for every six months. What is the effect of that going to be?
  Mr. NEWMAN: May the arrears be added to the number of years' purchase?
  Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member will consider he will find that his question has no relevance to the point I am now discussing. I only wish to give the hon. Members what the scale will be. The effect of this scale is as follows: The landlord who sells to his tenant for twenty and a half years' purchase gets by the additional bonus very nearly as much money as if he sells at twenty-two years' purchase, and not much less money than if he sells at twenty-three and a half years' purchase. The effect of a scale with such a sliding bonus is that the landlord has strong inducements to sell to the tenant at the minimum number of years' purchase in order to get the maximum bonus. Obviously, the effect of that upon the Treasury standing by itself would be most injurious. The Treasury, instead of paying a flat rate of 12 per cent., would be in most cases called on to pay 18 per cent. bonus. There is, however, a compensation for the Treasury. In the first place, if a less number of years' purchase than twenty and a half is paid by the tenant the Treasury will continue only to pay 18 per cent., which, it is obvious, will have to be paid on a less total amount. If, for instance, there were only fifteen years' purchase of £100 rental the amount the landlord would receive and that the tenant would have to pay would be £1.500, and the bonus would be 18 per cent. on £1,500, while if the bonus were to be reckoned on twenty
  1796
  years' purchase of a rental of £100 it would be 15 per cent, on £2,000. Consequently hon. Members will perceive that as the number of years' purchase diminishes the State gets an advantage upon the 18 per cent., but between twenty and a half years and twenty-three and a half years' purchase there is very little inducement to the landlord to ask for anything more than twenty and a half years' purchase. Above twenty-three and a half years' purchase the State, again, will gain some advantage, because in the exceptional case where a larger number of years' purchase is demanded than twenty-three and a half years there would be no bonus paid. The effect of these three different conditions, less than twenty and a half on which 18 per cent.. will be paid, more than twenty-three and a half on which no bonus. will be paid, and almost, you may say, an equal division or the same thing between twenty and a half and twenty-three years in the scale of bonus that will be paid,. may be put before hon. Members to be that the State will probably have to pay something in bonus now of from 14 per cent. to 15 per cent. That appears to me to be, and I hope to hon. Members opposite, a sufficiently high scale. What has the State got to pay under the Wyndham Act? Twelve per cent. We propose something more than that payment under the Wyndham Act, but the State also has to pay under that Act excess charge on the flotation of stock, and under our scheme that charge or payment will disappear.
  Mr. BARRIE: The State will bear the loss?
  Mr. McKENNA: The loss does not arise. The landlord will receive half his money in cash; that cash will be paid by the National Debt Commissioners out of money coming to their funds. One-half will be paid in stock at its face value, and there will be no excess charge for flotation of that stock. The landlord, it is assumed, will be able to invest his money at 4 per cent. What is the effect of that arrangement? The hon. Member for the City of Cork will, I think, agree that the Conference terms were fair. He does not wish to go behind the Conference terms and does not wish to stick at a definite point and say 3¼ is the right amount and it must not vary—provided you get Conference terms. I think that is his argument. Why was 3¼ fixed at that time? It was simply because the rate of money was such that

  1797
  3¼ covered the 2¾. per cent. for borrowing and 10s. per cent, for the sinking fund. Those figures will not any longer cover interest and sinking fund, and surely the tenants' annuity ought to be varied I Those conditions at that time gave Conference terms—that is to say, the tenant got a reduction of somewhere between 15 per cent. and 25 per cent. What do we propose?
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: On second term rents, which were at that time a mere handful. The great mass of them were either first term or non-judicial, on which we proposed there should be a reduction of 40 per cent.
  Mr. McKENNA: Conference terms on second term rents being that the tenants should receive something between 15 per cent. and 25 per cent. of second term rent, an average of 20 per cent., and that is exactly what we propose to do. If the landlord sells to the tenant at twenty and a half years' purchase the reduction to the tenant is 25 per cent. on the second term rent, and I have given hon. Members reasons why the landlord will sell to the tenant somewhere between twenty and a half and twenty three and a half.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: The Chief Secretary said 20 per cent. and you say 25 per cent.
  Mr. McKENNA: Twenty per cent. reduction when it is twenty-two years' purchase and 25 per cent. is the reduction if the tenant buys at twenty and a half years' purchase. I have given reasons for showing that the landlord has no sufficient inducement to demand twenty-two years' purchase if the tenant is willing to pay twenty and a half years' purchase on account of the additional bonus. Even if the landlord persists in twenty-three and a half years' purchase—that is to say, down to the point when the bonus ceases—even then the tenant will have 15 per cent. reduction on the second term rent. So under this proposal the tenant is safeguarded with the probability of receiving 25; per cent, reduction on his second term rents. Is it fair in the landlord's case to take 4 per cent. as the reasonable return for his money? The landlord is to get 50 per cent. in cash and 50 per cent. in stock at its face value and the bonus in cash. What is the effect of that? If you take twenty-two years' purchase as the average case the landlord will get 60 per cent. of his money in cash.
  Mr. NEWMAN: The bonus goes to the tenant for life and is not invested.
  Mr. McKENNA: The landlord gets the bonus himself; it does not go to the tenant. The landlord gets the bonus, the remainder is settled. I am dealing only with the total cost now, and I am assuming that the landlord wishes to do the best by the estate. The landlord gets 60 per cent. of the total amount of, say, £2,266 in cash, and the balance at, not the face value, but the price value of the stock. That money invested at 4 per cent. brings him in an income of just over £90. In the landlord's case therefore the Con-
  ference terms are carried out. It is obvious that as national credit declines, as Consols drop, and as consequently the rate of interest which the State has to pay rises, so also does the rate of interest rise on trustee securities, and if the landlord gets less in cash for his paper he gets more in interest for his money. One is balanced by the other. It would be absurd to give the landlord cash at an amount estimated as if interest were still 2¾ per cent., when he can in fact invest his money at more per cent. Therefore I do not think that the hon. Member for the City of Cork can say that in working out these conditions the Government have receded from the principle of the Wyndham Act. When he talks of going back to the Wyndham finance, he really does not mean to include the whole of the Wyndham finance. He does not mean that the cost of flotation of stock should fall on the Irish counties.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: The Prime Minister himself admitted that that technical liability was a mere oversight, and that no Government would ever dream of enforcing it. I do most emphatically mean that you should go back to the Wyndham finance in its entirety. At the present moment you are losing £700,000 a year for not permitting land purchase, and the loss would be exceedingly small in addition to making a complete settlement on Wyndham terms.
  Mr. McKENNA: I am glad the hon. Member has made that statement, because it has reminded me of a curious error into which he has fallen in regard to the Land Commission Vote. He speaks of the Land Commission Vote as being £700,000 a year, and then speaks of the whole of that as being spent on salaries.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: I did nothing of the kind.
  Mr. McKENNA: I understood the hon. Member to say so, and so did my hon. Friends near me. The total Vote is £647,000. That amount is made up of cost of administration, £177,000; charge for bonus, £245,000; charge for the issue of excess stock, £150,000; and improvement of estates, £75,000. The hon. Member approves of three of those four items. He approves of the State bearing the charge for bonus; he approves of the State bearing the charge for the issue of excess stock; and he approves of the State bearing the charge for certain improvements. Consequently, he is complaining of a Government expenditure of £700,000, when all he objects to is part only of one item of £177,000.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken as to what I said. My point was that instead of there being any saving in Land Commission charges under the Act of 1909, the amount had been enormously swollen for perfectly useless purposes, and for the purpose of blocking land purchase instead of promoting it.
  Mr. McKENNA: I am not quarrelling with the hon. Member's criticism. He is entitled to his own opinion upon that point. I am only asking him to agree with me as to the measure of the culpability of the Government. It is measured not by £700,000, but by a much smaller figure even on his own statement. I hope I have said enough to recommend my right hon. Friend's proposals, and that we shall now be allowed to introduce the Bill.
  Mr. SHEEHAN: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman shows the extreme difficulty of dealing with this matter without having the Bill in our hands. He has dealt with a mass of facts and figures to which we have not been able to give any thorough consideration, and upon which, on that account, we cannot pronounce finally to-night. He has told us that Conference terms are reasonable. It is upon those terms that we have all along taken our stand. But whilst he has devoted the greater part of his speech to Conference terms for the landlord, I want to impress upon the House that we would equally insist upon Conference terms for the tenant. I speak with a wide experience of land purchase, having assisted in the negotiations connected with several hundreds of estates, and I say that the average taken by the Chief Secretary of twenty-two and a half years' purchase, giving a
  1800
  reduction of 20 per cent., is not at all equal to what we have obtained in the county of Cork from one end to the other. Not a single estate with which I have been connected did the second term tenants purchase at a figure representing less than 5s. in the £ reduction. In all these negotiations, the tenants took the basis of the reduction in the£that they were to receive, rather than the number of years' purchase they were giving. In that way they understood better what they were getting. As showing how hard a bargain it was, I have often known negotiations to break down for the sake of 3d. in the £ reduction. If tenants still remain under the old conditions because they are unable to get an advance of 3d. in the £ from the landlord, do you think that under this Bill they will pay a 1s. or 1s. 6d. in the £ more than before in the shape of increased annuity.
  I was rather astonished by some of the figures put forward by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). If those figures had any substance in fact, it struck me as a rather extraordinary circumstance that they had not been adopted by the Government. If those figures could be applied to land purchase, I have not the least doubt that the Chief Secretary would have adopted them instead of taking the average he has done. But I have my own opinion about their being submitted to him. The hon. Member for East Mayo has referred to the magnificent and encouraging results which have flown from land purchase in Ireland. It appeared to me to be a rather belated conversion to the principle of land purchase, coming after years of obstruction and after he had gone down to Mayo, when we were endeavouring to make a fight for equitable terms of purchase all over Ireland, and declared that land purchase was working too smoothly, and that he wished to Heaven he had the power to stop its progress. Now he comes down, and condemns Lord Ashtown for describing land purchase as a wicked policy. If Lord Ashtown described it as a wicked policy he at least had a shining example furnished to him by the hon. Member for East Mayo. Really, as I listened to his speech describing the magnificent services which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had rendered to Ireland, I thought he had got on his feet for no other purpose than to characterise the finances of the great good Budget. I think he will find in Ireland few amongst the farmers who have to pay increased fees for the transfer of land and increased

  1801
  duties—many of the farmers are people who have been hit by his taxes—who will agree with him in his eulogy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  I rise specially for the purpose of emphasising the point made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North-East Cork in reference to the provision which has been made for the continuous working of the Labourers Acts. I was delighted with the words which flowed from the right hon. Gentleman in reference to the beneficent work and the remarkable transformation that these Acts have made in Ireland. There can be no doubt that in Ireland they have revivified the country, redeemed the people, and recreated new conditions. That is exactly what we want to have continued. I say, as one who has given study and thought to the labourers' conditions in Ireland, that this provision of a million will not even go half way to meet the present necessities of the situation. I see that the right hon. Gentleman appears to disagree from me in that view. Take the figures of the right hon. Gentleman himself. He says that 9,000 of these cottages have been authorised. There are, says the right hon. Gentleman, 10,000 more cottages included in schemes not yet authorised. I say of my own knowledge, and I know it cannot be contradicted, that £1,000,000 of money will not meet that 9,000 cottages which are authorised, and the 10,000 cottages included in schemes not yet authorised. Let me remind him that almost every district council in the South of Ireland have schemes which have been hung up because those district councils do not want It go to expense in promoting them when they know that there is no money to finance them. Furthermore, this is my contention in regard to financing labourers' settlements in Ireland. Why not leave it an open question, and have the money to finance the schemes according to the needs of the country and according as the district councils promulgate their schemes—according as it is shown that the labourers need them after due inquiry by an inspector of the Local Government Board? Why not, I say, have the money there so as to keep the people in the country? Last year there was a reduction in the tide of emigration. This year it has gone up again, and it has been brought to my notice on several occasions that labourers have left Ireland simply because they have not been able to get cottages. I think that is a condition of things that
  1802
  demands the attention of the Government. I think it would be well if the Chief Secretary would translate his sympathy, which I am convinced is sincere, into active support, and if he got, not alone this £1,000,000, but got it under conditions under which we should have a continuous outflow of money from the Treasury according to the demand of the district councils of Ireland.
  Furthermore, why postpone the labourers' unauthorised claims until next year? The right hon. Gentleman told us that he had hard work to get the Treasury to agree to this matter. I do not know what pressure the Treasury are amenable to, but having got their consent to the £1,000,000, why not introduce a Bill about which there would be no contention from any part of this House, a Bill that would go through without debate or controversy before the end of the present Session? It appears to me that if you do not do this you are hanging up the settlement, and you are denying the labourers homes which have been sanctioned already by the district council, after inquiry by the Local Government Board, and you are postponing the day of happiness in their own land for these people. I venture to press these matters very strongly upon the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. I would also ask him to bear this in mind, that if he yields to the pressure which we are anxious to put upon him in regard to this, he would arrange with the Grant to remove the flagitious exercise of the discretionary powers of the Local Government Board in regard to its administration afterwards. At the present time they have been exercising their powers in a most extraordinary way. Their discretion has taken the form of penalising the district councils which have been doing their duty by the labourers, even to the extent of refusing to advance the money. I hope that the Chief Secretary will give further consideration to this matter. My own view as to the proposal of increasing the annuity of this Bill is that the tenants in Ireland will read it to-morrow with dismay. I know the view is strongly held by the tenants, even who bought under the 1909 Act, that they were suffering a gross injustice in having to pay per cent., whilst neighbours on the other side of the fence bought at 3¼ per cent. You cannot give confidence under conditions like that, even with the advantages of the bonus which was set forth so eloquently by the Home Secretary.

  1803
  You cannot give confidence to tenants with a £3 12s. 6d. annuity. That was so strongly felt by the hon. Member for East Mayo himself that he was anxious to stand up for an annuity for £3 15s.
  We are told that the 12½ per cent. bonus was the most amazingly absurd piece of legislation that had ever proceeded from this House. The test of legislation is, to my mind, whether it has been efficacious for its purpose, and, judged by that standard, a 12 per cent.. flat rate worked amazingly well—even if it was an amazing absurdity? I wonder also if, in the twenty-two years' heading, compulsory purchase is included? Certain tenants in Ireland will not look forward with any degree of anxiety or with any degree of hope to compulsory purchase on the basis of twenty-two years. We certainly could do better than that if we put into operation the principles which, had they been given fair play in Ireland, would have laid clown a standard equitable alike to the landlord and to the tenant. I have never come across any tenant, at least in Cork county, who has purchased outright who has been sorry for his bargain. Not one of them is anxious to go back to the old condition. This measure will require a great deal cf care and a great deal of consideration. Those of us who had to fight for the conciliation principle and Conference methods, all welcome the intention we heard expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford here to-clay. I very well remember in 1908 when the senior Member for Cork City (Mr. W. O'Brien) made such proposals to the Irish party, and proposed a resolution advocating the very same principle of co-operation for the purposes of land put-chase. He was vehemently opposed by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) and by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, and we were only able to get fourteen or fifteen of our colleagues to support us. But even belated repentance is welcome, because it is a justification of the position we have taken up all along, and which we shall fearlessly adopt in the future. I adopt the position with regard to this Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork City. We will study its provisions to see if they can be made acceptable to our people having due regard to the tenant's interest, and also to the landlord's. This year it is hopeless to expect that anything will be done, but next year I hope we may have a satisfactory
  1804
  measure giving Conference terms to both landlords and tenants.
  Mr. JOSEPH MARTIN: I listened to the speeches in this Debate with a view to learning something about this question which I have heard said to be one of very great importance, even of more importance than the Home Rule which we passed this Session and also last Session. After listening to the Debate very carefully I find myself perhaps in a worse fog with regard to the merits of the matter than I was before. I listened to hon. Gentlemen upon the Irish Benches and I find one set of them saying one thing and another set saying the opposite. It is very difficult for me as an English Member to come to a conclusion as to how I should vote upon this question in these circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman introduced the Bill stating that the Government have decided to pay the landlords for their land one-half in cash and one-half in depreciated Irish Land Stock that could not be sold at par. I listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond), in which he said he thought the whole matter might have been passed through as an agreed Bill if the Government, instead of paying one-half in cash had paid all in cash, and I rather gathered from the speech of the Chief Secretary that that is a course which he would like to have pursued. It seems to me that we have had the same plan adopted in regard to the manner in which this subject has been introduced to the House as in regard to many other matters introduced for our consideration by the Government; that is, we have had no explanation given at all. I cannot myself understand why, if it is a reasonable arrangement, in the interests of the British taxpayer, and the English taxpayer more especially, to provide the money through the National Debt Commissioners to pay the landlords one-half in cash. If that is a reasonable and right basis, why stop at half? Why not pay the whole of the money in cash? We had no explanation at all from the Chief Secretary upon that question. He gave the bald fact of what the Government had decided to do, but he gave no reasons for it. He advocated a proposal for the amount to be passed through the National Debt Commissioners, but he showed no reason why it should stop at one-half, and why the whole of the cash could not just as well be provided, because he explained there was no

  1805
  difficulty about the money, and that in all probability the Commissioners of National Debt would always have £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 for the purposes of providing this money, and if they have not, they have the most, ample opportunity of borrowing the money, so that it could be paid in cash. It is explained to the House by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, that it would make all the difference between having a Bill which could pass and a Bill like this which cannot possibly pass at all. It is a mere farce to introduce this Bill and a waste of valuable time to discuss it. The newspapers announce, and the Government do not deny, that it is not intended to be pressed any further, unless it could go through as an agreed Bill. Here is a proposal made upon the other side of the House to which no answer has been given, because not only did the Chief Secretary for Ireland give no explanation at all, of the manner in which this is to be clone, but, since he spoke, no Member of the Government has thrown any light upon the question. I, personally, take a great interest in the question of land purchase in Ireland, because it is the intention we are told, of the Government soon, to take up the same question in England. I have listened to this Debate with the hope and expectation of hearing something that would guide me with regard to the same question in England. I understand it to be the policy of the Government and of the Liberal party not to provide freeholds for England—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member would not be entitled to go into that question upon this Motion.
  Mr. MARTIN: I understand that in Ireland the operation of the land purchase system is not to provide leaseholds for the Irish tenants but freeholds. I do net wish, of course, to discuss in any way the question of land purchase for England upon this Bill, except to say that I fully expected to hear some explanation of why it is in Ireland the Government through their land purchase policy provide freehold and not leasehold. Personally, I am very much in favour of freeholds, and I de not believe in the leasehold system at all. I think this leasehold system has resulted in great damage to this country, and will continue to result it as long as it remains in existence, but we have had no explanation at all. It seems to be assumed by all parties that the proper way to proceed with regard to the
  1806
  settlement of the land question in Ireland is to provide freeholds for Irish tenants, and personally I entirely agree with that, but I did hope and expect that the difference between the conditions in Ireland and England would have been explained in this Debate, but so far as I know there is no difference. At any rate no speaker has suggested that there should be. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill explained that the Irish tenant attached the greatest importance to the land in which he has been in possession as tenant for so many years, and under this Bill, he has an opportunity of becoming a freeholder and owning the land when his annuity ceased. I can understand that and appreciate that., and I can understand that a person cultivating land should have that particular feeling. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland likened it to the feeling of a book collector. The book collector attaches very great importance and looks upon it as something worth thousands of pounds, what to the ordinary person seems a very insignificant little duodecimo book. No doubt the same feeling applies with regard to the tenants in Ireland as to the ownership of the freehold of this property. I am very much surprised that this Debate should apparently interest only the Irish Members of this House, and very few other hon. Members appear to have taken any interest in the matter. I feel that before I give a vote on the First Reading of this Bill, I ought to be afforded some further opportunity of understanding the question better than I do.
  9.0 P.M.
  The only thing I have gathered from the Debate is that hon. Members who sit in the front row of the Irish Members hold great differences of opinion on this question, not only with the Government, but with the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and his party. I have followed' that question very distinctly, and I have not learned why it is necessary that a large proportion of the money required to bring about what has been called revivifying the Irish people should come from this country, in which my Constituents happen to be. The hon. Member for Cork made an impassioned speech, and spoke for nearly half an hour digging up matters from the past, and then he announced his intention of letting "the dead past bury its dead." It seemed rather strange to some of us that that should be his principle. I feel that this Debate is drawing

  1807
  to an end, and it would be quite impossible for English Members to come to any real conclusion as to what the merits of the case are. Most of the supporters of the Government- are out in the corridors and in the smoking-room. They have paid no attention to the Bill, and no doubt they will vote as the Government Whips direct them. I feel very severely the reflection that hon. Members of the House of Commons do that kind of thing. I do not do it myself. I have listened to the statement of the Government on this Bill and to the attacks made upon the Government, and I feel that this matter has been very inadequately discussed. I feel that there has been no explanation of the remark-able circumstance that while the Government have gone a certain distance and provided half the money in cash that they are not willing to go any further. When we are providing half the money in cash I think we are entitled to know whether it is going to be done at a profit or at a loss to the -whole country. The Chief Secretary gave us no explanation on that point. To my mind it would appear that there is going to be a heavy loss by raising this money through the National Debt Commissinners. The reason given by the right hon. Gentleman was that the Government did not like to throw upon the market the whole of the £60,000,000 necessary to settle up this matter—
  Sir F. BANBURY: £85,000,000.
  Mr. MARTIN: I thought. it was £60,000,000, but £83,000,000 is still worse. I understand that if a large sum like that was put upon the Money market while it is in such a peculiar condition, and when high rates are prevailing, the result would be that English Land Stock would go down much lower than it is at the present moment. If that is so, what is going to be the effect in pounds, shillings, and pence upon the position of the country in
  entering into this arrangement by which the money is to be furnished at. a very low rate of interest—I think it is something like 3½, per cent.—when the Commissioners cannot borrow the money at that price. The right hon. Gentleman said they could always get plenty of money in the market, but if the present conditions have reduced the price of Consols to about 72, I understand from the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that the effect of putting upon the market a large amount of Irish Stock, which is practically the same security as Consols, would be to lower the price of Irish Stocks. As far as I can see there is going to be a heavy loss. In one respect the Government are in a most fortunate position by Consols being low. This Government has made a record for itself by paying off a large amount of public debt, and as long as Consols are low the Government can pay off debt at lower than its par value. If they are going to take the money which the National Debt Commissioners ought to pay off the National Debt with, instead of buying Consols when they are cheap, and are going to lend that money to the Irish people at a low rate of "interest., there will be, so far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is concerned, a very heavy loss in the operation. If that is a real condition—I do not know whether it is or not, but I ant applying my limited knowledge to the question—then I say this: Either the Government should not arrange to pay cash to the landlords at all or they should pay all cash to the landlords, if the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Wateford (Mr. John Redmond) is correct that the one course would result in an agreed Bill which would finally settle this vexed question and the other course in the Bill being practically a nullity.
  Mr. BIRRELL Mr. BIRRELL rose 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, 187; Noes, 67.

  Division No. 205.]

  AYES.

  [9.5 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Barnes, George N.

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Barton, William

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Alden, Percy

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Boland, John Plus

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

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Clough, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Joyce, Michael

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Keating, Matthew

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

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

  Cotton, William Francis

  Kelly, Edward

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Radford, G. H.

  Cullinan, John

  Kilbride, Denis

  Reddy, Michael

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Delany, William

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Redmond, William (Clare. E.)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Leach, Charles

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Dillon, John

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Doris, William

  Lundon, Thomas

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Duffy, William J

  Lynch, A. A.

  Robinson, Sidney

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Rowlands, James

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  McGhee, Richard

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Macnarnara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Ffrench, Peter

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sheehy, David

  Field, William

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

  Shortt, Edward

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Meagher, Michael

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  Thomas, J. H.

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Molloy, Michael

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Morison, Hector

  Wardle, George J.

  Hackett, John

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Muldoon, John

  Webb, H.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Munro, Robert

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

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Neilson, Francis

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N.(Doncaster)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

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

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Wood, Rt Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Henry Sir Charles

  O'Dowd, John

  Wright, Henry Fitzlierhert

  Hewart, Gordon

  O'Grady, James

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Hinds, John

  O'Malley, William

  Hodge, John

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  H olmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Shee, James John

  NOES

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Barnston, Harry

  Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

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

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Blair, Reginald

  Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Stewart, Gershorn

  Boyton, James

  Hills, John Waller

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Swift, Rigby

  Butcher, John George

  Hogge, James Myles

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Hohfer, Gerald Fitzroy

  Touche, George Alexander

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Chaloner. Colonel R. G. W.

  Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

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

  Davies, Ellis William (Eition)

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Newman, John R. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Martin and Mr. H. T. Barrie.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon William

  Fell, Arthur

  Pete, Basil Edward

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Birrell, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Herbert Samuel, and Sir J. Simon. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 272.]

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT (1911) AMENDMENT [MONEY].
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of Moneys to be provided by Parliament, of such additional sums as may be required for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend Parts I. and III. of the National Insurance Act, 1911."
  Sir F. BANBURY: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer one or two questions. I do not know whether it will be necessary to move an Amendment, but I should like to be informed how much money the right hon. Gentleman proposes to spend under this Resolution. It is a very wide one. It would enable any sum of money to be voted in the Committee once we get there. In view of the present state of the finances of the country, it would be advisable not to vote any very large sum of money, and I should be rather inclined to move an Amendment to limit the amount of money which the right hon. Gentleman will be able to apply in this Amended Bill. If he can give me some satisfactory assurance that the amount. to be spent will be limited in some measure to the one million which he originally proposed to spend—
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): Not a million. I am sorry I have not here the actual figures, but my recollection is that I have already informed the House the actual sum which the actuary advised us these various Amendments of the law would cost. It is certainly not a million. I would remind the hon. Baronet that the first Clause simply regularises the Vote of £1,800,000 already made by this House, and I think the other proposals of the Bill
  1812
  will involve an expenditure of from £100,000 this year to £220,000 next year.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to conclude my remarks, and meantime he may be able to get figures which will settle this point. It is not our fault that this matter came on unexpectedly. In view of the fact that the expenditure of the country is so large, and that the right hon. Gentleman, when he brought forward his Budget this year, proposed no additional taxation, looking to an increased revenue, owing to the increasing prosperity of the country, to meet any additional charges, I think we ought to have some assurance that the sum allowed to be expended under this Bill shall not be excessive. We have already gathered, in the course of the discussion on the Bill dealing with Irish land, which has just been introduced, that considerable expenditure will have to be incurred in connection with that should it become law, and I, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman for an assurance that the expenditure under this Bill will be limited to the amount, whatever it may be, that he has already outlined. I am saying this in the interests of the right hon. Gentleman himself. I am not sure I shall get the support of everybody on this side of the House, but, I shall certainly expect his support, although he knows that I disagree with him on practically everything. The House should have some assurance that later on, when an endeavour is made to introduce Amendments in Committee, the right hon. Gentleman will not accept them. We want from him an undertaking that he will not increase the amount to he spent under the Bill. Supposing the right hon. Gentleman is economically inclined, as I hope he will show himself to be, he will give this undertaking. I do not wish to delay the proceedings, and I do not propose to deal with the Clauses in the Bill, as I know that would be out of order, but if the right hon. Gentleman has his figures, as I gather he has by this time, I will not say anything further.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I sympathise very much with what has fallen from the hon. Baronet, and my observations will not be so much in the nature of criticism as of mere reply, as I am in such entire agreement with what he has said. The figures I quoted just now are substantially correct.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman mind repeating them?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The first Clause regularises the Vote of £1,800,000, which this House passed earlier in this year, to pay to the doctors. As to the expenditure under the other Clauses, in the first full year it will amount to £209,000. It goes up to £215,000 or £220,000, which is about the maximum, and after that, as it deals with old people, it gradually goes down again. The hon. Baronet asks me whether, in Committee, I will resist any Amendment which would have the effect of increasing the expenditure. Certainly, I will do so, if he will give me a guarantee that he and his Friends will support me in that attitude.
  Sir F. BANEBURY: I can only speak for myself.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Then I am afraid it is very little use my giving that undertaking. I see an hon. Member behind the hon. Baronet who most emphatically dissented from every word he said. I will not say that I see voracity in his appearance, but plunder is certainly imprinted on his features. He has a buccaneering mind, and that is the spirit in which he is entering on the proceedings upstairs.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: No, no.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member has already put some Amendments down, and he is associated on the same side with an hon. Member who just moved a trifle of £1,200,000—a moderate little sum of that sort, for a year. That is the class of Amendment we have to face. If hon. Members enter on the business in that spirit, there is absolutely no limit. It is no use criticising the Chancellor of the Exchequer for putting on taxes and increasing the national expenditure, when there is a real rivalry between the two sides of the House as to who shall have the credit of proposing the biggest expenditure. That is really what it is now. There is a sort of competition as to who shall say "I proposed that." I can see it in the Amendments to this Bill. I am very glad the hon. Baronet has made that speech. I wish he could persuade his own party to adopt the statesmanlike attitude which evidently possesses his soul on this question. It is a perfectly hopeless task to enter upon the shaping of a Bill of this sort when there is not the necessary sense of responsibility, if I may say so, in Members of the House of Commons. They do not realise that they ought to share the responsibility of the Exchequer with the Government in
  1814
  matters of expenditure. It is not fair to the Government and it is not fair to the taxpayer to complain that the taxes are burdensome, and, at the same time, propose Amendments which involve an enormous increase in national expenditure. Here is a Bill under which the maximum expenditure is from £200,000 to £215,000 in a full year. If all the Amendments proposed, not from one side of the House but from both sides, are incorporated—and it will require considerable moral courage on the part of the Government to resist them—instead of £200,000 the increase will be at least £2,000,000 a year. If an hon. Member goes down to his constituents they will say,
  "Did you not oppose what was proposed by the hon. Member for the Wilton Division?"
  Mr. C. BATHURST: No.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Or somebody else? Perhaps I am not doing justice to the hon. Member, but I know there are several Amendments down in the names of hon. Members involving an enormous increase in expenditure. I got up not so much to reply to the hon. Baronet, but to do the little I could to enforce the financial lesson he has given us. I wish there could be an Instruction to the Committee, but Clause 1 makes it impossible; otherwise I should have suggested one which would undoubtedly limit the discretion of the Committee. If they increase the expenditure the Government cannot accept the responsibility for it.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I should not have arisen to address the House at all this evening had I not been described by the right hon. Gentleman as a buccaneer. I wish at once to tell him that it is with no predatory instinct that I shall approach the consideration of this Bill to-morrow I, for one, am in entire agreement with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, though not entirely in accord with the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury). I think the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to ask that we should not support Amendments to this Bill which appear to be purely of a vote-catching character, and are moved with a view to trying to make out that those who move the Amendments are public benefactors, while they merely want to obtain kudos from the Amendments. So far as those Amendments are concerned, I promise the right hon. Gentleman that he will have my support. He intimated that there were some Amendments standing in my name which would involve the expenditure of money

  1815
  outside the Financial Resolution. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman not to assume that every single Amendment which may make a financial adjustment, without necessarily increasing the charge, is outside the terms of this Financial Resolution. There is a very large number of Amendments which we believe will not add a single penny to the estimated charge to be imposed upon the taxpayers. If he approaches every Amendment from the point of view that because it may involve a financial adjustment it will necessarily involve an additional financial charge, it is quite conceivable that even I myself may have a passage of words upstairs with the right hon. Gentleman or the Secretary to the Treasury. I only want to say that it is in no buccaneering spirit that I, and I believe most of my colleagues, will approach the consideration of this Bill. We do not want to prolong the Session by quite unnecessary talk, and we do not want to do anything deliberately to increase the national charge merely with a view to obtaining kudos which we do not deserve.

  MENTAL DEFICIENCY AND LUNACY (SCOTLAND) [EXPENSES].
  Resolution reported,
  "That, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to make better and further provision for the care of Mentally Defective Persons and to amend the Law relating to Lunacy in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of—

  (a) contributions towards the Expenses of Persons detained in certified institutions or placed under guardianship as Defectives, including the Expenses of remora], and towards the Expenses which may have been incurred by any society in assisting or supervising Defectives;

  (b) the salaries or remuneration of the Commissioners and their officers, and other Expenses incurred in the execution of such Act."

  Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to. —[Mr. McKinnon Wood. ]

  HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (MEDICAL SERVICE) GRANT.
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to make provision for improving Medical Service in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and for other purposes connected therewith, and to authorise for those purposes the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament of—

  (a) a Special Grant to be called the Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Grant; and

  (b) the salaries or remuneration of the secretary and of the officers and servants of a Board, to be called the Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Board, and of any expenses incurred by the Board in the execution of their duties."

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."— [Mr. McKinnon Wood. ]
  Mr. BOOTH: My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson) has a point which he wishes to raise upon this Resolution, and while he is getting his references ready he has given way to me in order that I may put a point with regard to a question of order. The Secretary for Scotland pointed out that the words "medical service" were fairly broad and would entitle the Committee in apportioning this money to apportion it us they thought fit, subject only to this limitation. I do not challenge that, but my right hon. Friend went further and said that the Committee would have power to define "Highlands and Islands." The suggestion was made in Committee that a district remote from the Highlands could be included if the Committee so wished. I do not take that view. My own view is quite clear, that if any town remote from the Highlands were included it would need another Financial Resolution. I understand the difficulty to be that there is no statutory boundary for the Highlands and Islands, but there is a common interpretation of that term which would be accepted as a rule by most of the inhabitants of Scotland. I am only concerned in the question from the point of view of order. If it were interpreted by the Committee to include a distant town merely at the whim of the Committee, that would besetting a precedent. I only say that in order to protect our rights. Dealing with

  1817
  this idea in a special way to my mind is one proof of the wisdom of this House in appointing separate National Commissioners. If there had not been a separate Commissioner appointed for Scotland, I do not think this idea would have been brought into vogue. It was because local men were dealing with local problems that they saw that the distribution of medical service in the Highlands and Islands needed special treatment.
  Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: The difficulty here is the definition of what are Highlands and Islands. I have looked in vain for any statutory definition of that term. There has been an idea that it applied to the crofter counties, but that hardly obtains in this case, because the Commissioners have gone beyond the crofter counties and included the Highlands of Perth. I represent one of the most Highland places in the whole of Great Britain, and I want to know that I shall not be precluded in Committee from asking that these other Highland places may be included. The Education Trust for the Highlands and Islands under the Education Endowment Act of 1882 includes not only the crofter counties, but the districts which I propose should also be included. In passing this Resolution, I should like to stipulate that I am not debarred from seeking to add the other Highland districts, which can be shown to be as necessitous for this additional assistance as those which are enumerated in the Dewar Report. If I am assured that I am not debarred by a technicality from moving this, I have no objection to the Resolution.
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The position is this. Tile Treasury, finding a considerable difficulty in the medical service for the Highlands and Islands in connection with the Insurance Act appointed a Committee which decided on suggesting the inclusion of certain districts in Scotland in the term Highlands and Islands. There is no statutory definition of Highlands and Islands, but there is a definition of crofters' counties and, of course, it is a question whether this might not have been confined to the crofter counties. However, the Committee decided to include the Highlands of Perthshire and some other districts of Perthshire in their recommendations and, of course, it will be open to them in my judgment either to exclude some of the places which are suggested or to include other places which were not suggested by the Committee. I
  1818
  think it will be convenient probably to take as the basis of our discussion the districts which were recommended by the Committee, but I do not think my hon. Friend need have any fear that it would be impossible for him to ask that certain districts ought not to be excluded in the term, or even that certain other districts ought not to be included.
  Mr. WATT: I join with the hon. Member (Mr. J. M. Henderson) in protesting against the inclusion of the Highlands of Perthshire in this Resolution. His constituency, like others in Scotland, has as much difficulty in securing medical attendance and a share of this money as Perthshire. There is a definition of Highlands and Islands which has been well known in Scotland for some twenty years. The Committee recommended that Perthshire should be added for this purpose. the characteristics of parts of my hon. Friend's constituency are quite the same in inaccessibility as Perthshire and why his constituents should be excluded from a share of this money one is unable to
  understand. I hope the Secretary for Scotland will not exclude that district when he comes to consider the matter in Committee. If you take in Perthshire there are other districts in Scotland which should get a share of the money.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I remember in the discussions on the Scottish Small Landholders Bill it was frequently pointed out that the Highlands and Islands were not confined to the Northern districts, and that there were Highlands in the South of Scotland in which the conditions were very similar to those in the North. Are we to understand that the Secretary for Scotland, with regard to the area to which this Grant is to apply has so far an open mind on the subject and that when we come to it in Committee he will not resist., on the matter of form, the inclusion of districts in the South, say, the South of Lanarkshire or Dumfriesshire, or Kirkcudbrightshire, or Galloway, where you have real Highland districts as isolated and as remote from medical aid as any portion of the Highlands. Are we to understand that the Secretary for Scotland will not resist these on the question of form, but that he will be willing to consider the inclusion of each of these particular places on their merits?
  Mr. PRINGLE: I think my hon. Friend's appeal should have received a more favourable response than the derision with which

  1819
  it was treated by the Secretary for Scotland. Those who know something of Scotland know that there are districts in the South which are very similar to those which are receiving consideration under the Resolution which we are now discussing. There are districts of an isolated character remote from railways where the conditions with reference to medical attendance are as difficult as in parts of the Highlands and Islands which are included in the reference to the Committee of the hon. Baronet the Member
  for Inverness-shire (Sir J. Dewar). My hon. Friend the Member for South Lanarkshire (Sir W. Menzies) has told me—and my own knowledge of that part of the county enables me to bear out what he says—that in the part of Lanarkshire which he represents there are many districts where the difficulties in regard to medical treatment deserve as much consideration as has been given in the case of the districts dealt with in the Report of the Committee. But these conditions are not confined to Lanarkshire. There are, for example, districts on the borders of East Lothian and Berwickshire, the district of the Lammermoor Hills, where there is no railway communication. We must consider the matter very largely in relation to railway communication, because where there is railway communication, there need be no difficulty in administering medical benefit under the Act. I only rose, because apparently when my hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division mentioned the necessity in other parts of Scotland, it was only a subject for derision. I hope, however, other Members representing Scottish constituencies, even although they happen to be Members of the Government, will, when the Bill comes before the Committee, consider the matter on its merits. I hope they will consider the conditions of all those districts, not simply in relation to the amount of pressure which Members have been able to bring upon the Committee, but in relation to the necessities of the constituencies. The Debate on Friday last gave us some indication of the method by which these areas have been chosen, and after what was revealed then, a strong effort will be made by Members from Scotland to see that the considerations which have affected the Committee are not the considerations which will determine the action of Parliament in dealing with the districts on their merits.
  Mr. HOGGE: There is one point I wish to be quite clear upon before the House agrees to the Resolution, namely, whether it is to be entirely the question of inaccessibility which is to determine the districts dealt with under the Grant. If Members will refer to the Report pub. lished on this matter, they will discover that over and above the question of inaccessibility, the question of the economic conditions of the people has largely governed the relief to be afforded. For instance, in some of the Western Islands, according to the evidence in the Report, milk, which under ordinary circumstances would be available for children, has been of necessity devoted to the rearing of calves. That one fact alone illustrates the economic conditions in some of the Islands, where through hard, economic necessity the crofters in those parts have had to give up to the rearing of stock the milk which otherwise would have gone to the rearing of the children. If, therefore, the question is to be determined by the economic conditions of the people, the question of inaccessibility will largely govern the relief to be given to districts that others would desire to be brought within the four quarters of the Grant. If economic conditions are to govern the Grant, then there are a great number of other districts where this or even a larger Grant might be spent, but if inaccessibility is to be the dominating factor, I think a clear case is made out for confining the Grant to the Highlands and Islands, which are understood by all Scotland to mean the crofter counties. There was no evidence about that. If hon. Members will read Sir John Dewar's Report, they will see that a large part of it deals with the conditions in the Highlands, and particularly the outer islands of the Hebrides. If we allow Perthshire to be brought in on the ground of inaccessibility, I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that he will find there are quite as strong claims for other parts of Scotland. If he is prepared to confine this Grant to the Northern counties on the ground of inaccessibility, we will give every facility for the Bill becoming law in the immediate future. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle) reminds me that a point ought to be made as between the inaccessibility of the districts and the accessibility of the Secretary for Scotland to certain Members of this House. It is perfectly obvious that certain Members

  1821
  find the right hon. Gentleman more accessible than certain other Members. If we had communicated to us the secret whereby this inaccessibility on our part could be bridged, we might hope to include a great many other districts. Speaking seriously, I hope that my right hon. Friend will adhere to the question of inaccessibility, because if other questions, particularly the question of the economic conditions of the people are raised, he will find himself in an exceedingly difficult position.
  sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I gave my assent to this Resolution on Friday on the ground that it was going to be limited to the Highlands and Islands, a more or less well-defined area. Now I find it is proposed to extend it to other parts of Scotland, and as an English ratepayer, I am to pay in order to give medical benefit to any part of Scotland. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will resist this proposal. If not, Cumberland, Northumberland, and the Mountains of Wales, as regards their inaccessible parts, should also get the benefit of a Grant. Really it is a great mistake to be too kind and indulgent in this House, because the moment you give an inch an ell is at once demanded. I hope the right hon. Gentlemen will stand firm to the Resolution.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution, by Mr. McKinnon Wood. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time to-morrow (Tuesday), and to be printed. [Bill 273.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ADJUSTMENTS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  10.0 P.M.
  The purpose of this Bill is to enable local authorities, when county boroughs are constituted or an extension of
  urban areas takes place, to make, financial adjustments as
  between themselves. It is founded upon the unanimous recommendation of a Joint Committee of the House of Lords and of the House of Commons. For sixteen years after the passing of the Local Government Act of 1888 no difficulty=1822
  was found in making these adjustments. They were made in accordance with regulations under that Act, but in two cases,. in the years 1904 and 1907, the House of Lords, sitting in their judicial capacity, entirely changed the practice with regard to awarding compensation for loss oil rateable value. The inequity and inconvenience caused by those decisions were very soon felt. I need not trouble the House with reciting all the difficulties that arose in consequence of those decisions, but it became absolutely necessary in the year 1911 to appoint the Joint Committee to which I have already referred to consider the whole question. Before the Joint Committee reported provision was made in Bills before Parliament that the principles of ascertaining those adjustments should be those recommended by the Joint Committee which had been appointed, and since then every Provisional Order Bill which dealt with financial adjustments has contained the provisions recommended by the Joint Committee. The present Bill is of a highly technical and complicated character, but I may just summarise its effect. As regards the proceeds of local taxation, licences and Estate Duty Grant, each area affected by the Bill is to receive the average amount of Grant paid in respect of the area during the last five years for Poor Law teachers,. pauper lunatics, public vaccinators, medical officers of health, inspectors of nuisances, registrars of births and deaths, and police,. and out of the balance the area is to receive the average amount of grant during the last five years for Poor Law officers, and half the average expenditure on main reads, and if roads have been improperly mained, or roads have not been mained which should have been, all that also will be taken into account. The residue will be. divided between the areas affected in proportion to their rateable value. The proceeds of what is known as the Whisky Money are to be divided between the areas, affected in proportion to their rateable. value and compensation for additional burdens caused by the alteration of area is to be given.That meets the claim for the loss of rateable value. The Bill has been drawn up in consultation with the representatives of the County Councils. Association, Municipal Corporations Association, and other bodies concerned, and I have every hope that it will satisfy the wishes of all parties.
  Mr. MOLTENO: May I ask does this Bill apply to Scotland? I believe that it

  1823
  does not. If so, what are the reasons for the exclusion of Scotland. I have representations from my county council and they are very desirous that it should apply to Scotland. Difficulties of a similar character to those in England exist in Scotland, and I understand that the Select Committee took evidence not only in England, but in Scotland also.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I am in a similar position. Certain Scottish councils desire that an effort should be made to have this Bill applied to Scotland. There may be a difficulty. I am not sure about the framework of the Bill, or whether the conditions.are exactly the same, but they are very anxious, if possible, that it should be applied to Scotland.
  Mr. BOOTH: Have the small authorities or the associations representing them, the Urban Districts Councils Association or the Rural District Councils Association, agreed to this Bill, and is this Bill to go to a Grand Committee or to a Committee.of the Whole House?
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: In reply to the hon. Gentlemen from Scotland the Bill does not apply to Scotland. I am aware that representations have been made to Scottish Members on the subject, but it is found that there are some differences in the case of England and Scotland. This is a question which can be raised specifically in Committee, and I have no doubt that it will be considered. In answer to the first question of the hon. Member for Pontefract it is the case that the authorities representing the small areas have been consulted. In reply to his second question it is far more convenient, having regard to the period of the Session, that the Bill should be taken in Committee of the Whole House.
  Mr. MARTIN: I do not propose to oppose this Bill. I assume that it is a good Bill when I find the Scottish Members asking for it, but I would point out that measures of this importance should be based on some general principle, and the idea of Committees upstairs considering and settling matters of this kind is all wrong. Surely a Bill of this importance ought to be introduced at the time when the House can apply itself to the consideration of its general principles, in order to ascertain whether they are reasonable or not! I rise more particularly because this is not the only Bill that we have to consider. The
  1824
  Government have accumulated during the Session a large number of Bills of importance, and they are allowing the House to adjourn at five, six, or seven o'clock at night, instead of finding time to bring these Bills forward at an hour and at a period of the Session when the House would be in a position to discuss and consider them. I protest against this practice and against these Bills being brought forward just at the end of the Session, when everybody is tired out. Here we have important Bills brought forward at ten o'clock at night, and I think that very few Members of the House are in a position to say whether they agree with its principles or not. It will really be passed without any discussion, but, if it had been brought in at the proper time, Members interested in the measure would have had an opportunity of consulting their constituents to see whether or not they agreed with its principle. I hope, in regard to those Bills which are hung up by the Government, that they will be allowed to stand over until next Session, instead of pressing them forward now, causing the House to indulge in legislation which will take up considerable time in subsequent Sessions either to repeal altogether or amend.
  Colonel GREIG: I had representations made to me from my county also that they desire this Bill to apply to Scotland, but looking at Scotland it seems to me that it would be more feasible and businesslike to deal with the matter in a separate Bill for that country, because apparently it is a matter purely of machinery. I see the very first Clause of the. English Bill refers to an English Act which, I think, has no reference whatever to Scotland. A one-Clause Bill for Scotland could be discussed in a very short time, and I think it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman would ask the Scottish Office to look into the matter.
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: I agree with the hon. Member opposite that it is absurd to bring a Bill of this importance forward at this time of night, for I am certain that most Members of the House cannot be able to grasp the principles of the measure. I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman one question. This Bill, as far as I can make it out, alters the entire system of assigned revenues set up by the Act of 1868. So far as I can see, there is a change in the principle of the Act of 1888, which laid down quite clearly how the assigned revenues were to be divided between counties and county boroughs. It is a

  1825
  very important principle, in which a very important change has apparently been made by this Bill, brought forward for Second Reading at this time of night. I really think that we ought to have some further explanation from the hon. Gentleman. I only want to know that the Bill does not interfere with the principle laid down by the Act of 1888.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to Committee of the Whole House for tomorrow (Tuesday).

  MARCONI'S WIRELESS TELEGRAPH COMPANY, LIMITED.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Ordered 21st July; Mr. Masterman]; to lie
  upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 217.]

  WAR IN BALKANS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Wedgwood Benn.]
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I rise to ask a question of the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and that is whether he has received information, official or otherwise, of the occupation of Adrianople by the Turkish Army? Such reports appeared in the morning papers. It would greatly relieve the anxiety that is felt if some statement could be made. I should like also to ask whether the Under-Secretary has any information respecting the state of the civil population of Adrianople, and whether any fighting took place before the Turks re-entered.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): I
  am sorry to say that we have no official information. Unofficial information has, of course, appeared in the Press, as the hon. Gentleman has said. The House is adjourning at an earlier hour to-night than usual, and if it had adjourned at the ordinary hour I might have been able to confirm or otherwise the reports which have appeared in the Press. Similar con-
  1826
  ditions exist as to the information about the civil population in parts of Thrace. We have had no official information with regard to that. Of course, as has appeared in the Press, the Government of Turkey has announced its intention of occupying territory up to the bank of the Maritza River, and therefore it is possible, as reported, that the Turks may have occupied Adrianople.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTON: I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether ho can tell us if our military attaches and those of the Powers have been sent, and are now with the Turks. I venture to suggest that, in view of the horrible events which have notoriously occurred in that part of the world, expedition may be used in sending to the front the military attaches at Constantinople at the earliest possible moment. The presence of foreigners would have a very remarkable effect in mitigating events which might otherwise occur. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can also tell us whether the Red Cross Society are in communication with the Foreign Office as to sending out Red Cross units. Apart from the immediate work of relief, it has a great moral value, and we have not yet heard whether the Red Cross Society has sent contingents. As it is naturally in communication with the Foreign Office in regard to foreign (work, I think I am in order in asking whether the Foreign Office will make representations to the Red Cross Society as to the extreme urgency of sending contingents, even small and incomplete ones, particularly to the war in Thrace, where it is most acute.
  Mr. ACLAND: If my hon. Friend had given me half an hour's notice of the questions he intended to ask—I have been here all the evening—I perhaps could have got information, but in the absence of notice, I think it would have been fair if he had put the questions on the Paper. I am not able to answer them without any notice.
  Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen minutes after Ten o'clock.

  Civil Service (Royal Commission).
  Civil Service (Royal Commission).
  Customs and Inland Revenue (Statistical Office).
  Customs and Inland Revenue (Statistical Office).
  Development and Road Improvement Funds Act.
  Development and Road Improvement Funds Act.
  Surveyors of Taxes.
  Surveyors of Taxes.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Bray Convent School.
  Bray Convent School.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Coastguard (Pay).
  Coastguard (Pay).
  Greenwich Hospital Funds.
  Greenwich Hospital Funds.
BRITISH ARMY.
  SOUTH AFRICAN FIELD FORCE CANTEEN ACCOUNT.
  SOUTH AFRICAN FIELD FORCE CANTEEN ACCOUNT.
  TERRITORIAL FORCE.
  TERRITORIAL FORCE.
  Great Eastern Railway (Colchester Accident).
  Great Eastern Railway (Colchester Accident).
  South Africa (Garrison Institutes).
  South Africa (Garrison Institutes).
  Military Accounts Department (India).
  Military Accounts Department (India).
  Trinidad (St. Augustine Estate).
  Trinidad (St. Augustine Estate).
  Port-of-Spain.
  Port-of-Spain.
  Mental Deficiency.
  Mental Deficiency.
  Tuberculosis.
  Tuberculosis.
  Water Supply, Carnetown, Abercynon.
  Water Supply, Carnetown, Abercynon.
  Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill.
  Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Bill.
  Wheat (Average Prices).
  Wheat (Average Prices).
  Steamship "Corinthian."
  Steamship "Corinthian."
  Post Office (Skilled Workman).
  Post Office (Skilled Workman).
  Royal Engineers (Post Office Telegraphists).
  Royal Engineers (Post Office Telegraphists).
  Derby Post Office (Temporary Sorting Clerks).
  Derby Post Office (Temporary Sorting Clerks).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Barnes Order was withdrawn: The Orders made on Tuesday and Thursday last respecting the commitment of the Bill to a Select Committee in regard to the said Order discharged, and Bill committed for To-morrow.
DUNDEE BOUNDARIES BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

LIMERICK HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS BILL. [H.L.]
ALEXANDRA PARK AND PALACE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BLYTH AND COWPEN GAS BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
PONTYPRIDD AND RHONDDA JOINT WATER BOARD BILL.
MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRAMWAYS (RAILLESS TRACTION) BILL.
WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ALDBAR TRUST ESTATES.
Moved, That the Order made on the 22nd day of April last, "That this House will not receive any report from the Judges upon petitions presented to this House for Private Bills after Thursday the 1st day of May next," be dispensed with; agreed to: Report from the Judges received accordingly.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL. (No. 132.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 22) BILL. (No. 133.)
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

WEST HAMPSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment: The said Amendment considered, agreed to.

BROADSTAIRS AND ST. PETER'S URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
LLANTRISANT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
HALKYN DISTRICT MINES DRAINAGE BILL. [H.L.]
HOVE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
TYNEMOUTH GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
TITCHFIELD DISTRICT GAS BILL.
WEST BRIDGFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

ALDBAR TRUST ESTATES BILL. [H.L.]
Presented, and read 1a.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1911.
1. Provisional Special Order made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Irish Insurance Commissioners acting jointly, as to subsidiary employments;
2. Special Order made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Irish Insurance Commissioners acting jointly, as to subsidiary employments:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 134.)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, this being the same Bill as that which was before your Lordships' House a very short time ago, I shall not detain you with a speech in moving that the Bill be read a second time to-day, but shall venture to postpone until later my remarks upon the subject. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY rose to move the following Amendment—
That this House declines to proceed with the consideration of the Bill until it has been submitted to the judgment of the country.
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, the noble Earl has not added to the remarks which he made upon the last occasion when this Bill was before your Lordships' House. I am sure he will forgive me when I say that in the speech which he then delivered he failed to convince your Lordships—I think he failed to convince himself—of the righteousness of the Bill for which he was making himself responsible, and he has thought it best not to attempt to put that impression right upon the present occasion. I was aware, of course, that the noble Earl was going to take this course, and therefore I have tried to think what line the noble Earl would have taken had he made a speech on the present occasion. I think that probably his argument is to be found in a passage in the speech which he made upon the Home Rule Bill a few days ago, when he said that the Parliament Act was not passed for its own sake but in order that it might be the means of carrying the Home Rule Bill and the Bill which is at present under your Lordships' consideration; so that in the noble Earl's opinion, if I do not misinterpret that observation of his, the argument was concluded when the electors of this country returned the Radical Party to power in December, 1910, to pass the Parliament Act. That carried with it, as it were, in its embrace, not merely the Parliament Act itself, but these two great
1116
Bills. If that be the argument, I submit to your Lordships with some confidence that it is not justified. It is, I think, in the highest degree grotesque to contend that when the people of this country decided, if they did decide, to carry the Parliament Bill, as it then was, into law, they ipso facto and at the same time necessarily intended that the Home Rule Bill and the Welsh Disestablishment Bill, with all the provisions which they contain, should become part of the law of this country.
I ask your Lordships to carry your minds back for a moment to that great crisis in the constitutional history of this country—the General Election of December, 1910. Will any noble Lord sitting in any part of this House, any of your Lordships opposite, rise in your place and contend that the Welsh Disestablishment Bill was really prominently before the electors in December, 1910? What was before the country in December, 1910? There was the "People's Budget"; there was the action which your Lordships' House had taken the year before in respect to that Budget; and there was an alternative policy, the policy which is known by the name of Tariff Reform. I am not going to discuss either the People's Budget or Tariff Reform on the present occasion; but if I were to ask any of your Lordships sitting opposite, any of the members of the Government, what they believed to be—I am not endorsing it, but what they believed to be—the most unpopular part of the Unionist creed before the country at that time, what would they reply? I venture to say that they would all agree that the most unpopular part of the Unionist programme at that time was the proposed tax upon food. [A noble LORD: Hear, hear.] One noble Lord is kind enough and candid enough to acknowledge that fact. I ask, Supposing there had been no proposal for a tax upon food in the minds of the electors in December, 1910, would noble Lords opposite have felt confident that they would have been returned to power? I do not believe there is a single candid Liberal who would say with any confidence that if there had been no proposal for a tax on food before the country in December, 1910, there would have been any kind of guarantee that the Liberal Party would have been returned to power. Every one of them would admit that the result would have

1117
been very doubtful, and I believe the majority would say that but for the proposed tax on food we on this side of the House would have been returned. If that is so, what becomes of the sanction of the country in December, 1910, to the Welsh Disestablishment Bill? Why, because the proposed food tax was unpopular, should the Welsh Church be disestablished and disendowed? Any kind of mandate which can be claimed in such circumstances as that is perfectly worthless.
It was not only the question of food taxation. Another subject which undoubtedly ministered to the unpopularity of the Unionist Party at that election—I candidly admit it—was the extreme form of the hereditary principle as it is known in your Lordships' House. That was not popular. But is the fact that the hereditary principle in your Lordships' House is not popular any reason for disestablishing and disendowing the Church in Wales? I am trying to look at it, your Lordships will observe, as far as I can through the spectacles of noble Lords opposite. Another matter which undoubtedly acted against us was that a large number of people, I will not say in this case a majority, in the controversy at that time between the Commons and the Lords, apart even from the question of the hereditary principle, were, according to the democratic faith of the time in which they live, more inclined to back up the Commons against the Lords. Those subjects, subjects of very great importance, of profound and far-reaching importance, were the matters which really governed that election. I defy anybody to deny it. There was no question whatever that the hereditary principle, the struggle between the Lords and the Commons, and, above all, the unpopularity of certain parts of Tariff Reform, were the things above all others which determined the General Election of December, 1910.
To interpret the decision of the people at that time as necessarily, or even probably, in favour of the Bill which is now before your Lordships seems to me in the highest degree grotesque. Whatever the people decided in December, 1910, depend upon it they did not decide that the power of determining what should be the laws of the country should be taken out of their own hands. That they certainly did not determine. They may not have had a
1118
very clear view of exactly how that was to work out, but depend upon it they intended then, as they intend now, that the last word upon all this kind of legislation, all this important capital legislation, should rest with the people themselves. Again, were the people, even if their attention had been drawn to it, in a position to arrive at a conclusion as to this Bill in December, 1910? Why, the matter had not been argued out in the country for years. I do not mean to say that the subject had not been mentioned in Parliament later, but the last time that Welsh Disestablishment was thoroughly argued out in Parliament and in the country was in 1895. Since then, beyond certain references to it in public and perhaps an abortive legislative project or two, nothing has really been heard of the subject. Nothing in the nature of detailed discussion and criticism of Welsh Disestablishment and Disendowment has taken place before the electors of this country.
What is our duty towards the people in a matter of this kind? I venture to say that it is not to gain an advantage over their ignorance, not upon some technicality of a decision at a General Election to force upon them conclusions which they themselves are really not prepared to adopt. We must help the people to come to their decision, not hustle them. We must do our very utmost, before we assume that they have determined a thing, fairly to lay the issues before them in all their details—the origins of the question, the conclusions which ought to be drawn from those origins, the evidence of the present time, and all the arguments that can be brought to bear on one side or the other. That could not have been done until the Welsh Disestablishment Bill was produced. Is it at all a strange claim that before the people should be asked to decide in favour of a great policy such as this they should see the actual provisions of the Bill which it is proposed should carry that policy into effect? Even Parliament itself, which is, after all, a much more expert body than the electors, does not form any conclusion as to the principle of a Bill until it has seen all its provisions set out in the form of a Bill. You cannot expect the country to do better than Parliament. You cannot expect the electors to understand the full bearing of the principle of

1119
the Bill until they have seen before them the provisions by which it is proposed to carry that principle out. I hear the noble Viscount the Lord President of the Council say that the precedent of the Irish Church Bill is against me. He knows, of course, the history of the Irish Church Bill far better than I do; but unless I am very much mistaken the Resolutions on which the Irish Church Bill was founded were discussed in the greatest detail before the country was asked to decide. But nothing of the kind has been done in the case of the Welsh Church.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY): They were not discussed in great detail. All the questions which afterwards caused so much trouble—endowment and all those questions—came later. The real details of the Bill came afterwards.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My noble friend who sits beside me (Viscount St. Aldwyn) and who remembers the Bill equally with the noble Viscount opposite, tells me that there were very long discussions. My noble friend, indeed, was in Parliament at that time, and I believe the country had not the great advantage of the noble Viscount's presence in Parliament as early as that. But my argument does not depend on precedent. It stands to reason that until the matter has been laid before the country in detail, until the case has been argued, the electors are not in a position to come to a conclusion. It is no good having the verdict first and the trial afterwards. That is the most absurd arrangement you could possibly conceive; and if the people are to decide, the people can only decide genuinely if the case has been argued before them. Indeed, I think the Prime Minister himself contemplated this in one of the speeches which he delivered in the course of the discussions on the Parliament Act, for he said that one of the advantages of the procedure of that Act was that the public discussion of a Bill would be a safeguard, because if public opinion did not approve of the Bill the people would have ample opportunity of showing their disapproval while the Bill was passing. Yes, my Lords, they may have the power of showing their disapproval, but they have not the power to record their disapproval at the polls. They have, I believe, formed very
1120
definitely adverse views of this Bill, but they are not able to make those adverse views effective.
I should like to call your Lordships' attention to one or two points—I do not pretend that what I shall say will be exhaustive—which have emerged in the controversy as it has been conducted in Parliament and in the country since this Bill was first introduced, and which I believe the electors had not in the least degree appreciated when they returned noble Lords opposite to power in December, 1910. I think that average public opinion looked upon the Welsh Church as a self-contained Church which might be dealt with by itself without ulterior considerations. What has emerged in this controversy is that, so far from being a self-contained Church, the Welsh Church is an integral part of the Canterbury Province of the Church of England; that it is inextricably interwoven with the structure of that Church; and that it cannot be divided from it without dismembering the Church of England. I do not think that in their speeches noble Lords opposite ever seem to feel the full force of that argument. They do not seem to think that Churchmen in Wales have an absolute claim upon the protection which they gain from being integral members, not only in the eye of God but in the eye of the law, of the whole Church of England in this kingdom. They do not seem to appreciate that every individual Churchman has that claim. And yet in the political sphere, as opposed to the ecclesiastical sphere, they are very ready to acknowledge it. When we are discussing Home Rule they always allege that it is part of their case that in granting self-government to Ireland the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament should be maintained. I think, as a matter of fact, they singularly fail to effect that object in their Bill, but they claim it. They claim that it is an essential part of their proposal—that is to say, they admit that every Irishman, whatever may happen to his country, has a right to the protection of the larger unit of the United Kingdom, an absolute right to that which they think it part of their duty to secure to him. But they do not seem to see that the same argument applies in the ecclesiastical sphere to the Welsh Churchman. He in a similar way has an absolute claim to the legal protection and legal advantages

1121
which he possesses by being part of the larger organisation of the Church of England, as it is contained not only in Wales itself but in England and Wales taken together. Looked at from another point of view, the interdependence of the Welsh Church and the English Church, everybody knows that there are a large number of the supporters of noble Lords opposite who are looking to Welsh Disestablishment as the pathway to the Disestablishment of the Church of England as a whole. The noble Earl opposite has not honoured us with a speech as yet this evening, but last year—I am not quite sure where, but I think somewhere in Hampshire—he used a phrase on this point which has been quoted a good many times. I will not quote it to-night if the noble Earl denies it.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: No; it is quite right.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl, who is always courageous, said on the occasion to which I refer that he would not be afraid of saying that the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales was only the first step towards the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in England. So that the noble Earl himself admits, in terms, the interdependence of the two subjects. The Church in Wales does not stand alone. The fact of the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in Wales will be, as the noble Earl admits, a strong argument in his armoury for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in England; and therefore Churchmen in England, whether they be Conservatives or Liberals, have to look at this subject not merely from the Welsh point of view but from the point of view of the Church of England as a whole.
Let me take another matter which I think has emerged in the present controversy which I am sure was not appreciated by the electors in 1910. They had the general view that the Church was only one of many denominations in Wales covering the same ground as the other denominations, only with unfair advantages in the competition. But that is not the case. It appears, after the controversy, that there are many parts of Wales where there is no Nonconformist provision whatever. There are many
1122
parishes in the diocese of St. Asaph and many parishes in the diocese of St. Davids, a large number altogether, in which, if the Church in Wales were obliterated by a stroke of the pen to-morrow, there would be no minister or any kind or sort to give religious ministrations to the unfortunate people there. Is that a reason for Disestablishing and Disendowing the Church in Wales? Do you mean to tell me that the people of England really realised that such was the case, that it was the only religious body in some parts of Wales, when this alleged mandate was given to noble Lords opposite to destroy the Church?
I take another point. I do not believe that the people of this country had the least notion how poor the Church in Wales is when they were asked, if they were asked, to sanction its Disendowment. I take the average of livings in Wales under £200 a year, if you may use such a word as "livings" for so meagre a reward for their labours. Sixty per cent. of the livings in Wales are under £200 a year. That gives some idea of the poverty of the land; and that argument, of course, is confirmed by the fact, which I laid before your Lordships when I last had the opportunity of addressing you on this subject, that in their grants to poor parishes throughout the country the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have found it necessary to apply proportionately a far larger sum to Wales. All these things show how poor the Church in Wales is, and that it is not a bloated rich Establishment which you are attacking but a poor struggling Church doing its utmost for the welfare of the people. That is another of the facts which I am sure were not before the electors at the last election.
Take one more point, the title of the Church of England in Wales to its endowments. Of course, there is no difference in this respect between the Church of England in Wales and the Church of England in England. I think the sort of idea which was sought to be conveyed to the public as to the title to these endowments was that the endowments of the Church in Wales did not really belong to the Church; that they had no just title to them at all. What has appeared from these discussions? Why, that the title to the endowments of the Church in Wales is at least as good as the title

1123
to his property, not only of any one of your Lordships, but of any landowner throughout the country. It is perfectly clear that their title has been undisputed at any rate for 300 years, and if that is not enough to give a good title I really do not know what is. The whole idea which is sought to be established by certain Nonconformist speakers, that endowments are by themselves bad—bad for the Church which possesses them, bad for the ministrations of that Church—is entirely vitiated by the fact which has now come to light, that the Nonconformist bodies themselves have endowments, and wish they had more. The whole of the argument that endowments were soul-destroying things disappears at once when we find that the preachers of that doctrine themselves have endowments and are doing their utmost to increase them by every means in their power—nay more, when they publish abroad to their adherents the great difficulties under which they labour because their endowments have not been increased, and make demands upon their friends to do their best to set that deficiency right. These are other arguments which I am quite certain were not present to the electors in December, 1910.
But now, following the same line of argument, let me say a word or two more particularly about Establishment. The idea sought to be established in the argument of noble Lords opposite and Nonconformist speakers throughout the country is that the Church of England everywhere, but for the purposes of this Bill especially in Wales, has privileges which cannot be defended. I ask your Lordships, What do those privileges consist of? Do they consist, for example, in the special laws under which the Church of England is governed? I do not think people who use that argument reflect that it is by no means unprecedented in this country that organisations of great importance should have special laws. This is not a privilege belonging to the Church of England particularly. There are a great many organisations of the first rank which have special laws attached to them and which are governed under special Acts of Parliament, with special obligations, special means of revenue, and so on. Take, for example, the great railway systems in this country. They are all governed under special laws. Take
1124
the friendly societies. They are all governed under special laws. Take especially trade unions. We all know—for it has been matter of acute controversy lately—the special laws under which trade unions are governed. Considering the enormous importance of the Church of England, the extent of its adherents, its wealth, if you like, it is not the less defensible that it should have special laws. That is what we should have expected even if there were no historic growth of the Establishment before us.
Well, has the Church of England special advantages? Certainly there are some. But, as I have already shown, special advantages under the law are not confined to the Church of England; nor is the Church of England the only religious body which has special advantages. Every Nonconformist body in this country has special advantages before the law. That is to say, there are privileges granted to it because it is a religious body and for no other reason. I should not presume to weary your Lordships by repeating observations which I have already made in this House on this subject, but I may refer to the point quite generally and say that in numerous directions all religious bodies in this country have special privileges by law which they possess because they are religious bodies and for no other reason. Therefore the privileges possessed by the Church of England cannot be, in principle, privileges to which any objection can be urged. And if the Church of England has advantages, it also has certain disadvantages. That is a matter, I know, which appeals very closely to the right rev. Prelate who presides over the diocese of Oxford. He feels so acutely what I believe he regards as the fetters of the Church of England that he would rather lose all the advantages of endowment and of the Establishment of the Church of England if he could get rid of these so-called fetters. Well, my Lords, I am not concerned to deny that there ought to be more freedom of self-government in the Church of England. I should like to see it carried out, and I believe it can be carried out. I believe, my Lords, that if by the assistance of Parliament and the electors of this country we are successful in preventing Disestablishment and Disendowment, which I certainly hope may be the case, we shall gain those increased powers of self-

1125
government in the Church of England which we ought to possess. But although I say that, I would not like to carry it too far. Even if there had been no historic Establishment of the Church of England, a body so important, with such enormous influence for good or for evil upon the people of this country, ought not to be entirely independent of the State; and certain limitations on the powers of the Church of England ought to have been established by Parliament even if they had not already been there.
I return to my question, Where lies the evil principle of Establishment to which noble Lords opposite object? If it is the fact that there are certain advantages which the Church of England possesses which Nonconformist bodies do not possess, then I should be very glad if we could diminish that inequality. People seem to think that the only way of obtaining equality is by levelling down, but I would urge upon your Lordships that there is another method—namely, by levelling up, and I would like to see in many respects more so-called privileges given to the Nonconformist bodies in this country. I have already shown to your Lordships on another occasion that that process has already proceeded a long way, but we might carry it a great deal further. It is said, for example, that the presence of the Bishops on the Episcopal Bench in your Lordships' House is in itself an advantage not possessed by the Nonconformist body. I say, quite frankly, that I should be delighted to see the heads of the great Nonconformist body sitting in your Lordships' House or in any House which may take its place, and I believe that to be the view of every thinking man among Churchmen throughout the length and breadth of the country. We have no desire for these exclusive privileges. If that is the point of Establishment which is so offensive to the Liberal Party, by all means diminish those privileges, not by destroying them altogether but by granting them to other people.
Is there any other respect in which Establishment is really offensive to the Nonconformist body and to noble Lords opposite? Does it, perchance, lie in the word "National" and in all that that word implies? Is it, in fact, that what really is most distasteful to the Welsh Nonconformists is that the Church in
1126
Wales should be called the National Church? It may be so. If it were only a word and only a name, for my part I almost should wish to get rid of it; but, my Lords, although one hesitates for a moment to think that so much should hang upon a name, yet I cannot but feel that there is something in the word "National" as attached to religion in this country which is so valuable that I could not willingly forego the name. What is, in fact, implied in the existence of a National Church? It means that the State is conducted upon a religious basis. It means that there is not that sharp division in our country between things secular and things religious. It means that we recognise that a man consists of two things, not only his body but also his spirit, and that the Government must have to do with both great elements of a human being. Many of us look forward in the hope that in the dim and distant future there may be a time when all Christian bodies may be reunited. I do not wish to be misunderstood, my Lords. I do not wish to minimise for a moment the great differences which divide us at the present day, but still none of us can be blind to the fact that there is a movement on foot towards drawing together the severed fragments of the Church wherever they may be; and at such a moment to pronounce, in the year 1913, that the State is no longer religious, that the State has become a purely secular State, is a conclusion from which I believe all religious men ought to shrink.
My Lords, these are the considerations on Endowment and on Establishment which were not laid before the country in December, 1910. No one will pretend that these things were before our fellow-countrymen when they returned the present Government to power. Some of them they have already learnt; some of them they are engaged in learning; and what is the result? Why, everybody knows that this Bill is profoundly unpopular in the country. Is any noble Lord sitting on the Front Bench opposite, any noble Lord sitting on the Liberal Benches anywhere, prepared to get up in his place and say that this is a popular Bill? The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack is, I believe, going to speak immediately after I sit down. I challenge him to say that this Bill is a popular Bill. I challenge him upon his democratic faith. I ask him as

1127
an honest man, believing, as he does, that the will of the people ought to prevail, whether he believes in his heart that this Bill is approved by the people; and if he cannot say that, what right has he, as a Liberal and as a Radical, to ask Parliament to pass this Bill? My Lords, we believe that this Bill has been argued before the country and has been found to be a bad Bill. We believe that the people are against it, and we ask your Lordships' House to reject it on the present occasion.
I have only one word more to say, and that is as to the form of the Amendment which I am about to submit as an alternative to the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill. Your Lordships will have observed that the form of the Amendment is precisely similar to that of the Amendment which was moved to the Home Rule Bill a few days ago by my noble friend who leads the Opposition. We ask that this Bill shall not be passed until it has been submitted to the country. But it has occurred to many people—I have seen it noticed in the Liberal Press—that there is a difficulty in applying the same remedy to two Bills. How can we, it is asked, submit two Bills at the same time to the country? I admit that there is a certain ambiguity. But in the first place I would reply that if the Government take exception to my Amendment upon that ground it is open to them to withdraw one of the Bills. Let them withdraw the Home Rule Bill and let the country pronounce on the Welsh Disestablishment Bill. I do not think they will do that. Let them withdraw the Welsh Disestablishment Bill and leave the country to pronounce about Home Rule. I do not even think they will do that. If they will not adopt that course, then I am able to say, on behalf of my noble friend behind me that we are quite prepared to adopt the method of the referendum if they prefer that to the other. By means of the referendum no such difficulty would arise. But, my Lords, if the Government are prepared neither to withdraw one of their Bills nor to adopt the plan of the referendum, then at any rate we claim that these fundamental Bills, going down to the very root of our polity, shall not pass without an appeal to the country, and, if there be an appeal to the country, by the result of that appeal we are prepared to abide. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
To leave out all the words after ("That") for the purpose of inserting the following Resolution, viz., ("this House declines to proceed with the consideration of the Bill until it has been submitted to the judgment of the country").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, the noble Marquess challenged me to answer the question whether I could affirm that this Bill was a popular Bill, and earlier in his speech he raised the question whether it was a righteous Bill. I am profoundly convinced that this Bill is a righteous Bill, and I believe it to be a popular Bill—popular in the sense that all those who have given their minds to the side of the case which I am now going to present to your Lordships are convinced of its truth. The noble Marquess spoke in tones which were characterised by great sincerity. No one can doubt that he is a loyal and devoted son of the Church; no one can doubt the reality of his accents. But, my Lords, the very earnestness of the noble Marquess prevents him from seeing the tremendous case on the other side which he ignores and leads him to take an altogether one-sided view of this controversy. It is quite true that this Bill proposes to disestablish and also to disendow the Church in Wales. That is always a painful process. It is always a process which one would avoid if one possibly could.
Here we have the spectacle of a part of the Church in a part of the country which belongs for Church purposes to the Province of Canterbury, and it is proposed to make a separation. And why? Because a great current of idealism, which took its origin a century since and has continued to flow with ever-increasing volume, has separated the people of Wales from the Church which ought to be theirs; and because there is only one way of bringing together the currents in that country of spiritual and national life, and that is by the reform which this Bill proposes. That is the counter-case. That is the case which I shall try to make good in what I have to say, and that is the case which the noble Marquess and many who have spoken on this subject have ignored. I do not doubt that there has been great growth in the life of the Church in Wales. I do not doubt that the efforts, the notable efforts, which have been made by the

1129
right rev. Prelates who represent its Church in this House have been attended with much good. These efforts are worthy of all praise, and one could have wished that they had come at a time when they could have borne results larger proportionately to the results obtained in the rest of Wales. But they come too late. They come half a century after the time at which they might have borne some fruit. The result is that it is now no question of divorcing the Church from the people of Wales, because the divorce has long since taken place, and it is a question now of bridging the gulf which exists between them.
The noble Marquess asks whether the broad controversy, the question which I have endeavoured to define, is one which has been adequately before the country for the country to pronounce on. He said it is a question of great gravity. I admit that it is. It is a great and far-reaching change that we are seeking to bring about. But, my Lords, it is a question which has been discussed with ever-increasing frequency for a quarter of a century. It was before Parliament in the fullest sense in 1895. It has been the subject of repeated Motions in the House of Commons, and to-day we are in this position, that quite lately an affirmative answer to the question whether this Bill should pass has been given by a very large majority in the other House. Then the noble Marquess seemed to suggest that this was a question rather to be dealt with by those who were concerned, and that those concerned were the people of England, of whom the people of Wales for this purpose formed only a part. Is that really an argument which needs to be more than stated in order to be confuted? What is our Constitution as regards the Church and its Establishment? It has always been the essence of our Constitution that freedom to mould the organisation of the Church should be conceded to every separable part of the country. Had we not had that freedom in Scotland we should have done badly. It is some two or three centuries since we broke away from Episcopacy, and it is that one right by which we regulate our Church affairs. Again, in Ireland it was only in 1869 that the great change was made which severed the Church in Ireland from the Church in England. That change was made with the assent of your Lordships upon the principle that
1130
when a people had earnestly and unmistakably declared that it wished to enjoy that freedom and autonomy it was entitled to demand it and to receive it. Over whatever questions as to Home Rule there may have been controversy, there is no question in this country about the right of autonomy in spiritual matters.
When one comes to the case of Wales, what is the actual concrete case? Wales consists of a people strongly marked out, localised, differing in many material respects from ourselves, differing in descent and temperament, lacking, perhaps, in some qualities which we possess, but endowed with others which we fail to enjoy, a people marked out as a distinct people in just those qualities which most hear upon spiritual organisation; and they, through their representatives, by a majority which for long has been somewhere about ten to one, have been persistently and without break demanding that they should be allowed to regulate their spiritual affairs in their own fashion and should not be held to the proposition that their National Church must continue to be a Church which does not represent the majority in any sense or shape. One would have thought, if the principle of the noble Marquess had been applied, that it would have been, not that the people of England and the people of Wales together should have decided this question apart from the people of Scotland and Ireland, but that the people of Wales should have decided it alone. If so, what answer would he have been likely to get?
After all, what is it that has made this separation in the standpoint of the great majority of the people of the 'Welsh Principality from the standpoint which obtains in England? Great divisions of view arising from temperament, yes, and from more than temperament—from history. It is worth while looking for a moment at what the real controversy is. What is the essence of the Church of England? I for one have never challenged the view which I know is strongly held, and I think justly held, that through the life of the Church of England, under whatever form, even when its government was a government directed by the See of St. Peter, there has been a certain continuity which comes down to this time. But, possibly because of the peculiar genius of our Constitution, that con-

1131
tinuity is a continuity which has been maintained under the control, and at times under the hard grip, of the State.
If you go back to the earliest times you find the King and Parliament of this country insisting upon their right to control the Church. Even when the authority of the Bishop of Rome was practically unchallenged, that right was set up. It is no new doctrine, this doctrine of the interference of the State in the affairs of the Church. I turned up the other day the Statute of Provisors which was passed at that notable Parliament at Carlisle which took place in the time of Edward III, and I found this very striking Preamble, striking as showing that even so far back as that time the title of the State to control and interfere in the affairs of the Church was strongly asserted—
"Whereas the Church of England was founded by the King and his progenitors and the Earls, Barons, and other nobles of the Realm to inform them and the people of the law of God and to make hospitalities, alms, and other works of charity in the places where her churches were founded."
Mark that!And then the Statute goes on to say that the Pope shall not interfere in the appointments to benefices. It was at an early stage of the Church's history that that declaration of what many conscientious people regard as the principle of Erastus came in. I have always thought Erastus a somewhat over-abused person. He was an eminent statesman, and a divine also. He filled several rôles in life, and he asserted the principle that the Church should not be allowed to insist on the right of exclusive control in matters which might give rise to persecution. He set up his doctrine in a form which caused great controversy. One large section of the people have denounced him ever since, and another large body have embraced, perhaps unconsciously, the doctrine and the principles of Erastus, and I think the people of Wales stick tight to his principles. People speak about setting the Church free from that restraint, but have they considered what an enormous task they would have to accomplish before the Church could in any degree correspond with the standard set up in Wales?
How does the Church stand to-day? In the time of the Tudors the doctrine of controlling the power of the Church was asserted with great force, and the power of
1132
the Crown to nominate to the highest places in the Church was asserted with a vehemence which survives even to this day. It is not many years ago since it was my duty to argue before the Court of Queen's Bench the question whether a mandamus could issue to direct the most rev. Primate to hear objections which were raised by some objectors to a distinguished individual—a now highly-honoured member of the Episcopal Bench of this House—who had been nominated to the benefice of Worcester at that time. The service for the confirmation and consecration of a Bishop is a most beautiful and impressive one, and it looks, as the language is interpreted, as if the most rev. Primate had a duty to take notice of the objections and see if there was anything in them before proceeding to the duty of confirmation and consecration. But that was not the view taken by Parliament or by the Courts of Law. It was decided, as it had been decided before in Bishop Hampden's case, that the most rev. Primate, notwithstanding these solemn and sacred words, was the mere agent of the Crown, just as the dean and chapter, who had received a polite letter of congé d'elire requesting them to make an election of a Bishop to be proposed, would have been liable to terrible pains and penalties if they had refused to accede to the invitation. So the most rev. Primate himself was the mere hand of the Crown and of Parliament in giving effect to the nomination which the Crown had made. That is a curious example of the apparent freedom and yet rigid forms which run through the whole organisation of the Church of England. You have it again in the Articles of Religion, settled under the direction of the Crown; you have it in the Prayer Book, prescribed by Statute; you had it when the Act of Uniformity was passed in 1662, when the Church was put under a most rigid set of rules which drove out some of her best ministers.
My Lords, I am not complaining of the organisation of the Church of England. It has grown up as it has grown up. It may be that it suits best the genius of our people. I do not know what another party in the Church would say if the counsels of the noble Marquess were listened to. He may be right in saying that a time of greater freedom is in front of us. I share his desire that these controversies, many of them absurd, which arise out of strict regulations should die away, and that the people of the Church should have greater freedom.

1133
But a tremendously long road has to be travelled before that goal is reached. Is it, then, to be wondered that the people of Wales should have taken the strongest exception to remaining as they are?
I come now to the case of Welsh idealism. Under the Act of Uniformity of 1662 some of the best of the clergymen in Wales were those who suffered most severely. They were men who desired to remain in the Church, but they were unable to conform to everything which the Act of Uniformity imposed upon them, a nil therefore they were after a time driven forth. By degrees there arose around them a band of people who increased more and more as time went on, and who formed the foundation of that organisation of spiritual life in Wales which, assisted by no Act of Parliament, dependent on no State endowments, is yet a power by the side of which the Church in Wales to-day appears as but small. With that revolution of 1662, the time began when the Church of England in Wales ceased to be the National Church in the widest sense, and became the Church of only a part of the nation. That was the beginning of a great change in Wales. There grew up a generation of men who still clung to the Church of England, who clung to it down to the middle of the eighteenth century, and who wished to work within it, but their task was an impossible one. The Church in those days was a dead Church; it held them down with an iron hand, and the result was that after the middle of the eighteenth century there set in a new tendency altogether. Men began to look for new methods. There were those who sought to raise, intellectually and morally as well as spiritually, the life of the people among whom they lived, and they found that they could not do that within the Church. They came forth, and there arose a baud of names familiar to the people of Wales, although perhaps not so familiar, unfortunately, outside. I dare say many of your Lordships have never heard them—Howell Harris, Daniel Rowlands, and Thomas Charles. The right rev. Prelates who represent the Welsh dioceses must know them well. They are the names of men who set on foot a great movement, and devoted their lives to furthering it—a movement which was to entirely change the Church life of the Welsh people. One has to appreciate the meaning of that current of ideas to follow it closely. It was not confined to Churchmen. By degrees it
1134
began to affect the social life of the people who founded it, and it began to affect them for good. The result of it was that the whole of the springs and impulses of that great social movement which has transformed Wales came from Nonconformity.
I will take one case, a case to which I have given some study and with which I am more or less familiar—the case of education. I affirm that education in Wales owes almost nothing to the Church and almost everything to Nonconformity. I will make my words good by witnesses who were themselves members, and devoted members, of the Church of England. When the great education movement reached a point when it could progress no longer without help from the State, the Education Act of 1870 was passed. The clergy in Wales looked coldly upon it. Among those who occupied the Welsh Bishoprics there was one man, one of the most distinguished men of modern times in the Church of England, who gave them a warning—I mean Bishop Thirlwall, the Bishop of St. David's, a man of large intelligence, a man who had been in his younger days a member of that brilliant group to which Mill and the Austins belonged, a man who was a distinguished scholar of Cambridge, a man who, by his character and his outlook on life, merits the words which are carved on the slab which covers his remains in Westminster Abbey. Cor sapiens et intelligens ad discernendum judicium. Bishop Thirlwall warned the Church in Wales of that day what would happen if they refused to take their legitimate and lawful place as the leaders of the people in the development of the new Welsh national education movement. But they stood aloof; they disregarded his warning. Yet a little later came another warning. The Welsh Intermediate Education Act was not passed until 1889; it was passed in the time of the Conservative Government, but it was really the work of prominent people unconnected with the Conservative Party and unconnected with the Church of England. It was essentially a Nonconformist movement, and it led to the furnishing of a supply of schools in Wales which have done an immense deal to raise the intellectual and moral tone of the whole of the Welsh people. From that movement, again, the Church stood largely aloof. There were, of course, many prominent men in the Church of England who worked hard at that time; but a few swallows do not make a summer.

1135
and the truth remains that the Church in the main held aloof from that movement.
Then, my Lords, came the third movement—the movement to give a university to Wales, and to provide for still higher education. What happened then? The proposal was hailed with acclamation throughout Wales and in the House of Commons, but your Lordships passed a Motion to reject the charter in the interests of Lampeter, because Lampeter happened to be the Church College, and because it did not suit Lampeter to make the effort necessary to bring herself up to that level which made her teaching appropriate to come within the scope of a university. That is a state of things that many Churchmen in Wales are totally unconscious of. While they have been undoubtedly getting on, others have been getting on far faster. The great movement in Wales has been progressing outside and apart from them in a way they have not perceived. What has been the consequence? Even in theology and in the affairs of the Church the clergy in Wales are dropping far below the level of the Welsh Nonconformist ministers. The teaching at Lampeter is a case in point. What is the result? It is that the Nonconformist colleges in Wales now devote themselves to elaborate post-graduate studies in theology, following upon training at the university, with the result that the Nonconformist ministry in Wales is shooting away from anything the Church can compass.
I do not ask your Lordships to rely on any testimony of my own in this matter. I cite here a paper read at the Church Congress which took place in 1908. The most rev. Primate who is going to speak later had urged the desirability of improving the education of the clergy in Wales, and this paper was read by one who is well known, Sir Harry Reichel, a distinguished educationalist and the Principal of Bangor College. He is also a distinguished member of the Church, and his father was a well-known Bishop. He is a man who brings to his knowledge experience of the great universities of England at which he was a distinguished graduate, and he also has a great knowledge of Wales. This is what he says about the state of theological training in Wales as between the Non-conformists and the Church, and as afford-
1136
ing reason why the Church is more and more losing its grip—
"When I first came into Wales, Lampeter turned out a better type of man, take him all round, than the best of the Nonconformist colleges—"
That was before this great Nonconformist educational movement of which I spoke; I mean before the University became what it has become, and before the Intermediate Education Act was produced—
"The positions are now reversed. At present the Lampeter men are quite out-classed by the students of these colleges who enjoy the full advantages of the new system. What has happened in the interim? The great educational movement. The Nonconformist colleges have brought themselves into line with this movement. Lampeter stands where she did. No one who has not been brought into close contact with their students can realise the degree to which the whole intellectual position of these colleges has been raised and strengthened by that reconstruction, especially in the attraction of an abler sort of student. When the Independent College first came to Bangor, none of its students were in a position to study for a degree; they could only take junior classes. Now not only do all who enter the University College pursue degree courses, but they also win their full proportion of College scholarships and University distinctions. We are, indeed, if things remain as they are in Wales, within measurable distance of a time when theological learning, even in a subject like Church History, will have to be sought, not in the Church parsonage, but in the Nonconformist manse."
I will go on and read one or two other sentences dealing with Lampeter—
"Where in Wales must we seek for the true home of theological learning and research in future, if the conditions remain unchanged? Not in Lampeter, but in Bala, Bangor, Aberystwyth, Brecon, Cardiff, Carmarthen. Who will be the future leaders of theological thought in Wales? Not the clergy of the Church, but the ministers of the Nonconformist denominations."
That is the view taken by Churchmen. The only other citation I will make is one by another great Churchman who is well known to your Lordships—Dean Edwards. Dean Edwards was one of those men who, while a Churchman, was also a great progressive reformer. This was what he said, speaking at the Church Congress in Swansea in 1879—
"For fifty years every teacher whose name lives in the hearts of the Welsh people has been almost without exception a Nonconformist. While the Bishops were laying hands upon unfit men, the natural heaven-born teachers of Wales were influencing thousands in the chapels."
I have read those extracts because it is of the highest importance that your

1137
Lordships should realise what you are asked to do. It is not that we do not recognise the efforts that have been made of late years and the improvement that has taken place. But it is, I say again, that a far mightier force has been bearing on the whole current of Welsh national life in a fashion which it is wholly impossible for the Church to rise to. And the result has been that a great barrier has grown up, a barrier which I think is a bad thing to exist, and which it is impossible to redress unless by Disestablishment.
It is not only in education, although that is an illustration which goes to the touchstone, but there are other things. There is the great Sunday school movement in Wales. Do not let your Lordships suppose that by Sunday school in Wales is meant the same thing as Sunday school here. No. These are assemblages of the people who meet in their thousands for instruction of all kinds and for edification and spiritual enlightenment. And throughout Wales the Sunday school movement has received an impetus for several generations past which has made the whole difference in the every-day lives of the people. It is at these gatherings that much of the vitality of the spiritual life of Wales to-day has seen its origin. All these things, again, are outside the Church. And when you come to science and literature Wales is yet young. She is young in her higher education, she has her spurs in many respects to win, but the brilliant young men she has sent forth already are men who come not from the Church. The great movement against phthisis in Wales is inspired from Nonconformist sources. Do not for a moment imagine that I think Churchmen in Wales are cold on these subjects. On the contrary, I know they would like to come forward, but they are fifty years too late for their task. Accomplish it they cannot, and any one who watches the symptoms of the time can only feel that the gap is becoming greater, and that the whole volume of spiritual and intellectual and moral life is thrown with increasing energy into this wide and ever widening channel.
I hope I have shown your Lordships that the demand which this Bill contains is not based merely on the fact that by ten to one the Welsh Members have voted in favour of it; not on any agitation
1138
which has taken place outside, set up for Party purposes; not on any narrow desire to injure the Church of England—we realise that Disendowment and Disestablishment are painful things—but the demand is based on the feeling that, in justice to a nation, in fidelity to principles winch we adopted long ago in the case of Scotland and Ireland, we cannot deny to Wales the one remedy for a condition of things which is bad to-day and which cannot be bettered unless drastic means are resorted to.
After all, what does it come to? For five generations and more you have had this movement growing and ever growing; you have had the people of Wales organising themselves and their national life in a new fashion. With the extension of the franchise it was to be expected that this great spiritual movement of which I have spoken, and which dated from an earlier time, should take effect in influencing the political views of the people of Wales. It has done so. The strength of political opinion is now drawn from the ranks of Nonconformity, not in the sense of hostility to the Church of England in Wales but in the desire for a freer and larger Church, a Church more detached, if you like, from the ordinary creeds and contentions, where that spirit of which I have spoken would flow with a fuller volume, and where the people would feel that their national life was more completely realised. To talk of national life in Wales as connected with the Establishment as it now exists is to talk vain words. It has been said that these are times in which people are turning their minds away from such problems as Disestablishment and from these theological controversies. So they are in some parts of the country, but not in Wales, and it cannot be so in Wales while the state of things that I have described continues, and while the breach which took place long ago continues uncontrolled.
The case of Scotland has been invoked. We have been told to look at Scotland, to look at the people drawing together in increasing community as regards the principles of Establishment, and then to ask ourselves why in Wales it should be different if it were not on account of some petty jealousies. I know Scotland pretty well, and I know the history of the Church movement in Scotland pretty thoroughly.

1139
I stood within the Bar of this House nine years ago when a judgment was passed which deprived a Church of the very means of livelihood, not of ancient endowments which had accrued before the Act of Uniformity, and not because that Church was different from what it has become to-day, but endowments much of which represented what had been subscribed and contributed by the very people who were listening to the judgment—endowments which had been added together in the few years previously, and which these people gave in the belief that they were contributed for their Church, a Church which they thought was free from the interference of the Courts and the State. They were wrong. The terms of the trust deed were so worded that they could not retain their own property. The terms of that judgment were accepted, as people loyally accept the terms of judgments in this country, but the nation arose. Public opinion fashioned itself, and there was an appeal to a greater tribunal, and an Act of Parliament was passed, hardly with a dissentient voice, in 1905, which sought to remedy the legal injustice which wag then done—not that the law was wrongly declared, but that the declaration of the law was itself an injustice which ought never under a different condition of things to have taken place. What happened? Parliament declared, with the full assent of the nation, that after proper provision had been made for the minority who had not themselves contributed to the funds, after a generous provision had been made for them, the money should be given back to the Church which had lost it, on the footing that that Church should prescribe its own formulas, and mould its creeds and maintain those creeds, subject to what had always been the standard, the headship of Christ and the authority of Holy Scripture.
A very remarkable thing happened on that occasion. The Establishment of the Church of Scotland came forward and said "We, too, wish to be relieved of the control of the State; its hand weighs heavily upon us; we, too, find we are not free to mould our own formulas, and we ask you to give us that freedom also." And Parliament granted them that freedom, and to-day the Church of Scotland is almost as free to manage its own spiritual affairs as if it were a disestablished Church. It is easy to misquote cases of that kind as
1140
showing that there is ground for supposing that the demand of the Welsh people is running contrary to the demand which has been made in Scotland. If the Church in Wales had not been dominated by the State, do you think that the history of that Church would have been what it is to-day? Do you think that the currents of national life would have drifted away from that Church, and that every great movement would have had to seek its inspiration outside that Church? No; it is because there is a great gulf between the state of things in Wales to-day and the state of things in Scotland that it is vain to bring in that analogy.
To-morrow your Lordships will be asked to declare your voices on the Welsh Church Bill. It is not that the Welsh representatives have declared by ten to one in favour of this Bill; it is not because a large majority of the representatives of the United Kingdom have declared for it, that I appeal to your Lordships. My appeal is based upon this—that it is best for Wales, that it is a noble and righteous cause, and that unless this Bill succeeds the genius of the Welsh people, the spirit of their religious life, can never be satisfied. It is a hard thing to sever the Church in Wales from the Church in England, but it is a harder thing to have the moral and spiritual and intellectual life of Wales crushed down because it feels the heavy hand of an alien Church. I know it is not likely that anything I can say will influence your Lordships. It is not that your Lordships do not want to do what is just and right; it is that you are not in contact with the facts. It is one of the evils of the present constitution of this House that we are not in contact with the facts, that we do not know the people, that we take things according to the one-sided views which are the only views of which we have practical experience. And so it may be that to-morrow your Lordships, by an overwhelming majority, will pronounce against this Bill. But I venture to say to you that if you do, you will have afforded one more proof of the wisdom of the nation when, three years ago, it declared that this House could not be left with unrestrained powers.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, the occasion to-night is too grave a one for me to feel that I could give a silent vote, but as I

1141
ventured only a few months ago to trouble your Lordships at considerable length on the details and merits of the Welsh case in itself, I will endeavour to-night not to retread that well-trodden ground. I desire rather to say something as to the character and conditions of this discussion itself. My noble friend Lord Salisbury has already referred to some points. I wish to deal with one or two others. But I confess to some difficulty in resisting the temptation to follow the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack into some of the regions which he has traversed. I should have liked to follow him into Welsh history, and to press a little for an explanation as to how the facts of to-day correspond with the noble Viscounts description of the spiritual life of Wales being "crushed by the heavy hand of an alien Church." I confess I am literally unable to understand what that means. But there will be two voices raised from the Episcopal Bench tomorrow of men better qualified than any others in the land to deal with subjects of that kind, and I leave that to them. Again, I should like to follow the noble Viscount's handling of the subject of Scotland, of which I too, as a Scotsman, claim to know something, but I fear to do so lest by some unwary word I should set back even by a hair's breadth the movement now going forward towards that union which we all desire to see there. Still more do I find it difficult not to follow the noble Viscount who has avowed himself the disciple of Erastus into the region whither he desires to lead us. There are a good many things I should like to say in reply to or comment on the remarks he made on that subject if they were entirely relevant to what we are trying to do to-night.
I venture to say that any one who will look fairly at what is happening here this evening will find it impossible to deny that our discussion is to a large extent unreal. I am genuinely sorry for those who with the utmost honesty and frankness advocated the Parliament Act two years ago on the ground that its provisions would ensure full and effective discussion in your Lordships' House, for two years at least, on every great question, with a corresponding effect on the country outside. There were some of us who doubted that, but our doubts were courteously flouted, if flouting can ever be courteous, by spokesmen on the Front Bench, notably
1142
by my noble friend the Lord President of the Council, who told us in detail what would happen in the years to come under the Parliament Act. He told us with reference to the handling of a great Bill under the Parliament Act that—
"It will be an immensely long process, and there will be all the blaze of the Press, all the thunder of the platform, all the time. Are we to suppose that the reiterated and deliberate arguments used in this House by very competent advocates are to count for nothing, and that they will make no impression at all upon the mind of the voter? No one can think anything of the kind.…To suppose that a… Bill is to go through those two years unchanged, unmodified, for the purpose of the Government, is really to show a curious ignorance, it seems to me, of legislative conditions in this country."
I will not try to analyse the feelings of an advocate who used those words when he sees what has happened and what is happening in the country. A majority for this Bill in all its stages was found in the House of Commons, but in not a few Divisions found only—and it is not irrelevant to remind the country of it again—by the help of Irish Members who, while perfectly right and free to give their votes on the subject, gave those votes, by their own quite deliberate avowal, not with regard to anything the Bill contained, but in regard solely to Irish questions. They never concealed that for a moment. One of their spokesmen who gave his vote for the Bill told us that he had not even read the Bill.
After that experience in the House of Commons the Bill came to your Lordships' House. In the debate which took place here a few months ago the kind of arguments to which the Lord President of the Council referred were undoubtedly brought forward on one side, but these arguments lose a great deal of their importance, or at all events of their practical interest, if the public finds that, say what the critics may, the other side vouchsafes no answer at all. In the whole of that debate two speeches only were made by the Government. The debate was opened by the lucid explanation of the Bill given by the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp. That was followed for two nights by weighty speeches from various parts of the House; and I venture to say that the explanation of the Bill given by the noble Earl was handled in a manner which showed that a great deal was lacking to the proper understanding

1143
of the question. But we waited for the close of the debate to see how these weighty speeches were going to be dealt with and answered, and we bad from the noble Marquess who leads the House a speech characterised by all the grace and kindliness and courtesy which marks all his speeches; but all the while we felt that we wanted something more. The finance of the Bill had been scathingly criticised. The noble Marquess, with a modesty which really disarms opposition, excused himself from entering into that because of what he described, I am most sure incorrectly, as a constitutional and livelong inability of his to handle mathematical questions. The explanation, perhaps, was adequate to satisfy the conscience of the noble Marquess; but imagine how it must have sounded to the Welsh parishioner who finds that the financial problem which he has got to face, a very practical one indeed, is answered by such a phrase as the one which I have just quoted!
But the noble Marquess did handle the question slightly. Upon some of the points he was pressed, in the course of his speech, by interruptions of a reasonable kind, with regard specially to what he had said upon the total absence from the Bill of any arrangement for the compensation and the assistance of curates throughout Wales, a vital matter which the Bill leaves untouched. Your Lordships will remember the questions that were asked. Finally, the noble Marquess told us that he did not really understand the subject, but that he would inquire. That was, I suppose, half an hour before we were to divide on the matter, and I imagine the inquiry is going on still, for we have not had any answer to the questions that were thus brought forward. As regards tithe, the noble Marquess said, most naturally and reasonably, that though he referred to the subject in some of its general aspects he was no student of that particular matter. I hope the noble Marquess will realise that I am in no sense criticising, still less censuring, his inability to deal adequately with the finance of the measure, the tenure and emoluments of curates, and the rather obscure question of the origin of tithes. If the noble Marquess were a private member no kind of exception could be taken to that. But it is surely another matter when a Bill of first-rate importance is brought before us by His Majesty's Government and we are
1144
asked to consider it and we do consider it and raise all the large objections which were successively raised by men eminently entitled to raise them in this House, and then find there is no answer whatever given by the Government to what we have brought forward. How does that correspond to the anticipations, or rather to the promises, I have mentioned?
Your Lordships will recall the speeches delivered by the noble Viscount, St. Aldwyn, by the two Welsh Bishops, by Lord Selborne, by Lord Dynevor, and most of all, perhaps, by the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition. They were speeches which imperatively called for some reply, not in general terms of courtesy, but in detail, to meet the objections which had been raised. That is not all. The noble Viscount, the Lord President, when he told us how the Parliament Act would work, called attention to the weight that would attach to the demonstrations and the representations outside. I believe I am right in saying that never in the history of England have there been on any subject demonstrations which were at once orderly, peaceable, and even religious, and which attained to anything like the scale or the proportions which the demonstrations on this subject have attained, and which have gone on, and are going on, throughout the country now. It has not been in Wales only, though largely; it has not been in London only, though largely; but it has been everywhere up and down the country. Your Lordships in this House know well about it. You know there is not a county in England or in Wales in which demonstrations have not been, and are now being, held of a large and reasonable kind to show how eagerly thoughtful men and women wish to express the feelings they have on this subject. These demonstrations are not of Churchmen only, or of Unionists only, for sometimes every speaker on some of the platforms has been a Liberal, and at almost every large meeting some of the speakers have been leading Nonconformists. We have had published protests also—there was one in The Times this morning—from leading Nonconformist laymen, to show what they believe to be the effect this Bill will have on Wales. As to petitions, I believe no record in the past history of the House of Commons can compare with what we can now show as regards the number of petitions signed. There have been 9,800 petitions signed by

1145
more than two million people. And these petitions have been practically all on one side. The demonstrations have been accompanied by no sort of lawlessness or disorder. Are we to be told that because these manifestations have been accompanied by no sort of lawlessness or disorder they are therefore to be ignored? And yet in the discussions that have taken place in the House of Commons they have been absolutely and totally ignored. I do not mean that there has been no allusion to them, but the effect of any such representations upon a Parliament in which the new Act is at work seems to be absolutely nil. It is this which makes me wonder how the situation is now regarded by those who gave the kind of anticipations which were held out to us as to how the Parliament Act was going to work in practice.
All this has given pause to some of the supporters of His Majesty's Government in this matter outside, and a report grew a little while ago in volume that it was not unlikely that the Government might modify or mollify some of the provisions in the Bill, say perhaps do something for the elderly Welsh-speaking curate, who is going, as it becomes impossible for him to obtain work elsewhere, to find himself literally without any provision at all—or make some other change, perhaps, with regard to the dismemberment or something of that kind. But the Home Secretary and those responsible for the Bill hastened to reassure their anxious supporters. We have had at least one public speech delivered, a little while ago at Cardiff, in which the Home Secretary assured his hearers that there was no thought of modifications or anything of that sort. He described such a suggestion as a "pure myth." There have also been a considerable number of deputations. It has been a little difficult, perhaps not unreasonably, to penetrate behind the veil and to know what exactly took place; but we can gather it for ourselves from the thanks tendered to the Home Secretary in the House by those who said they had now been perfectly satisfied that no further change was to be made, that not a further penny was to be given, and that the Home Secretary would not budge an inch in the matter. That meant, if I understand it right, that the Bill was to be left to what the Welsh leader in the House of Commons described as the "machinery" of the Parliament Act. I will quote his words. He said—
1146
"This Bill is in the grip of the legislative machine, of absolutely good pattern and up-to-date, and I am rejoiced that the Government will do nothing to stop the action of the machinery which is now set in motion, and which will turn this Bill into a Statute in the course of the next session."
That is the way in which it is described, and with that machinery automatically at work the Bill comes back to this House and the question arises, "What ought we to do?"
Voices are not lacking on the part of Liberals who are also strong Churchmen—men who feel that they are in rather a grave plight. Allegiance to their leaders and also the views they hold of Welsh nationality forced them to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill. But they see also its harshness, and they say, Won't the opponents of the Bill go to the Government and press the Government to give way so as to relieve them from the sense of discomfort—I won't say shame—which they feel? That argument is very weighty—for them. But does it cover the ground? I have always tried to handle this question on grounds which are larger, higher, deeper than terms of finance. I am profoundly convinced that we should neither serve the truest permanent interests of the Welsh people nor follow the highest traditions of public life in this country if we were now to go hat in hand to the Government and say, "We believe you are inflicting a great wrong. We believe the Welsh people will find it so. We are convinced that the country has not rightly understood, and that where the matter is understood support for the Bill is waning, if it has not gone. But none the less we will join with you in forcing the Bill through without further appeal to the country if you will give a little more money to the Church, or modify some of the provisions which seem to us to be harsh."
My Lords, I believe such action would be wholly wrong. I believe it would be inflicting bitter wrong upon those who have the Church's deepest and most sacred interests at heart—wrong to those who come after us. For be it always remembered that the property, the position, the privileges, and the responsibilities with which we are asked to truck—to use a common phrase—are not ours to bargain with; they belong to our children and children's children in generations to come, and we should be doing a great wrong were we to forget

1147
that and bargain with them now. But even apart from being wrong it would also be an ignominious course. The Government, in fear of such a proposal coming, have, it would seem, gravely pledged themselves beforehand to refuse it and have secured votes in consequence. If we were to go to-night or to-morrow to the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, and ask that this should be done, he would have either to reject our proposal with courteous scorn or to throw over colleagues who have pledged the Government not to do it. I believe the noble Marquess must be grateful to us for not placing him in that dilemma. I do not deny that the position of Liberals would be different if, now that the facts are clear, the policy disclosed, the details open to debate in the country, a vote of the whole people of the country were taken, and the matter sufficiently—I do not say exclusively—placed before them, and the voice were firm—Go forward. You have precedent for doing that. Some months ago Mr. McKenna spoke of the close analogy of the present Government action to what was done in the case of the Irish Church Bill. No analogy could be more misleading. Mr. Gladstone in 1868 moved a series of Resolutions with regard to the Irish Church. The Resolutions did not themselves say much, but Mr. Gladstone spoke night after night upon them and on the Bill which followed, the Suspensory Bill, so that the country went into the election at the end of the year absolutely and fully understanding the whole question before them. The country responded with no uncertain voice, and then this House set itself, as it always does, to give reasonable effect to the country's decision. In the present case, when the last General Election took place, the country did not know what were the details—I do not mean the small details—did not know the manner in which the subject was going to be dealt with. But the automatic action of the machinery of the Parliament Act was there to be relied on, and arguments might be dispensed with. That is not, I believe, what was intended to be the working of the Parliament Act by those who with quite other hopes promoted it in this House.
It is our duty to vote for the Resolution which asks that the country shall have the opportunity of now considering the proposals in the Bill. The principle for
1148
which we contend is large and grave. It may be stated best as we stated it so often before in its simplest form. A great trust is ours—the privilege of foremost service to all who will accept it; the privilege of permanent service by the continuity of the tenure of the office of clergy ministering in all the parishes in the land; the service that we render recognised by the State, recognised in common life; the service daily rendered to and daily accepted by people of all sorts and kinds, Churchmen and Nonconformists, in the homes of the people, to a degree which I am perfectly convinced is not adequately realised by those who are not personally cognisant of the way in which the clergy of the old parish churches in the land are recognised and turned to by the people. Of course, if this Bill is passed, I do not mean that all that would be stopped to-morrow. Of course not. Many of our clergy who have done this work hitherto, and done it to the uttermost of their power, would still continue to do it; but they would do it in an atmosphere of restraint, fettered in every direction by the change which you had brought about. We are asked to give up, or to lay down, sonic at least of those special opportunities for service. To do so, as we think, would not only be wrong in itself but it would also be to run counter to the whole trend of the popular, democratic, and corporate treatment of the life of the people, which has become more common now than it was when these questions were started in the days when the Disestablishment cry began. When the Liberation Society was founded the people had not got those present-day ideas of corporate life and action and united recognition of the common good behind the idea of public worship. The cry that "caught" on then was natural, but to-day it would be almost an anachronism, when in harmony with present-day theories we think of people's common rights, and their freehold in their parish church claimable by all who are ready to make the rules and system of the National Church their own and to conform to its rules and ways of guiding and helping them. We begin to feel how out of date this Disestablishment cry is, and how soon the change, if it came about, would be discovered to be a disaster.
In connection with that some of your Lordships may have seen some recent

1149
statistics as to the religious belief and the denominational adherence of prisoners in our gaols published a few days ago. Taunts have been levied at us as to the large number who claim to be members of the Church of England—13,000 out of 18,000, or something like that; and people have repeated what was said by Mr. John Bright a good many years ago, "We will give you the prisoners in." I regard it as not the least of our privileges and one of our proudest claims that we should be set here to help those who have gone under. We strive to help those who have fallen; we should like to think they fell it so, and to think that our efforts have not been in vain. If it can be shown that they are responding to our desire to help them and are claiming membership of our Church, instead of being something to taunt us with that is something we are glad to accept. We do not, of course, deny that other workers besides ourselves can make a corresponding claim.
Well, my Lords, in the fabric of our national life we hold that sacred trust, a trust which has come down to us from ancient days with an unbroken continuity. I was glad to have the testimony of the noble and learned Viscount, supported by the Prime Minister elsewhere, in the teeth of certain strange objections which have been raised, as to the legitimacy of the claim we make to that unbroken continuity of the Church of England from early days until now.
We want to discharge our responsibility to the full. We have often failed. But what body is there, past or present, if you search its history, and especially if the history is a long one, where you cannot find failure or inadequacy? Of course you will. But we honestly claim that the Church is doing its very best to amend anything that is amiss, to strengthen anything that is weak in its administration, and to be true to its sacred trust; and we believe that, day by day, the people of Wales are getting to understand us better and are responding more readily to the endeavours we make.
Do what you will—I am bound to repeat this again—Parliament cannot deprive us of the most sacred, the most essential part of our trust, the offering of the health-giving ministry of Word and Sacrament to all who are willing to receive it. You
1150
cannot deprive us of that privilege. I honestly believe that you have not the slightest wish to do so; but sometimes you speak as if because that remains the Bill can do us no harm. At the close of the debate in the House of Commons Mr. Ellis Griffith quoted words of mine, I gladly repeat them and make them my own again now—
"It is not essential to a Church to be established, and it is not essential to our Church in its essence, in its spiritual power, in its divine grace, and in its ministry."
I would repeat it a hundred times; and I repeat it again now. But if you argue, as some speakers have seemed to argue, "What harm, therefore, can the Bill do? Your life will remain with its essence untouched," you miss the whole point of our contention. Will you lop off a man's arm and then taunt him by telling him he need not mind, his life is not destroyed? You trifle with us when you say, "Go on just as before," when you have crippled us as this Bill will cripple us. The harm will be twofold, direct and indirect. It will be direct ill to the parishes, especially to rural parishes. We have been told again and again by the Bishop of St. Asaph as to what will happen in his diocese when life interests run out. The Home Secretary, when confronted with that, replied that it "has no connection with truth," and when pressed for some better answer he takes refuge in silence or in something which is no explanation whatever. It is unworthy of him; I will not use a stronger term. Attention was called to this answer, or no answer, of his a month ago in one of the very last speeches made in the House of Commons by that brilliant and dearly-loved hero of the boyhood—yes, and the manhood—of England, the man whose sudden passing hence has clouded our summer and left a blank in the social, the political, the religious, and the athletic life of our country which it is difficult to exaggerate and impossible to fill.
I pass from that to the indirect harm which this Bill would bring about. What I you propose strikes at the principle on which the people of this island have grown from strength to strength. The Home Secretary avows that, if he can compass it, this is only a first step; he regards Establishment as morally wrong and will destroy it in England when he has the power. I think I do not misinterpret Lord Beauchamp

1151
when I say he takes the same view, for he made a speech in Hampshire last year in which he said that "the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales was only the first step towards the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in England." That is what we should expect from the straightforwardness and honesty of the speakers who avow it.
We thus see clearly that we are asked to take a step affecting our whole national recognition of the religion interwoven in our historic life. In this House and in the country we are alive to the fact and others outside are not blind to it. Twenty-six years ago Dr. Liddon communicated to the Press the opinion entertained on the subject of Disestablishment in England by the great Dr. Döllinger, one of the foremost and most capable of the students of early and contemporary history. "For my part," said Dr. Döllinger, "I think that any such measure should be firmly resisted. It would be a blow to Christianity, not only in England, but throughout Europe." Dr. Döllinger went on to say that if such a measure were adopted by the Legislature of a country with a history like that of England (and I ask your Lordships to note that point, it is our history which makes the difference), there could be no mistake as to its significance. It would be well understood alike by the friends and foes of Christianity—in Germany, in France, throughout the civilised world.
For these reasons we ask people to think and think again before they do what some day they would bitterly deplore. Does any one really believe that the people of the Welsh hills and valleys will not deplore it when they find the money which supported the parish life has largely disappeared, the old Church disinherited and displaced, and the tithes still to be paid, only more rigidly than before, but going nobody knows where, enforced by a public officer instead of by a neighbour and a friend? In The Times to-day there is a weighty and thoughtful letter from a Nonconformist layman in which he says the money now used for the propagation of religion will go into the hands of the county councils, "where it will disappear like snow in the sunshine, and in a short time be no more effective than a bucketful of water in the Bristol Channel." All this is to be done for whose good, for whose happiness, for whose betterment? We know what persons and what cause will
1152
lose in power of usefulness, in service to God and man, and we ask again, who is going to gain? The question so far remains hopelessly, helplessly unanswered.
LORD PONTYPRIDD: My Lords, I wish in the first place to thank the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for his great speech, one in which he did ample justice to the large side of this question. Personally I would be quite willing, as far as I am concerned, to allow the case to stand where he put it, for I despair of being able usefully to add anything to what he has said and said so admirably. I am very glad that this great question has been argued in the good spirit in which it has been by the most rev. Primate and others who have taken part in this debate. Indeed, I must say, as a Welshman, that I think the most rev. Primate is very kind to champion the cause of the Welsh Church as he has done when we remember how reluctantly the Welsh Churchmen joined the Province of Canterbury. We are told that they took a good deal of persuading, and the exercise of not a little muscular Christianity, before they did join it. But so far as I know, it must have been very pleasing to them in these latter days, because now they seem to be as loth to be disconnected from as they were in the early days to be joined to that Province.
I have had a great surprise during these debates. I am bound to say I had expected to hear a great deal more about Disestablishment, but that seems to be a negligible quantity so far as this debate is concerned. We have heard very little indeed from the most rev. Primate on that question; but perhaps I may be allowed to read an extract from a speech which I understand he delivered, and which shows his opinion with regard to Disestablishment. He said—
"It is not essential to a Church to be Established, and it is not essential to our Church in its essence, in its spiritual power, in its Divine grace, and in its ministry."
But however much they may be lacking in appreciation of Establishment, I think they have made it up by the way they have appreciated the endowments. I must say that this is the part of the question that least appeals to me, and I rejoice in the fact and thank God that not one penny of the revenues of the Church will come into the possession of the Free Churches of Wales. I have given a little more attention

1153
to this side of the question lately, and, alter all, if yon go by payment for results the Church has not so much to complain of. It is generally conceded that when the ancient endowments were given the Church at that time was conterminous with the nation, but will any one say that that is so to-day. What do we find, from figures given before the Royal Commission as to the Church to-day, as to the numbers of her communicants and the numbers of communicants of other denominations? The Church only serves about one-third of the Principality. I am glad to find that no less a sum than £102,000 will be left to the Church after Disestablishment.
I am sorry that the noble Marquess who moved the rejection of the Bill is not in his place. If he were I would ask him how many times he requires a question to be submitted to the judgment of the country. As far as I am concerned, I do not remember a time from 1885 downwards when this was not always the first question. I may relate an incident which occurred during one of the elections in the constituency which I had the honour of representing for a quarter of a century in the House of Commons. At one of the elections a gentleman was induced to stand on the alleged ground that there was little, if any, demand for Disestablishment, but he had not been on the field very long before he met a mutual friend and remarked to him "Why, the first question put to me every-where is 'Are you in favour of Disestablishment?'"—and any one who knows Wales knows that the question of religious equality is the one great burning question. The noble Marquess made a reference to myself in regard to a statement which I made in the previous debate in which I stated that I believed that endowments were inimical to the success of the Church. I stand by that opinion, notwithstanding the fact that Nonconformists are now going in for endowment funds. I personally do not hold with it. I do not believe in the principle at all. It seems to me like an insurance against the Deity. But it is the fact that those districts of Wales where the Church has made the most headway are the very places where it has the least ancient endowments. May I refer again to the case of Cardiff? I remember the time when they had but three churches in Cardiff. They have to-day about thirty-five churches. How does this Bill affect the thirty-five places of worship in Cardiff?
1154
We are told that it takes only £700 per annum away? That might be made up if the members chose to do so by a payment of three halfpennies per month. The Church of England has not had the same opportunities as have the Nonconformists of learning about voluntary contributions. We have had to live for many centuries past on voluntary contributions, and we know what it means. Indeed, some people have had to suffer for even advocating that principle, for when our great martyr, John Penry, was summoned up to London before the Court presided over by Bishop Bancroft he had to answer to two indictments. One was that he said that no man should be considered a true minister who could not preach to the people, and the other was that he demanded the right to conduct services and carry on the worship of God in Wales on the voluntary principle. He was asked to withdraw those two statements and he refused, and he suffered the penalty. The penalty was death.
I should like to give your Lordships one example, if I may, of what the people do with regard to voluntary contributions, and the way they pay their chapel debts. There was one chapel in which I was very much interested in the Rhondda Valley. The people there had built a chapel and school buildings that came to a sum of no less than £6,000. In seven years they paid off that amount. I was anxious to know how the money had been subscribed, and the secretary told me that it was made up of one sum of £20, six sums of £10 each, and all the rest, the balance to make up the £6,000, was of smaller amounts. I do not for a moment say we have a monopoly of this. I have seen too many noble examples in the Roman Catholic Church and in the Church of England. I have known a number of churches in Cardiff that have been literally built up from the pence of the people. I have always found where they have trusted to the generosity of the people there has been no failure, and no want of money. This movement was begun as a great religious movement, and it was led by such men as Dr. Lewis Edwards, Dr. William Rees, and Dr. Thomas, of Ponty-pool, but they had to call Parliament to their aid before they could carry out that great principle of religious equality. That was the reason why the political side came into the matter at the beginning.

1155
And may I say that in asking for this we are not asking for what England has not already granted. The Parliament of this country recognised the religious opinion of the country at the time of the Reformation; and so they did, as was mentioned by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, in the case of Scotland, and more recently still have they done so in the case of the Church of England in Ireland. We are asking you to do the same thing for our little country. There is nothing more that the people of Wales could do to show this country what their desire is than they have already done, and in a purely constitutional way—namely, by the number of Members Wales sends to Parliament pledged to carry out their wishes in this respect. We are asking the Government of this country to redress this ancient wrong in the best interests of the Welsh nation.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the argument with which the noble Lord who has just sat down concluded his speech is our old friend the claim of Welsh nationality. I think some of the supporters of this Bill are so obsessed with the idea of a separate Welsh nationality that they are really unable to apply themselves to a fair consideration of the matter which is directly before your Lordships' House. But no doubt that feeling prevails among many in Wales besides the noble Lord who has just sat down. The Home Secretary, I think, told the House of Commons, in discussing this matter, that it was one of vital interest to Wales but of no real effect whatever in the rest of the United Kingdom. Well, my Lords, I do feel as an Englishman, though Englishmen are not apparently credited with much feeling nowadays upon any subject whatever, that it is a matter of interest to me, as to all Englishmen who are members of the Church, that a part of that Church should be disendowed and disestablished, and separated from the rest of the Church. But the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack in the eloquent speech which he made never seemed to consider that England had a right to a voice in this matter at all. He told us it was a long-established principle that freedom to mould the organisation of the Church should be conceded to every part of the country. That was rather a singular statement from a noble and learned Viscount who
1156
is one of the Ministers responsible for the Home Rule Bill, which, recognising a separate nationality in Ireland by the gift of a separate Government and Parliament, yet absolutely refuses to that Government and Parliament any right whatever to endow or establish a Church in Ireland. Yet the claim of Wales to mould the organisation of the Church cannot be as strong as the claim of Ireland, at any rate in the mind of His Majesty's Government, because they have never yet accepted the principle of a separate Government and Parliament for Wales. Until that principle is accepted I, for one, consider that Wales has no more right to claim that this question should be decided solely by the veto of the great majority of Welsh Members than that a similar question should be so decided for any separate part of England.
We hear a great deal about the longstanding majority of ten to one of the Welsh Members in favour of the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church. I fancy that if we cared to go into statistics we should find at the present moment that the Members of Parliament returned by the four northern counties of England are by a majority of more than four-fifths in favour of the principle of Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church; but it would not enter even into the mind of the First Lord of the Admiralty in his wildest dreams of a future heptarchy to suggest that that question should be decided for the four counties of Westmoreland, Cumberland, Northumberland, and Durham merely by the votes of those Members of Parliament. That was one of the arguments mostly dwelt upon by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. But there was another, and it was put more concisely, though perhaps less eloquently and less fairly, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons. What did he say in the debates in the present session? He said—
"After centuries of experience of Anglicanism, Wales had come to the conclusion that the Church was entirely unsuited to its racial temperament and spiritual needs, and that it had failed in everything that ought to be expected from a National Church."
The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack urged that in other words. He deemed Disestablishment and Dis-

1157
endowment an evil, but said that some evils might be incurred as remedying greater evils, and that this was one. He told your Lordships that there was a great gulf between the Church in Wales and the people, or between the Church in Wales and what he described as Welsh idealism, and that gulf could only be spanned by the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church—or rather, I think, by the Disestablishment of the Church, for though I carefully listened to his speech I heard very little indeed on the question of Disendowment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think that Disestablishment is possible under any circumstances without some, and perhaps a considerable, measure of Disendowment.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: The noble and learned Viscount is a Scotsman. Would he argue that the Church in Scotland if disestablished must also be disendowed? Why a Church which is disestablished must also be disendowed I do not quite understand. The noble and learned Viscount went on to enforce his argument by examples of the extent to which, according to his opinion, the Church in Wales was separate from the national life of Wales. He is a great authority on the subject of education. He spoke of the progress of education in Wales. He stated his view of the relative work done in promoting education by Churchmen and Nonconformists. He gave all the credit to the Nonconformists, and practically none to the Church. We shall have upon that full information, no doubt, from those who are better able to speak about it than I am, but I do not in the least believe that that is a fair statement of the work of Churchmen in promoting education in Wales. There is this to be considered. The noble and learned Viscount spoke mainly of secular education. Is it not conceivable that the Church, strongly holding that education should be conducted on a religious basis, might not be as keen in promoting education on no definite religious basis as those who are in favour of that policy?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount misunderstood what I said. I took as some of my most prominent examples the extraordinary work that has been done in religious education by the Welsh nation.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I am coming to that. The noble and learned Viscount spoke of University education, which is a purely secular education and always has been so in Wales—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: It is not based on any religions teaching.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not in Wales?
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: No.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Nonconformist ministers in Wales take their Arts degree in the University, and go as part of their continuous course from the Welsh University to the five Nonconformist Colleges and take their studies in theology.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: That is exactly what I am saying. The University education apart from the Theological Colleges, to which men go afterwards, is not based on any religious teaching. May it not be taken, therefore, that the Church, which strongly holds that education should be based on definite religious teaching, has not been so forward in promoting purely secular education in Wales as those who do not consider that education should be based on religious teaching? Then the noble and learned Viscount went on to compare Lampeter with the Welsh Theological Colleges. I have no knowledge of Lampeter, but is it not the fact that the Welsh Theological Colleges profit very considerably by State assistance to their students in their University course, and possibly even in studies—I do not say theological studies—pursued in the course of their education to fit them for theological work? I should think they do. There may be good reasons why Lampeter does not obtain such assistance because it cannot come under the same rules as these other colleges have adopted. But what is the force of the argument of the noble and learned Viscount? Does he mean to say, because Churchmen in Wales have not been as forward as he thinks they ought to have been in promoting either secular education or theological studies at Lampeter, that therefore the Church in Wales is to be deprived of the small endowments she possesses for her religious work, which he must admit is well performed? I cannot

1159
conceive an argument with a less reasonable conclusion.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What I said was that the Church's failure was to promote Welsh national idealism; that the great volume of that splendid idealism had been carried out by the Churches of Nonconformity.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I do not know what Welsh national idealism is, unless it is the establishment of a separate Government and Parliament for Wales. Is that what the noble and learned Viscount desires?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No; I did not say anything about that.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: There is another point to which the noble and learned Viscount alluded—the dismemberment of the Church of England by cutting off these four Welsh dioceses from the rest of the Church. To my mind, apart from what I believe to be the moral wrong of Disendowment, this is by far the worst part of the Bill we are now discussing. The noble and learned Viscount quoted some historical examples of the manner in which in the past the State had dealt in somewhat Erastian fashion with the Church. But the union of the four Welsh dioceses with the rest of the Church of England was never enacted by Parliament. It is an ecclesiastical and a spiritual union. The Prime Minister, in speaking on this matter in the House of Commons, compared it to the union between the Churches of England and Ireland. That only shows how incapable His Majesty's Ministers are of appreciating the view which Churchmen take of this question of dismemberment. The union between the Churches of England and Ireland was a purely secular and Parliamentary union. It had nothing to do with ecclesiastical or spiritual questions at all. Parliament enacted it at the time of the Act of Union. Parliament was entitled, if it chose, to dissolve it by the Irish Church Act; but I maintain, as I have maintained before in your Lordships' House, that Parliament has no right whatever to separate the four Welsh dioceses from the rest of the Church of England by removing the clergy and Bishops of those four dioceses from Convocation, and by setting up a purely new and separate religious body in Wales
1160
without any connection with the Church of England, able to frame its own ritual, to settle its own doctrines without any means of maintaining the present complete ecclesiastical and spiritual union between the four Welsh dioceses and the rest of the Church. That is what we believe is done by this Bill, and I venture to contend that it does "prejudice the spiritual unity and work of the Church"—the thing to which the Prime Minister said he would never agree.
Now, my Lords, I come to the question of Disendowment. I do not want to weary your Lordships by reiterating arguments upon that matter, but I was very glad to hear from the speech of Lord Pontypridd that at any rate he is not quite happy in his mind upon the subject of Disendowment. I think that view is shared by many persons in Wales who are not members of the Established Church, and I am confident that it is shared by very many persons in England who are in the same position. Disendowment has been defended by the extreme advocates of this Bill, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary, on the ground that the nation gave these ancient endowments to the Church and the nation can take away again what it has given.
LORD PONTYPRIDD: If the noble Viscount will allow me to interrupt him, I would like to ask him, Does he understand that I am not in accord with the Bill as it stands? If that is his opinion, I wish to tell him that I am in accord with it so far as that is concerned.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: No; I did not mean to imply that. But the noble Lord said that he did not like the part of the Bill which applied to Disendowment.
LORD PONTYPRIDD: I do not like that part at all, if it comes to that. But I do not see how we can go in for Disestablishment without Disendowment.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: Then I have not misrepresented the noble Lord. He adopted, with regard to Disendowment, much more plausible argument. He said that these endowments were given by past donors to the Church at the time when the Church represented the whole nation, when they were one, and that now that the members of the Church are a minority of

1161
the people in Wales there is fair ground for a reconsideration of the position of these endowments. I do not think I am misrepresenting his argument. As I have said, that is a plausible argument, but what is the logical result of it? The logical result is concurrent endowment; that you should take these endowments, maintain their religious uses, and divide them fairly among the several Christian denominations into which the population is divided. That would be a constructive policy. I do not mean to say there would be no objections to it, because, after all, the people who do not belong to the Church have voluntarily left it of their own accord, but it would be a constructive policy which I could understand, and one which would, to my mind, be infinitely preferable to the purely destructive policy embodied in this Bill.
The Prime Minister made a curious observation with regard to this point. He said that the pious donors did not simply and exclusively intend to provide for the mere mechanical side of the work of the Church, but also for the improvement of the moral and intellectual life of the people. What an extraordinary description of the Church's work, to call religious teaching, public prayer, and public worship the mere mechanical side of that work. I do not doubt that the pious donors did intend to improve the moral and intellectual life of the people; but how did they intend to improve it? Surely through religious teaching and religious influences; but this Bill takes away these endowments from religious uses and devotes them to University education and other purposes from which religious teaching is ostentatiously and absolutely debarred. I do not mean to say that the objects may not in themselves be good, but I do say, merely from the point of view of economy that a more wasteful way of endowing Universities or museums or providing funds for county councils for the purposes suggested in this Bill cannot possibly be conceived. You might find funds for this purpose by subscriptions or from the rates or the taxes and you would do it without waste, but you cannot disendow a Church without, in common justice, applying a large part of its property to the compensation of individual vested interests, and in that way the result of this Bill will be to take away from the Church £158,000 a year, while the objects to which I have
1162
alluded will receive for some years to come no more than £32,000 a year of that sum.
The Home Secretary made an extraordinary statement last year with regard to the amount which the Church would lose. He said—
"If the Church could raise £51,338 a year by voluntary subscriptions, she would be in as good a position in the future as before Diseadowment."
This is an absolute misrepresentation of the facts. The statement of the Home Secretary was challenged at once by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the result is shown in the correspondence, which was presented to your Lordships' House on the motion of the most rev. Primate opposite. What appeared from that correspondence was that the Home Secretary had made that statement in absolute ignorance of what would be the real figures at the date of Disendowment, and upon figures which related to a date so far ago as 1906. He explained that it was not intended to be in the nature of a statement of the property of the Church of England in Wales before and after Disendowment; but merely, on the one hand, a rough estimate of the probable assets of the Welsh Church founded upon the figures for 1906, and, on the other hand, the liabilities after Disendowment calculated upon the same figure. Yet he did not make those explanations when he made the statement, and the fact is simply this—that he has credited the Government with re-endowing the Church with the sum of £2,000,000 which they were obliged, as I have said, in common justice to reserve as compensation for the vested interests of the Bishops and clergy and other office-holders. The Church may be re-endowed, no doubt, with the whole or part of that amount; but, if so, it will be by the liberality and loyalty of the Bishops and clergy, as was the case in Ireland, and not at all by the bounty of the Government or of Parliament. Further, the Home Secretary credited the Church in future with a revenue of £31,000 a year from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's bounty. That sum they now receive, but what do they receive it for? They receive it for the increase of the emoluments of poor livings, for endowments to new livings, and for the extension and expansion of the Church. It will have to be devoted, in future, if this Bill becomes law, to the ordinary maintenance of the Church, and therefore

1163
will not be available for the purpose for winch it was hitherto given. It is not fair to credit the Church with that item without placing it on both sides of the account.
I do not want to detain your Lordships further on the provisions of the Bill. The most rev. Primate discussed the course which should be taken by your Lordships now that the Bill is presented to you for the second time. A good deal has been said in another place by those who are described as Liberal Churchmen, who appear to me to act as if they were Liberals first and Churchmen afterwards, blaming those who have advised the Church for counselling opposition to this Bill. Mr. Gladstone said that the Church, and not the Government, is the worst enemy of compromise, and that the violent men have been able to induce the Church to set her face resolutely against the idea. I am always in favour of moderate counsels. I do not myself believe that any great question of this kind can be permanently settled without mutual concession, and for that reason, if compromise were possible, I should gladly advocate it. But for any compromise on this matter it is necessary that those who are opposed on principle to the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church should first accept that principle. I will accept it when the country has pronounced in favour of it, but I will not accept it before. That view was expressed by the most rev. Primate, and I believe that he has the assent, in expressing it, of all who can speak for the Church in England and in Wales. He has shown the difference between the action of your Lordships' House with regard to the Irish Church and the course now suggested to you with regard to the Church in Wales. He has shown that your Lordships then yielded, as you would yield again, to the voice of the people, when that voice had been clearly expressed. But this Bill has never been prominently before the people at all, except in 1895, and then the Government which proposed it were defeated at the polls. It is our simple duty to ask that the opinion of the people should be taken again before the Bill is passed into law.
Nothing has been said definitely by the Government on this point, which was strongly urged by my noble friend who moved the rejection of the Bill. I do not
1164
know whether anything will be said in the course of this debate. But from all the indications of their future proceedings that we have been able to gather, it would seem that it is their intention, if this Bill is rejected to-morrow, to resubmit it to Parliament next spring, to pass it through the House of Commons and send it up here, and when it is rejected again, as I hope it will be, to submit it for the Royal Assent under the Parliament Act. If that course is taken I do not think it will be one of good omen for the future of the Bill. For what will happen? Assuming that this Bill is placed on the Statute Book by such a process as that, it will be felt by every Churchman in England and in Wales, excepting those who are Liberals first and Churchmen afterwards, and possibly even by some of them, to be a grave injustice to the Church. It will be felt to be a measure carried into law, not by constitutional means, but through the violation of the Constitution for which His Majesty's advisers were responsible in 1911.
I do not suppose there will be active resistance. I do not suppose there is any danger of civil war. I do not talk of anything of that kind. But there will be a feeling of injustice in the minds of all Churchmen who have to carry through the various processes connected with this Bill which will certainly delay its action, and I suspect that before 1915 is over His Majesty's Government will find that others besides Nonconformists are capable of some form of passive resistance. Why? Assuming this Bill to be passed into law in the manner described in June, 1914, six months at least must elapse before it can come into operation, and possibly more. It cannot, at any rate, come into force before the beginning of 1915, and during the whole of 1915 it will be known that in a year—by December, 1915—Parliament must be dissolved. Every means will be taken by those who detest the Bill to rouse the country against it, and to ensure the return in the new Parliament of men who will vote for the immediate repeal of this which has throughout been an unpopular measure. We have a promise from the leader of the Unionist Party in another place that if the people of this country showed that they were against the Government he would return to the Church the money of which it had been robbed. I have not the faintest doubt that that promise will be confirmed by my noble

1165
friend who leads the Opposition in this House. If the election goes against the Government, that must mean the immediate repeal of this Bill; and in view of the progress which, in contrast with the depreciatory remarks of the noble and learned Viscount, the Prime Minister has admitted the Church is making in the affections of the people of Wales, in my belief if the measure is once rejected by the country no Government will ever bring it in again. But even if the country accepted the principle of the Bill, it is by no means certain that a new House of Commons would pass it in its present shape. If the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to Ireland becomes law, there will be fifty Irish Nationalist supporters of this Bill in the new House of Commons less than there are in the present one, and even with the present Government in office, their Church supporters would then be able to insist that the Bill was amended in some of those points in which it deals so unfairly with the Church. But suppose the Government do not pursue this course. Suppose they decide, as I hope wisdom will teach them to decide, to consult the country before this measure is passed into law, what will happen then? If they succeed, they will have their way; they will have settled the question in the way the Irish Church question was settled by the verdict of the country, and nobody can venture to dispute or delay the settlement. If they pass this measure and the country rejects them and their policy, then I venture to say that no one can possibly defend their conduct in passing into law a Bill of which the people will have disapproved.
THE EARL OF POWIS: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack made a most unwarranted statement that the movement for the prevention of phthisis in the Principality had been conducted entirely by the Nonconformists in Wales, and that the Church had stood aloof from it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I said orginated largely by Nonconformists.
THE EARL OF POWIS: I should be the last to wish to misrepresent the noble Viscount, and I am sorry if I did. He tells me that the movement was mainly and largely conducted by Nonconformists. But does he say that the Church had
1166
nothing to do with it? I am sure he would not say that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have said largely.
THE EARL OF POWIS: So far from the movement having been conducted mainly and largely by Nonconformists, Nonconformists and the Church in this matter are working hand and glove together, and I do not believe there is a leading Churchman throughout the length and breadth of the Principality who has not supported this movement. Since this measure was in this House in February last I do not think there are many signs of its having been received with any greater favour by the country. The demonstrations which have taken place, demonstrations of unusual site, and the petitions which have been signed by over two million people of this country, and very nearly one-third of the population of Wales, show that feeling has increased against the Bill; and also there are the results of the by-elections, from which the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of this Bill seemed to take such satisfaction to himself. He seemed to consider that the fact that the Government had lost something like 20,000 votes at the recent by-elections was an indication of the popularity of the measures brought forward by His Majesty's Government.
The late Mr. Gladstone, speaking on the question of the separation of Church and State, said that any such measure could not become practical until it had become familiar to the people by long discussion, and that after it had been thoroughly discussed it must receive the approval of the people, and that it could not pass into law until it had received the general assent of the people. My Lords, I venture to ask, now that this Bill has become familiar to the people by discussion, are there any signs that the measure is approved by the people, and are there any signs that it has the general assent of the nation? We have a right to demand that before you, the Government, pass this measure into law you should pause awhile, that you should take the opinion of the people, that you should give the people an opportunity of saying whether this measure meets with their approval and has their general assent. Lord Pontypridd asked how many

1167
times we wished to see this measure submitted to the judgment of the country. I answer that question very briefly—once. I want to see it submitted once and for all. He referred to times when he said it had been before the country, and he referred to the election of 1895. The only time that this subject was prominently before the country to the exclusion of any other subject was in that year, and at that election the Government lost several seats in Wales, and were defeated at the polls.
The noble and learned Viscount who sits upon the Woolsack said to-night that the principle that underlay this Bill was that the Welsh might manage their own spiritual affairs. I venture to put this to the noble Viscount, If the Welsh are to manage their own spiritual affairs will he also agree that the English should manage their own spiritual affairs? The point I put to the noble Viscount is this. If there was an English majority in England who desired to alienate one-third of the property of Nonconformists, would it be right for the Welsh and the Irish and the Scottish Members of Parliament to stand on one side and to say that that was a matter entirely for the English to settle for themselves? If it is not right in the case of England, I cannot understand how it is right in the case of Wales. I venture to ask again, What harm does the Church do to anybody, and what good is this Bill going to do to anybody? That question has been frequently asked, and no answer has been given to it yet. All we are told is that the Nonconformists have grievances. I should be the last to deny that there was a time when the Nonconformists had grievances. There was the burials question, which at one time was a burning question in Wales. That has been settled. In matters of education formerly the clergyman of the Church was supreme in the parish. That was not the fault of the Church, but the fault of the nation. Then the clergyman was ex officio the chairman of the local council or vestry, and he was also at that time frequently an ex officio member of such boards as the boards of guardians and so forth. On most of these bodies Nonconformity was to a great extent not represented. But, my Lords, all those grievances have been done away with, and I am glad to think that most of them have been remedied at the instance of Unionist Governments.
1168
Then we hear remarks about the superior position occupied by the Church in Wales. One of the Welsh Members, speaking in another place, said that the grievance was that the ordinary Welshman and Nonconformist felt that the Church of which he was not a member was placed in a position superior to that of the Church of which he was a member. I never can understand why it is, when these questions are referred to, that the ordinary Welshman is always a Nonconformist and generally a Radical. Referring again to this subject the Welsh Member said that the position of the Churchman was much superior. I ask, in what way is the Church much superior? I suppose to be much superior it must have tremendous privileges which are not possessed by Nonconformists. As far as I am concerned I do not know of any privileges that the Church possesses beyond those possessed by Nonconformists, except the privilege of the Bishops to sit in your Lordships' House. But that is not a privilege peculiar to Wales alone, and I entirely agree with what fell from the noble Marquess when he said that he would welcome the representation of Nonconformist bodies in this House. If the Church of England in Wales has certain privileges it also has certain obligations. It has, amongst other things, to administer to everybody, irrespective of denomination; it has, moreover, to marry all those who seek the ministries of the Church, and it has also to bury anybody.
I noticed that on the Third Reading of this Bill in the House of Commons the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking on the subject of grievances, stated the whole mischief of Establishment. He commenced by quoting an historian, who wrote that when he began to inquire about the clergy he was told that the clergy were good preachers and were converting Methodists right and left. To-night we were told by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that the Nonconformist ministers were shooting ahead of the clergy. You cannot have it both ways. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that that had really been the whole mischief of the State Establishment in Wales, that it had created "a sort of ecclesiastical sheep stealing business." I venture to say that that is an absolute travesty of the fact, and I consider it a base libel upon the clergy of the Established Church. There are many gentlemen who have spoken on

1169
the subject of the position and the work of the Church whose words are appreciated and valued by your Lordships, and I am sure that the statements they have made do not bear out the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I venture to think the late Mr. Gladstone would never have spoken of the Church as a Living and advancing Church if he had known—and he had every opportunity and power of knowing the facts—that the whole occupation of the clergy of the Church in Wales was an ecclesiastical sheep stealing business, and that they were neglecting their proper duties and trying to steal away the members from the Methodist Church.
These grievances, if grievances there be, are all grievances against the Establishment; and since we have heard through the mouthpiece of the representatives of the people of Wales that Wales declines Disestablishment without Disendowment, I venture to ask what becomes of the grievances against Establishment? Then, again, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other night in another place that Wales was asking this in the interests of her own religious life, and he asked, Was she not the most competent to judge? As Wales through her representatives has declined Disestablishment without Disendowment, it follows that it is the judgment of Wales through her representatives that it is for the good of the religious life of Wales that two-thirds of the endowments of the Church should be taken away from her and alienated to secular purposes.
The noble Earl who introduced this Bill said the other night, speaking on the Home Rule Bill, that religious persecution was impossible in these days. I should like to tell him a little of my experience with regard to that subject in Wales. In Montgomeryshire, where I live, there is a small Radical majority on the county council, and it is a well-known fact that no Churchman or Unionist need apply for any appointment. Even the smallest appointments are filled up entirely from political reasons. Then, again, a few years ago there was a revolt in Wales against the Education Act, and the local education authority in Montgomeryshire refused to pay the teachers' salaries in the Church schools and also stopped the orders for coals going into the schools, so that the unfortunate children and teachers were without fires in mid-winter. I venture to
1170
say that that is persecution of a very cruel nature, and it is done by the political Party who say that they are seeking religious liberty.
It is constantly said by the promoters of this Bill that the Bill will stimulate the Church and promote religion, and that is why it is being brought in. It may stimulate noble Lords opposite to voluntarily give up some of this world's goods, but I cannot see how it is going to stimulate the religion of other people, or do any good to the souls of others, by taking away the property which belongs to them. Is it to stimulate the Church and to stimulate religion that you propose to dismember our Church, to rob our Bishops, to rob our clergy, to rob the poor of the rights which they have to the ministrations of the clergy, and, moreover, to rob the unfortunate curates, leaving them without a penny? That I think is the meanest proviso in the whole of what the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of St. Davids has called "this mean little Bill." There was an excuse given to us for that by the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of the Bill. He told us last February that the curates of the Established Church in Wales were to go without any compensation at all because there were a certain number of instances of abuse in the case of the Irish Church. I must say that it is a confession of absolute incompetence to say that it is impossible for the Government to frame a clause in this Bill which would prevent abuse in a case of that sort.
The Government say this is a question which the Welsh people ought to decide for themselves. Is the Bill just? Is that a question which you ought to shelve on to anybody else? Have you any right to ask somebody else to decide that question for you? If you desire it, there is only one way in which you can shirk the responsibility of answering that question, and that is by consulting the country. If you are prepared to consult the country, well and good. We are told that the English do not understand Welsh religious problems. I think there is one thing which few Englishmen can understand, and that is the desire and the determination of Welsh politicians to take away from the Church the funds to which she is lawfully entitled, and which she is admittedly making good use of, in order to hand them over to secular purposes. I beg to support the noble Marquess's Amendment.
[The sitting was suspended at eight o'clock and resumed at nine o'clock.]
LORD CRAWSHAW: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships' House for the first time, I must ask for your kind indulgence for any shortcomings on my part. My excuse for inflicting my opinions upon you is that I have attended a good many meetings in the country, and I know the strong feeling felt at those meetings. In addition to that, I have spent most of my life in Lancashire amongst very large bodies of Nonconformists—in fact, I might almost say in the heart of Nonconformity—and I am very glad to be able to testify here to the good feeling which exists between those bodies and the Church. That good feeling is evidenced on occasions when we have special services, and it is most gratifying and pleasing to see amongst the congregations in our churches many representatives of Nonconformist bodies who have come there to help the Church, and whom representatives of the Church on their side will go to help. Now, my Lords, if this Bill passes, causing as it will a deep feeling of wrong done, and reacting as that wrong will on the doers, how can we expect that good feeling to continue—a feeling which is so much desired?
The Government are supposed to be acting in the name and on behalf of the Nonconformists, not only in Wales, but also in other parts of the country. I have frequently stated, and I state here again, that although many Nonconformists with whom I have come in contact are strongly in favour of Disestablishment, and some are in favour of Disestablishment and Disendowment but less in favour of Disendowment than of Disestablishment, I do not believe that the Nonconformists of this country either meant or mean to mete out the harsh measures which the provisions of this Bill will entail upon the Church. I do not believe that they wish to cripple the good work which the Church is doing in Wales or anywhere else, because in that good work they have so very much in common, and in the good fruits so great a share. The position of the Government, in my humble opinion, is that they are in the hands and supporting the views of an extreme section of their Party, and legislation based upon the extreme views of any section of a Party in the State is not conducive to the general welfare of the country.
1172
I saw the other day some remarks of the noble Earl who has charge of this Bill. The noble Earl made them at a meeting at Beckenham so late as July 12 last. He said that the terms of Disendowment in this Bill were far more generous and liberal than those in the Irish Disestablishment Bill. I should have thought that that statement by this time of day had been either proved or discarded, and I cannot see how the noble Earl can substantiate it. I should think that by this time it would be beyond controversy. But be that as it may, we can ourselves form an opinion and an estimate of the liberality and generosity of the provisions of the Welsh Disestablishment and Disendowment Bill when we see 600 Welsh curates deprived of their living without any compensation. In passing, I would say that the last time this Bill was debated in this House the noble Earl gave as a reason that the numbers of the Irish curates had been increased after the date of the passing of the Irish Bill and before the date of compensation. I thought that that was hardly very relevant to the position of the Welsh curates, but, in any case, in addition to the unfortunate position of the curates, we see the glebe taken away from the Church people of Wales, and the rights of Welsh Church people in their churchyards reduced simply to a wayleave over land which they have for centuries considered their own to the Church of their fathers and to the graves of their dead. We also see £158,000 a year taken from the Church, and, worse still in the opinion of many of us, taken from religious purposes for which it was held in trust. These are the plain, bald facts, and in my opinion they do not sound very well.
But what adds a further sting to this Bill and seems to increase its injustice is the fact that this appropriation of Church property is not based on any finding of an impartial tribunal appointed to investigate what property the Church is entitled to and what property she is not—a finding which the country would no doubt have accepted, and which would have been some justification for the taking away of property and rights. But the basis of this appropriation is simply an arbitrary choice of a date, 1662. I would ask, and I think reasonably, why the wishes of a benefactor in 1662 should be respected and the wishes of a benefactor in 1661 disregarded. Well may we see some reluctance on the part of the institutions to which this money is proposed to be given

1173
to accept money received from such sources; and I would say, in conclusion, that if this Bill is to be forced through and put on the Statute Book I would personally far sooner see the money of which the Church is to be deprived divided fairly between all denominations than that it should go forth as the will of this country and the will of this House that discouragement should be given to any religious endeavour, whether that endeavour comes from our churches or our chapels.
LORD EVERSLEY: My Lords, many of the speeches delivered to-night, and still more those delivered last session, against this Bill have borne a most striking resemblance to the speeches made 44 years ago when the Bill for the Disestablishment of the Irish Church was under discussion in your Lordships' House. I think it is probable that not more than six or seven of your Lordships heard those debates. I myself heard most of them from the Bar of the House. I was a humble member of the Government which carried that great Act, and I believe I am the only survivor now in Parliament of that Government except the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition in this House. In these circumstances I hope I may be allowed to say a few words in recollection of those debates, and also as showing the bearing of the Irish Church Act upon the present Bill.
The most memorable of the speeches on the occasion I refer to was that of Dr. Magee, Bishop of Peterborough. It was a splendid bit of invective, and it carried away the House for the time. He denounced the Bill before the House in the most unmeasured language. He said it was an act of injustice, that it was cruel, harsh and niggardly. He denied that the verdict of the electors had been given on any such scheme. He predicted that it would add to the religious rancour in Ireland, instead of allaying it. His language, however, was moderate compared with that of the Irish Prelates. There was a speech made by the Archbishop of Armagh, in which he predicted that if the Bill passed into law the Church people of Ireland would have only two alternatives before them—apostasy or expatriation. He said all those who had means would leave Ireland and all others would fall under the influence of Rome and become Papists. Dr. Alexander, the Bishop of Derry, one of the
1174
most saintly Bishops who ever held a See in Ireland, spoke in very much the same strain, and said the Bill would leave the Church unprovided for after the death of the existing clergy. He said it "would bring about an atheistical nation under the re-dominion of a Papal Legate and stamped with undying hostility to the Protestant religion."
Well, your Lordships at that time were not alarmed by those speeches, but passed the Bill, and we now know the results of that great measure. I think everybody must admit that none of the predictions of the Bishops and others were fulfilled, and that the Act has been carried out with a success which the framers of it hardly ventured to predict. One of the principal advantages of the Act has been that the Church of Ireland has found itself freed from the shackles of the State, and has been enabled in consequence to make most important reforms in connection with the Church, especially as regards the appointment and retirement of its clergy. It has also brought about very important changes in the formularies of the Church—changes which were long needed. There is abundant testimony from high authorities in the Irish Church—men who knew what was the state of things before the Act was passed, and who could compare the Church under its new conditions and estimate the value of the changes which had taken place. There is especially the charge to his clergy by the late Lord Plunket when Archbishop of Dublin. Lord Plunket had been one of those Bishops who most strongly opposed the Act when it was passed, but after 25 years' experience of the new order of things he gave an opinion distinctly favourable to the measure. After giving a résumé of the gains and losses to the Church after the Disestablishment Act, he said:
"When I try to hold the balance evenly and to weigh the losses and the gains as a whole, I say boldly and without reserve that the gain outweighs the loss."
Another high authority upon the subject—perhaps even higher in some respects—is Dr. Traill, the present Provost of Trinity College. Dr. Traill has been the leading man on the representative body of the Church of Ireland from the time of Disestablishment up to the present time. In a statement which he made in a report of the representative body three years ago he

1175
used this language which I think your Lordships will agree is very remarkable—
"Much spiritual advantage has accrued to members of the Church by the Act. of 1869 from their being, as it were, forced to realise what are the duties of a Church and its members, and from the energy which was called out, not only to reconstruct the financial basis of the Church but to reorganise its constitution and to use its freedom to revise its formularies so as to bring them in several important matters into harmony with the requirements of the present day. This cannot be done in the case of an Established Church unless through the intervention of a Parliament in which its enemies have a powerful if not a preponderating influence."
The Church found no difficulty in reconstituting itself. It accepted the commutation scheme which was the great invention of Mr. Gladstone. The laity came forward with great generosity, with the result that the Church has been carried on in every way as well as it was before the change.
In view of these remarkable results in the case of the Irish Church I would venture to ask your Lordships whether there is any reason whatever to be alarmed at the Bill before us. The conditions of the Welsh Church are practically identical with the conditions of the Irish Church before Disestablishment. The Church is the Church of the small minority of the people of Wales. It is the Church of the rich as against the Churches of the poor. Endowments originally intended for the benefit of the whole people of Wales have become practically the appanage of a sect. There are grave difficulties in the way of collection of tithes, and there are political grievances of a long standing character. The Welsh people for eleven Parliaments have sent enormous majorities of their representatives to the House of Commons asking for this measure.
It is said by some people that the financial scheme of the Bill before us is less generous than that of the Irish Act of 1869. I venture to submit that there is no foundation whatever for the statement. It is my firm belief that the financial scheme is distinctly more generous in its working out than was the scheme of the Irish Act. Roughly speaking, it may be said that the capitalised value of the endowments of the Irish Church was about £16,000,000, and about half—£8,000,000—remained to
1176
the Church after Disestablishment, chiefly in the form of the commutation of the life incomes and with the small addition of the endowments made to the Church before the Reformation, and the other half was devoted to secular purposes under the Act.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPH: May I ask the noble Lord whether there was not a bonus of 12 per cent.?
LORD EVERSLEY: I include the 12 per cent. in the endowments of the Church. The £8,000,000 which I mention included that. The 12 per cent., I think, was secured by Amendments in the House of Lords. But practically half of the endowments remained to the Church after Disendowment and the other half was devoted to secular purposes. In the case of the Welsh Church, so far as I can see, the actual value of the existing endowments comes to about £7,500,000, of which about £5,000,000 will remain to the Church in the shape of commutation of the life interests of its clergy and other endowments and about £2,500,000 will go to secular purposes. That proportion, therefore, is a great deal better than in the case of the Irish Church. I ought to say that, besides this £5,000,000, the Bill authorises the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty to contribute £31,000 a year to the Welsh Church out of their funds. This was no part of the endowments of the Church. It is rather an expectation arising from the average of past grants of these bodies for the endowment of poor livings.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BANGOR: The amount for commutation is £2,000,000. Does the noble Lord say that when we receive that £2,000,000 we are going to receive £3,500,000 from some other source?
LORD EVERSLEY: I say that of the £7,500,000, £5,000,000 goes to the Church for the commutation of life interest and for endowments, and about £2,500,000 will be devoted to secular purposes. Besides the £5,000,000 there is a provision that £31,000 a year may be contributed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty to the Church out of the funds of those two bodies. That

1177
is, of course, merely a permissive power; but everyone understands perfectly well that this contribution will be made. For my part I do not see why it should not be made obligatory instead of permissive. Assuming that this £31,000 a year is to be taken into consideration as well as the actual endowments, I think Mr. McKenna is perfectly right in saying that it will only be necessary for the Church body after Disestablishment to raise an annual sum of £51,000 in order to make up the difference. The Irish Church had to raise something like £200,000 for the purpose of making up the difference; whereas the Welsh Church will only have to raise £51,000 a year, which seems a very small sum. I know there are not a few members in this House who think that the commutation scheme has been unfairly dealt with and is not such as the Church body can accept. Lord St. Aldwyn last year lent his great financial authority to this proposition; and said he could not advise the Welsh Church to accept that commutation scheme. For my part, having given great attention to the subject, I think that the Welsh Church would be extremely unwise if they did not accept this commutation scheme. I believe it is framed on a perfectly fair financial basis, and worthy in every way of their consideration.
I may mention, in passing, that I consider myself in some degree responsible for the commutation scheme. When the Welsh Church Bill was first laid before the House of Commons I observed that it contained no provision to that effect, and recollecting well how important in the case of the Irish Church was the commutation scheme, it seemed to me it would be very unfair to the Welsh Church if these clauses should not be inserted. I therefore wrote to Mr. W. G. C. Gladstone, the present Member for Kilmarnock, suggesting to him that he should move in the House of Commons clauses of this kind. I represented to him that I thought it would come with great force from the descendant of Mr. Gladstone, who was responsible for the original Irish Act, if he were to move such clauses. In company with a Bishop whom I see on the Episcopal Bench, I had later an interview with Mr. W. G. C. Gladstone, and we persuaded him to undertake this matter and to move these clauses in the House of Commons, which he did, with the great success which we see in the Bill.
1178
If the clauses were not fair in their character, if the calculation on which the commutation scheme is to be based was not a fair one, I should not for a moment have hesitated to have stated so in public and to have advocated a change. But it is my confident belief that the scheme is founded upon a fair, reasonable, and good financial basis, and is eminently worthy of the acceptance of the great Church body if this Bill comes into operation. It has been complained that the scheme is based upon a 3½ per cent. basis instead of a 3 per cent. basis, but it would be easy enough nowadays for the Welsh Church body to invest its money at an even better rate than 3½ per cent. There is no obligation to invest this money in Consols, but at the present price of Consols and other trustee investments there can be no doubt whatever that the Church body will be able to invest its money well—probably at 4 per cent.; certainly at much over 3½ per cent. In such case the scheme of commutation will in every way be most favourable to the Church. My own belief, looking at the financial clauses all round, is that they are most favourable to the Church in Wales—much more favourable even than the scheme of the Irish Act was to the Irish Church.
My confident belief is that if this Bill passes all the advantages which have accrued to the Irish Church and of which I have spoken will similarly accrue to the Welsh Church. The Welsh Church, freed from the shackles of the State, will be able to carry out various most necessary reforms which it is not possible to undertake in the present state of things; it will be able to make changes in its, formularies which have long been desired by many people in that Church; it will be in a better position to co-operate with other religious bodies in Wales, because there no longer will there be political grievances to come between them; it will be able in many respects to maintain its position even better than it now is; and lastly, and even more important, there will be a set back to the spirit of Sacerdotalism which in my opinion is the bane of all the Established Churches while the clergy are independent of the laity.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, I do not know that the remarks of the noble Lord who has just sat down call for any special comment from me. The only

1179
observation I would make about them is that I am at a loss to understand what the history of the Disestablishment of the Irish Church has to do with the question now before your Lordships' House, as to whether this is a Bill which ought to be passed into law before it has been referred to the opinion of the electors of the country. No one disputes that ill-treatment and injustice may conduce to our spiritual and moral improvement; but the fact that it does so does not alter the injustice or the evil of the treatment, and because it pleases Almighty God to bring good out of evil it does not make less the guilt of those who perpetrate that evil.
We have this evening listened to a very interesting discussion on the interference of the Norman, Plantagenet and Tudor Kings in the affairs of the Church of England. The noble and learned Viscount who occupies the Woolsack has also given us his version of the origin of Nonconformity in Wales, which he attributes to the ideal aspirations of Welshmen and to the Act of Uniformity of 1662. I may remark, in passing, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer attributes the rise of Nonconformity in Wales to the Whig Bishops who were sent down to Wales in order to counteract the Jacobite tendencies of the clergy and the laity after the Revolution. I merely call your Lordships' attention to these two opinions; the Lord Chancellor and the Chancellor of the Exchequer may settle the matter between themselves. Then the noble Viscount on the Woolsack gave us an interesting account of the efforts Nonconformists have made in Wales on behalf of education, which I for one do not feel in the least called upon to dispute. He gave us an account of secondary education in Wales, interspersed with remarks about the difference between theological colleges and other educational institutions in Wales. He also made a profession of faith on his own part in Erastian principles in regard to which the most rev. Primate has already remarked upon its irrelevancy. In short, the noble Viscount appeared to me to say a great many things which, interesting as they might be on another occasion, had nothing whatever to do with the question before this House. That question, as I have already said, is whether this is a Bill which ought to be passed under the Parliament Act before
1180
it has been submitted to the opinion of the electors of this country.
For the very few moments I wish to detain the House I desire to address myself to that question and to that question only. What does this Bill do? First of all, it is a Bill for the severance of a relation that has existed between the State and the Church in Wales for more than 1,000 years, and which was in full vigour before the British Parliament existed. In the next place, it has been advocated, as has already been observed by various speakers this evening, not only by one but by at least four members of the Cabinet as an instalment of a larger measure which is to disestablish and disendow the whole Church of England. In the third place, as the most rev. Primate has pointed out, it is a Bill which will be looked upon abroad, as at home, as a step towards the abandonment of the recognition of the Christian religion on the part of a country which has hitherto been concerned to maintain its Christian character, and that at a time when by universal consent the need of Christianity in the general interests of society was never more apparent than it is to-day.
I am not concerned to say at this moment whether the Home Rule Bill was really before the constituencies at the last General Election or not; but what I do say without fear of contradiction is that the issues involved in this Bill have never been submitted to the electors of this country; and I appeal to your Lordships whether any one, apart from political considerations, would not, whatever his opinion of the Bill may be, at once say that if ever there was a question upon which the country had a right to be consulted it was such a question as this.
I pass on for a few moments to consider the two main features of the Bill. Under the Disestablishment clauses, to which the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, has so admirably referred this evening, the Bill professes to free the Church from State interference and control. In reality it interferes with the constitution of the Provincial Synod of Canterbury. It expels four of the oldest Sees belonging to the Province of Canterbury, with their Bishops and clergy, from the Synod of the Province; and it claims the right—and this is a point to which I do not think Lord

1181
St. Aldwyn referred this evening—to pronounce upon the brand new constitution which the dioceses so expelled are to be compelled to set up on pain of forfeiting such relics of their own property as the Government is willing to leave to them. I venture to say that no Government has ever attempted to deal with any religious community as this Government proposes to deal with the Church of England. The Bill, by its Disestablishment clauses, attacks the Church's spiritual rights and enslaves the Church under the pretence of freeing it from State control. I will ask the members of the Government one plain question. Would they dare to make such proposals in regard to the Established Church in Scotland? They know very well that they would not dare to do so, because they know too well the answer that would be made to them. I ask them, then, how they dare to make such a proposal in regard to the Church of England.
I pass on to one or two aspects of the Disendowment clauses. The exact figures will, I understand, be ascertained in the course of the autumn, but meanwhile I am informed, and I believe the statement is fairly accurate, that if the provisions of this Bill were applied to the Church in England it would deprive every parish in England of about four-fifths of its endowment, and would reduce the income of every incumbent to about 4s. 6d. in the pound. I ask again, Why is such a spoliation to be attempted in Wales? Will anybody pretend that a Bill which devotes to secular purposes funds given for spiritual purposes—funds which are not excessive, and which, on the admission of the Prime Minister himself, are being excellently applied—is a measure which apart from the exigencies of Party politics any honest man who cares for the welfare of religion would wish to support? I do not think anybody would pretend that. I am aware that the noble Earl who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill has told us, in a speech to which allusion has already been made, that the measure has really been brought in by the Government for the advantage of the Church. I should like to repeat to the noble Earl and to your Lordships' House what I heard only the other day at Huddersfield, the centre of a very Radical part of the West Riding of Yorkshire, at a great demonstration to protest against this Bill which in numbers almost rivalled that of Hyde
1182
Park a few weeks ago. It certainly rivalled the London demonstration in enthusiasm, and the numbers who desired to attend it were so great that the railways were not able to convey all the people who wished to come. The speaker was a typical Yorkshireman, and this is what he said—
"They tell me that down in London they say this Bill is for the benefit of the Church. That may be a good enough argument for the House of Commons, but I should like to see any one come up here and tell us Yorkshiremen that it is for my advantage, or for the advantage of any one to be deprived of half his goods. If they come and tell us that, we will very soon show them what we think of them and their arguments."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us—and he takes another ground than that taken by the noble Earl opposite—that this Bill is to be defended on the plea that it is a measure to Undo the injustice of having forced an alien religion upon the Welsh people. I would ask, Do the petitions to which the most rev. Primate has already alluded this evening—petitions which in the case of Wales alone have been signed by one-third of all the adult population, and the innumerable meetings to protest against this Bill which have been held in every part of England in the most Radical centres, meetings both enthusiastic and overflowing, do all these things look as if in England and Wales there is any feeling that an alien religion has been forced on the unhappy Welsh people? The noble Viscount who sits on the Woolsack said this evening that the noble Marquess who has moved the Amendment to this Bill was no good judge of the religious opinions of the country, because he is so earnest in his antagonism to the Bill. I would ask the noble Viscount whether the various educational proposals made by the present Government, which have all been doomed to failure, might not encourage the suspicion that the Government are not altogether free from the possibility of making mistakes where the religious principles of this country are at stake. I say without fear of contradiction that throughout the length and breadth of the country this Bill, as Lord St. Aldwyn has said, is detested. I am quite satisfied that the Government have no perception of the depth and strength of the feeling that the measure has elicited against it. There is, on the other hand, no liking and no enthusiasm for it, and even those who support it

1183
are half ashamed of it and wish it were well out of the way.
The people of England do not forget how this Bill is being passed. They remember its history. They remember, as Lord St. Aldwyn has said this evening, that had it not been for the votes of Irish Members in the House of Commons this Bill would have died in that House more than once. They remember that under the Home Rule Bill the Irish Members are not allowed to endow or to disendow, to establish or to disestablish, a Church. They feel it to be a monstrous thing that any English Government should use the votes of these same Irish Members to help them to disendow and disestablish the Church of England in Wales.
I would ask the Government very seriously what possible harm it could do to any one if this Bill were postponed until after the next General Election? Would the country be ruined because the relation which has existed between Church and State for over 1,000 years lasted a couple of years longer? Is there any one who could really regret that the poor Welsh clergy should be allowed to retain their stipends for another twelve months? Would it be the end of the world if the county associations, the libraries, the washhouses, were deprived of the spoils of the Church for another twelve months? Is there any good reason that can be brought forward on behalf of passing such a Bill as this under the Parliament Act?
There is no good reason, apart from Party political considerations, why the Amendment proposed by the noble Marquess should not be accepted by His Majesty's Government. There are many reasons, grave and weighty, why this Bill should not be brought under the operation of the Parliament Act. There is one reason so grave and so weighty that I am constrained to mention it on this occasion and to commend it to the attention of your Lordships' House, and more especially to the attention of His Majesty's Government. In view of the feeling which exists in the country against this Bill and in view of the absence of any feeling in favour of it, I ask your Lordships in all seriousness whether there is any one, who has any
1184
sense of what is due to the Crown and of what is incumbent upon him as a loyal subject of His Majesty the King, who would think it consistent with his duty to ask the King to give his assent to such a measure as this before it has been submitted to the opinion of the country. To ask the King's assent to such a Bill, in the estimation of thousands of His Majesty's subjects, will be to make the King a party to a measure which, as Lord St. Aldwyn has reminded us, a great portion of the people abhor and believe to be mischievous to the best interests of the country, and which they think involves a breach of solemn obligations taken to themselves at the most solemn moment of the King's life. They do not ask that the King should reject the Bill, but they do ask—and I have experience of it in every part of the country—that he should be well assured that his subjects wish the Bill to pass before he is asked to assent to such a measure. I earnestly entreat His Majesty's Government, as loyal subjects and faithful servants of the Crown, not to embark on a course which is fraught with such serious danger to all those highest interests which all loyal subjects of the Crown and faithful servants of the King are bound to guard and protect with all their strength.
THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: My Lords, as regards the merits or demerits of the Bill before the House, I imagine that every one of your Lordships has already made up his mind, so that our debate can only, so far as argument is concerned, be looked upon as a debate upon a foregone conclusion. Consequently I do not propose to detain your Lordships with many words on the merits of the Bill. My object in venturing to intrude for a minute or two is to ask, or, rather, to appeal to, the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition in this House to consider the wisdom of giving the Bill a Second Reading and going into Committee upon it. You naturally go, in your own language, into Committee with a view to "removing the blemishes and the undesirable features" of the Bill. I venture to think that this would be a wise policy on the present occasion, considering the point to which we have come in the history and the fortunes of this Bill.
With regard to the actual Amendment before the House, I confess that I could

1185
hardly have imagined anything more unhappy in form. Surely, my Lords, when we consider the circumstances of the case this Amendment amounts to an abnegation of your legislative functions; it amounts, in fact, to letting the case of this Bill go by default; and surely in asking for an appeal to the country the Amendment assumes that the repeatedly expressed desire of the people of Wales is to be disregarded. I am well aware that most of your Lordships look upon this as a question which concerns the whole of England, and in which Wales has no claim to have a special voice; but when we consider it dispassionately this question of the regulation of their own religious life is, above all things, the kind of question which any integral part of the nation has a just claim to settle for itself. For my own part I consider this Bill to be an act of national justice and an act, if anything, too long delayed. I hold that in this matter it is the people of Wales who are primarily and chiefly concerned, and that it is not a case in which we are justified in over-ruling the general sentiment of the people themselves.
This somewhat new-born desire on the part of your Lordships to submit to the will of the people really means a desire to over-ride the opinion of Wales by the opinion of other parts of the United Kingdom, and I cannot look upon that as an entirely fair proceeding towards the people of Wales. It needs no repetition that the sentiments of Wales have for the last half century or more been strongly expressed in favour of some such Bill as this; the constitutional representatives of the Welsh people have invariably asked for it by a majority of something like ten to one; and I could not myself feel able to justify what would be my own action if I were to oppose this Bill. I doubt whether your Lordships would have ventured to apply the same method of treatment to the people of Scotland as you are now proposing to apply to the people of Wales, and I do not see what higher claim the people of Scotland have in a matter of this kind 'than the people of Wales. I will not venture to argue—it has been argued over and over again in this House—the claim of the Welsh people to a national character. My immediate object, as I have said, is to appeal to the noble Marquess opposite and those who follow him to give this Bill a Second Reading, and then to secure
1186
by negotiation such reasonable Amendments as they are able to secure.
I could have wished that this appeal had been made by a far more authoritative voice than my own. I had, indeed, indulged a hope that the most rev. Primate, supported by the Bishops, who, like himself, disapprove of this Bill, would have felt able to make this appeal to the noble Marquess. If the representatives of the Church had done this, if they had first of all made their own earnest and strong protest against the Bill according to their conscience and had then deprecated the sort of demonstrations which we in the provinces are suffering from at the present time, I venture with all respect to say that I think it would have been a more excellent way; and I even go so far as to think that the leaders of our Church have lost a great opportunity in this respect. It would have been indeed a noble page of English Church history for an historian to write if he could have said that we Bishops, protesting against the Bill in the main, most of us, and earnestly objecting to it, had still deprecated the kind of useless and harmful propaganda that is going on all over the country, and had said to those Church people, "Notwithstanding all our objections to this legislation, let us remember that the function of the Church is a moral and spiritual function, and that our business is to do our utmost to set forward peace and goodwill among all Christian people."
What are these demonstrations of which we hear so much likely to produce? They are absolutely useless as regards any effect on the fortunes of the Bill. They consequently degenerate into a type of political Party agitation, and are harmful in the life of the nation because of the trail of consequences they leave behind them in the increased antagonism, in the ill will, in the misunderstandings and prejudices, and in the bitterness of feeling created. Surely, my Lords, it would be a great gain to the life of the people if we could put an end to this kind of hybrid agitation—semi-political and semi-ecclesiastical—with all its consequences, embittering consequences, on the common life of the people. These demonstrations —I speak only of such as I know something of—are not in themselves very imposing. They largely consist of persons who remind

1187
us in some degree of those thousands who assembled in Ephesus on a famous occasion as worshippers of the great goddess Diana —" they know not wherefore they are come together." There are large constituent portions of these demonstrations of which that might be truly said. I cannot conceive anything which is more likely to degrade the spirit of the common religious life of the country than the continuance of this useless agitation; and that is why, my Lords, I venture to appeal to you in the hope that you may take this matter in hand in Committee so as to bring this agitation to a speedy close.
There are various advantages which I venture to think would follow from that course. As I have said, it would relieve the life of the country from a very mischievous influence. These demonstrations give occasion for much excited and misleading rhetoric. We hear on these platforms a great deal said as to the disastrous consequences that are to follow from the dismemberment of the Church. I venture to think that any sober-minded man, thinking of the matter, would consider that to apply the term "dismemberment" to the separation proposed is an entire misuse of language. Dismemberment surely implies the destruction or the death, of one or both portions of the dismembered body, unless, indeed, it be in some very low organism. So that, however much we may regret the necessity of separating the Welsh Church from the English Church, it is an entire misapplication of terms to speak of it as "dismemberment" of the Church. But that is part of the misleading rhetoric to which our people are exposed.
Then, again, we hear a great deal—we still hear it I am sorry to say—about the Disendowment proposals of this Bill being "sacrilegious" in their character, and a "robbery of God." Now, my Lords, I had hoped that language of this kind would have disappeared from our platforms long ago. I could hardly imagine any one having been familiar with what was said by Bishop Thirlwall in this House more than forty years ago, ever again repeating such an argument as this, that the proposals of a Bill like the one before us amounted to robbery of God. But these expressions are still heard on our platforms, and still, I fear, used by some members of this House. Therefore, my Lords, I will ask your indulgence while I quote
1188
the language which Bishop Thirlwall used on this subject in this House on the occasion of the Irish Church debate; and in doing so I may, I hope, refer for a moment to the language of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack who described the Bishop in terms which could hardly have been applied, I venture to think, to any other Bishop within the memory of any of us. I venture to quote his language as that of a man whom I, at all events, look upon as the most illustrious Bishop who has sat upon these benches within the memory of any of us. He said—
"The word 'sacrilege' has been heard very often of late, and I must say its use reminds me of some instructive passages in the history of the early Christian Church. The cry of sacrilege was raised against St. Ambrose, it was raised by the Arians, and on what ground was it raised? Because St. Ambrose had sold the sacred vessels of the Church of Milan to apply the proceeds to the profane purpose of ransoming prisoners who had fallen into the hands of the Goths. In my opinion that was not the least meritorious or the least holy act of that holy man's life. And what does it imply?"
And here is the point where the Bishop's words apply to our present case—
"It implies that in the opinion of one who was undoubtedly a very sincere Christian and not at all a low Churchman, circumstances might arise in which Church property, even while it continued to be capable of serving its original purpose, might be rightly and fitly diverted to another and wholly different use. I am not going to say here that in this ease such circumstances have arisen, but what I do say is this, that the possibility of such circumstances arising, if that be admitted, at once transfers the question to the broad ground of general expediency and common utility. It shows that such expressions as 'sacrilege' and 'robbery of God' applied to this subject are as irrelevant and misapplied as they are irritating and offensive. There may be an error of judgment in the estimate of the circumstances, in the calculation of results, and the comparison of advantages, but there is no fair room for the imputation of a sin or a crime."
I venture to think, my Lords, that words of that kind are golden words which should be remembered by all those who take part in this controversy; and, as regards the policy which I venture to advocate, I feel that it has the advantage not only of bringing this unhappy controversy which is debasing our religious life to a speedy end, but also of making the Bill a better Bill.
I wonder if every member of the House who is prepared to support the Amendment before us has really weighed this matter, and realises that as a matter of fact by

1189
refusing a Second Reading and by robbing yourselves of the opportunity of amending the Bill you are depriving the Church of Wales of the opportunity of getting some advantages which from your point of view it is your plain duty to endeavour to get for it; because if we decline to take advantage of the opportunity offered to us to-day I think noble Lords will generally agree that next year it will be too late. I have little doubt that His Majesty's Government, if approached with reasonable Amendments, would be ready to make some further concessions in order to have done with this controversy once for all. Although I myself firmly believe that it is in the main a thoroughly just Bill, a reasonable and even a generous Bill, yet there are certain Amendments which, if I had the opportunity, I should very much like to propose, and they are, I believe, Amendments which would commend themselves to the general opinion of the opposite side of the House. One in particular I should certainly like to see. I have no great sympathy with the outcry that is raised as to secularising funds which were given for religious purposes. I have no great sympathy with the argument as it is put forward continually, because there is no distinct and definitely ordained line between religious and secular purposes—the line is a varying line from generation to generation and according to circumstances, and the real test of the right use of all such funds as are entrusted to the Church is whether the use on the whole is the most beneficent use to which they could be put. But still for my own part I should very much prefer to have the possibility of endeavouring to introduce such an Amendment as this, that all the funds transferred by the Bill should be allocated to the representative bodies of the various religious denominations in proportion to the number of their adherents in Wales for their own religious purposes, and that they should be so allocated to every denomination which applied for them, and any such funds for which no application was made should be applied to the better education of poor and meritorious students.
I venture to mention this as one of the Amendments I should like to see introduced. But, as I have said, if your Lordships determine to have no Committee stage, yon deliberately—no doubt for what you feel to be high reasons of policy, but it
1190
seems to me to be very like a gamble with the uncertain future—your Lordships deliberately cut off the disestablished Church in Wales from the prospect of some further benefit which it might have derived by the other policy. Therefore I venture very earnestly, though I fear hopelessly, to appeal to the noble Marquess to adopt this policy, which, I venture to think, is the wiser, because to reject the Bill is, in fact, to abnegate your share in the legislation of the country; it is of the nature of a suicidal act; and it also deprives the people, in whose cause you are pleading throughout the whole of this debate, of some benefits which they might otherwise have obtained; whereas, if you adopt the policy I suggest, which I might venture to call a policy of common sense in political matters, you will at any rate have endeavoured to get all the concessions which were obtainable for the benefit of the Church, and you will earn the gratitude of the Church people of Wales and the respect of the nation.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, it would be very unwelcome to myself personally, and I think it would be rather unseemly if I, following the right rev. Prelate who has just sat down, entered into any kind of altercation with him. The Bishop has high and generous ideals, but I do not know whether he is fortunate in the kind of way in which he tries to persuade people with regard to the conclusions that he would desire to arrive at. I think his speech this evening bristled with illustrations of that point. I doubt if there is any one who would be, more ready to fall in with the provisions of this Bill because St. Ambrose sold the plate of the Church of Milan for the ransom of the poor. The condition of dissention which we have throughout the country is one which we, like the Bishop of Hereford, deprecate. The waters, no doubt, are fouled; but since the time when the wolf and the lamb debated on that subject I doubt if there has been any stronger instance of putting the burden on the wrong shoulders. The right rev. Prelate says that all these meetings, and so on, are demonstrations of the wrong-headedness of Churchmen. I am making, I hope, respectful and gentle criticism; but if what my friends from the North tell me is at all true, I think that the Bishop, if he went up and faced

1191
some of those gatherings of Churchmen—Churchmen not of one political complexion alone—would receive some criticism which would not be at all respectful and quite the reverse of gentle.
As regards what the Bishop of Hereford has said I will only add this remark, to which I hope he will not take any exception, for it is only a matter of fact. He knows perfectly well, and we all know perfectly well, that if the noble Marquess opposite responded to his appeal and we joined in his earnest request to the Government for reconsideration, the policy of concurrent endowment which he recommended, and about which I have great sympathy with him, is a policy from which they have absolutely shut themselves off and been absolutely shut off by those with whom they act. It is very difficult to speak at all at this stage upon this matter. Yet I feel that perhaps there is one question which really lies at the back of the whole thing, about which, even at this stage, it might be worth while to say something. I mean the question, why, after all, is this being done? What is the root motive? What is the mainspring of the whole thing? We see a Bill the effects of which are in the highest degree harsh. This Bill gives one rather the impression one would have if one saw sonic weak and feeble creature in the hands, or in the claws, of something far more powerful than itself. It is a Bill which has certainly shown an extraordinary power of creating hostility so I think we are justified in asking, after all, why is it being promoted? I see my noble friend Lord St. Davids making notes, and he is competent to speak. I suppose he would say that we should all agree that the impulse of this Bill comes from Wales. He will say "quite right; it ought to do so." It is certainly not the ease that even that force which we sometimes speak of as Liberationism in England, or in Scotland, would have any power to produce a Bill of this kind. It is, I think, certainly true that those large bodies of opinion behind the Government which desire social and economic reform can hardly be altogether glad to see the time of Parliament and the strength of the Government consumed in tins crusade; and, perhaps I speculate too far, but I should have doubted whether it was possible to imagine that the Government itself, if it were perfectly free in the matter, would, in all the range of
1192
subjects which require legislation, have chosen this thing to do.
We have had to-night a very impressive discourse, if I may respectfully make that comment, from the Woolsack. Like all idealists, the noble and learned Viscount, if I may say so, seemed at times to be leaving earth rather behind him, and drawing a picture in which the lights were very high and some very pertinent facts were left in the shadow. I could not help feeling, for example, that "a diminutive body" was hardly the way of describing a Church which has confessedly a third part of the population of Wales, any more than "a great and powerful organisation" is exactly the description to give to a coalition of a number of religious bodies which have, indeed, a Free Church Council in common, but which are in a great many of their activities extremely disconnected one from the other. That is not merely minute criticism—it belonged to the noble and learned Viscount's idealist picture, that there will be a great organisation, as he said, gathering into its circle all those rushing forces which he associates with the name of Nonconformity; whilst over against this again "this little diminutive body"—a body which contains more of the Welsh population than any other religious community; so he draws the picture—in order that we might see the vast contrast between the two.
I must apologise for anticipating what more properly belongs to my brethren from Wales, to whom we shall hope to listen to-morrow, but when I heard case after case given where Nonconformity was identified with all that was for the good and the progress of the country while the Church appeared—or so it seemed to be suggested—as a body without life, without intelligence, without energy, without enthusiasm, I thought of words which a great Liberal statesman not very long ago used about a Church that was going upwards and onwards, from elevation to elevation, and I thought if Mr. Gladstone had been here he might perhaps have criticised a bit even so distinguished a successor in statesmanship as the noble and learned Viscount. The reason I touch upon it is that I do not think any one would say that idealism by itself prompted this Bill, or that idealism was very characteristic of the way in which this Bill had been recommended and pushed. I want to use careful language, because I can quite honestly say in these later years

1193
of my life there is no object I more desire to Promote than a better understanding between the Church of England and the Nonconformist bodies, and I should be very sorry indeed to use, certainly to use needlessly, any words which might go in the opposite direction. I suppose it is true that we must say that what is in the Welsh mind, so far as that part of the Welsh mind which earnestly likes this Bill is concerned, is a dislike of the advantage given to one religious body over the rest. There is, perhaps, a little inconsistency about that, because a great deal of the language used goes to show that it is no advantage at all, but, on the other hand, that it is a great advantage not to be Established.
It was said by a speaker in another place that the real spring and motive of the Bill was "spite and malice" on the part of Nonconformists. I want to dissociate myself from that language. That is not the language I should desire to use, any more, if I may venture to say so, than the language about "robbery," which the right rev. Prelate took the occasion of repudiating. That is not language which I should use here on this Bench or any one else on any other Bench in the House would be likely to use with any approval from the House at large. I do not want to use that language, but I suppose I am using reasonable and genuine language when I say that there is a feeling that an unjust advantage is being given to one religious body over another. From behind all the political organisation, behind all the movements of the Government, behind all the movements of the Liberal Party, there you have the root and spring of this Bill; and so it comes out, I think, that the Bill is due to a kind of zeal for what we may call equality.
Now, equality is a very noble thing rightly handled. When equality means a recognition of the equal spiritual value of human beings, of men and women, of black and white, or rich and poor, there is nothing more noble than equality. We know also that it has had certain other associations of a different and not so attractive a character. Equality has sometimes led to a suggestion for demolishing and pulling down and bringing things to what I might call a dead level. You must watch equality, I think, before you judge of it in a particular case. However, suppose the desire for equality to be a thing which is very natural—and I fully concede
1194
that it is very natural for a Welsh Nonconformist to desire equality in his particular case—then surely you have to ask at what cost that equality is to be obtained? Because, after all, it is not a thing of inestimable value. It may be natural that those who conceive themselves, as I said, somewhat inconsistently to be at a disadvantage should wish to remove that disadvantage, but you should not do everything or anything in order to get equality. I cannot help thinking that it is when you come to consider that that the case against the Bill begins to come out. Is equality sufficient reason, for instance, for treating of such men as the hardworking clergy in the towns and parishes of Wales in a way which is to be, I think, compared to the treatment by Pharaoh of the Israelites. They are working pretty hard already, but their work is to be made very appreciably harder by the treatment to be applied to them. Is that a thing which you would like to do in order to secure equality? One would think, if this is the motive, that the matter would be approached with very great tenderness, with very great discretion, and with a great desire to turn all doubtful points over on the side of the Church which was to suffer.
Lord Eversley tried to convince us that there was generosity in the Bill; but I should like to ask whether we can really acquiesce in any such description. Let us look first at the case of the endowments. You leave endowments given since 1702, but could you do less? You leave—and this is a very considerable thing—you leave the cathedrals and the parish churches to Churchmen, and believe, as I hope and believe, they will keep them up. Would public opinion have tolerated any other proposal? But let us go on and come to the tithe. You say that the Nonconformist is genuine in his convictions in supporting his own religious society, and that he naturally rebels against the necessity of paying for the support of a religious body to which he is not attached. But many Churchmen pay tithe. Is the confiscation of the whole of the tithe except what goes to the lay proprietor a generous way of meeting that difficulty? Let me leave tithe and come to the glebe. I ask the noble and learned Viscount, Can any kind of idealism suggest to us that the glebes, which hurt no one, which are not an encroachment upon anyone's liberty and take

1195
nothing out of anyone's pocket, should be taken from these poorly-paid and hardworking people and alienated to other purposes which in ordinary usage are not religious at all?
And as we have listened to these proposals we have observed how little attempt there has been to take account of an argument which has come from very distinguished people of liberal associations. It seems to me that every old fallacy has been revived, including the old fallacy about national property. I doubt whether any fair-minded man, or anyone who had really looked into the controversy about national property and observed what great authorities like the late Professor Freeman—one of the most ardent Liberals who ever breathed—said about it, could revive that argument as it has been revived of late years. But one thing stirred my bile more than anything in these matters, and it was this, that when the question came up of concession, people gathering, as it were, a kind of Pecksniffian robe of respectability about them argued that they really could not allow the Government to make such-and-such a concession because it was trenching upon national property which they had no right to part with. That was a description of what would be done if the amount taken from the Welsh Church, which had grown to be a national property, was in any degree diminished; and I do not think it is unfair to say that the tone of the Welsh representatives in another place, so far as we can judge of it, was more like that of men making ready to devour the carcase and divide the spoils, than of a set of men representative of religious interests. I hope I have not said that in any way too strongly, but those are the things that make one feel what the case is against this Bill.
If I may still detain the House for a minute or two I should like to say that there are in this Bill provisions which have the effect of dismembering altogether the working organisation which allows the whole body of the Church to go on in unity. This clause need not have been put in. It would probably have been difficult—more difficult, perhaps, than a layman like myself can appreciate—to provide that the sitting together of assemblies and so on should go on as before. I think the Free Church Council representing the Nonconformists had this very issue before
1196
them. In their own case they had to decide whether it was desirable that for the better expression of the national wish of the Church in Wales they should set up a Welsh Free Church Council, and they refused entirely to do anything of the kind. They took what to my mind was undoubtedly the wiser and nobler line of saying that they would have one Free Church Council binding in one great unity the Nonconformist Churches of England and Wales. On this point nothing has impressed me more in that plucky—I would almost call it heroic—defence which my brother of St. Davids has made on behalf, not of the property of his Church, but of what he believes to be its deepest interests, that defence in which he has ridden so many courses and broken so many lances, than the way in which I heard him at the Swansea Church Congress, before mixed audiences of Welsh and English Churchmen, work out the assertion that in severing the Church in England from its dioceses in Wales, the Welsh life would be made a punier life, a narrower life, a life in which all the best currents which we desire to see would flow less strongly and less brightly.
Then it is said, "You could have got these things changed if you had liked." But surely, my Lords, that is the most conclusive proof of what I have been saying. If these things were not essential to the Bill, if the Bill could have been framed on other and much more generous lines, then why on earth was it not done? Why on earth have you chosen to pursue equality at this heavy, this crushing cost? Why on earth did you not shape the Bill as generously and as liberally as you could from the first, and not wait to be driven, or pressed, or shamed, to do it at a later stage? It may be urged that we ought to "take cheerfully the spoiling of our goods." Well, the goods are not ours, and I do not know that the words are a good motto for the conduct of trustees. I do not know that it is an excellence in a trustee to take cheerfully the spoiling of his goods; but whatever we ought to have done on our side, I do think it is plain that this attack ought not to have been made as it has. We know that those who are responsible for the Bill have had suggestions from Liberal Churchmen attached to their Party, who spoke honourably and frankly, and from distinguished Nonconformists (some of those who count for most in

1197
the country) showing the great uneasiness and dissatisfaction at the way you are treating the Church of England. They have gone so far that they have joined in common council and action with the Liberal Churchmen out of Parliament who belong to ourselves, and yet the Bill is pressed and we are told there can be no more concessions. The very notion of making the Bill a little more generous produces on the part of Welsh representatives that peculiar fiery temper with which we are familiar.
Then although I do not wish to do more than touch on this, because I think it is a politician's matter much more than a Bishop's, still one cannot help saying that the Government are applying for this of all purposes what is confessedly a most doubtful, and to a large part of the country a most exasperating, political expedient—I mean the political expedient which enables you to run Bills through without appealing to the country. It is pretty widely known what the country really feels about this Bill, and yet it is to go through in this sort of way. What I do feel is that where we ought at the best to have got a solution we have got instead an attack. As an attack this Bill has been pushed, and as an attack, accordingly, it has been and is resented. There has often in the past been a sort of feud in many respects between the representatives of the Church and the Liberal Party on many matters. I, for my part, greatly deprecate the idea that the Church is necessarily in antagonism to those who especially seek to represent movement and progress and who especially speak of their desire, a perfectly genuine desire, to do good to the less represented and poorer classes. That seems to me to be a great calamity so far as it has been true, but I think it has been greatly diminished of late years. I do not think it is true that the Church now takes one political line. Then there comes a measure like this, and we are back in all the old trouble. It is a belated fragment, I think, of an earlier time, the time when Liberationism bulked large in our public life, when Nonconformists and Churchmen looked upon each other as antagonists, without mutual knowledge. This Bill is brought in and renews all the old antagonism, and whether it is worth while in the interests of equality to produce a result of that kind, I leave it to the House to say.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LLANDAFF: My Lords, may I crave the indulgence of the House as this is the first time I have ventured to address your Lordships. I rise as representing a diocese which, although comparatively small in area, contains more than half the population of all Wales, and I therefore feel it my duty not to give a silent vote on this matter. May I first say, with the greatest possible respect to the Bishop of Hereford, who referred to the demonstrations, that I do not think if he had been present at some of the demonstrations which I have seen in the last week or two in London, Swansea, Huddersfield, Cheltenham, and so on, he could have, or would have, made use of the description he did in referring to the celebrated meeting in Ephesus long ago, when the people shouted for two hours "Great is Diana of the Ephesians," and they knew not wherefore they were come together. I think most of those who attended the various demonstrations knew wherefore they had come together, and felt strongly on the subject; and not only did they know themselves what they had come for, but they meant to make it known to others why they had come together, and what they wanted.
I submit that we are justified in calling upon the House to refuse a Second Reading to this Bill until it has been referred to the electors, and we are strongly confirmed in that view by the most striking evidence, the evidence given by the demonstrations which have taken place throughout the length and breadth of the country. There is a very strong feeling indeed against this Bill, much stronger than many members of this House give the country credit for. We were told by the right rev. Prelate that it was a pity we should stir up—I think he said—strife. We are not trying to stir up strife. We are simply taking this action because we believe it is our duty to do so, and we are simply standing in defence of a trust which is committed to us for those who are to come after us. We did not wish to have this controversy; it is very much against our will, and it has interfered very sadly indeed with our proper work which we long to get back to, and we resent very much that we should be driven away from our proper work to take up such work as this. We ask your Lordships to refuse a Second Reading to this Bill until the people of the country have full opportunity of knowing what it means, and

1199
of giving their vote upon it; and I have no doubt that the people will give a very different vote on the matter from that which they would have given a short time ago before they understood what it meant. They are now, I think, beginning to understand it.
We were told by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that in Wales the Church is separated and alienated from the mass of the people, and that that is due to several causes. I think he said the alienation was due to a certain extent to the fact that the Church had not taken its proper part in the advancement of the country with regard to education, and so forth. And we were told by an eminent speaker in another place lately that we owe to Nonconformity the giving to the Welsh people of the Bible in their own language and the Sunday school. I believe statements of this kind are made under a misapprehension of the facts of history. Those who have studied the history of Wales during the last 300 years or so will tell you that as regards the question of giving the Bible to the Welsh people in their own language, that was due to Bishop Morgan, and the great pioneer of Sunday schools was a clergyman of the Church of England, Griffith Jones, rector of Llanddowror, in Carmarthenshire. As for higher education and so on, I think your Lordships will bear me out that the question of higher education had been supported and taken up by Churchmen quite as much as by Nonconformists. The question of higher education was pressed upon the country and upon Parliament fifty or sixty years ago by a Welsh clergyman who wrote under the assumed name of "Veritas." He published a Plea for Higher Education in Wales and many other pamphlets, and probably did more than any one else to bring the question of higher education in Wales to the front. He afterwards became a Bishop of the Church in Wales, and he never failed to urge upon the country the pressing need of higher education in Wales—refer to the late Bishop of St. Asaph. I do not think it is true to say that Church-people have not exerted themselves in the cause of higher education and all the great movements of Wales. I admit that to a certain extent there has been an alienation of a certain portion of the Welsh people from the Church; but I do not think it is right to say that the Church has severed itself from the Welsh people as if the Welsh
1200
people are not Churchpeople. For myself, I am a Welshman and the son of a Welshman; we Bishops from Wales all speak Welsh and claim to know as much of the conditions as others who claim to speak on behalf of the Welsh Nonconformists. I have always tried to work with the Nonconformists, but this agitation and controversy is forced upon us and makes it difficult for us to co-operate as in the past, and I am perfectly sure that if this Bill becomes law it will make it ten times more difficult than it is now. But we live in the hope that this Bill will never become law, and that happiness and peace will develop more and more so that we shall get to the time when we shall work in harmony with one another as our friends beyond the Tweed are doing.
We are told that, after all, this Bill will not do us much harm. But what are the facts of the case in the diocese of Llandaff? We are struggling there against very great difficulties to do the proper work of the Church. We have a population which is increasing by 30,000 every year, and it is no easy matter to cope with that; but we are trying to do so in the best way we can, and, as has been admitted most generously by the Prime Minister and even by the Home Secretary, the Church has been for the last fifty or sixty years working hard and endeavouring with great success to regain its ground and make up for the past. In the diocese of Llandaff—I speak of what I know, but I believe it is the same all over Wales—all the people, the working men quite as much as the wealthy people, have been giving their time, labour, money, and energies towards the work of the Church to keep up with this enormously increased population. Six years ago we were able to raise in the diocese of Llandaff something like £90,000 for church building, maintenance, and other purposes; in the following year we raised about £100,000; in the next year over £110,000; and so on until last year when we raised about £145,000—increasing more than £10,000 every year.
You will say, If you are able to do this what harm is there in Disendowment? But we are not able to keep up with the growth of population, and now you come to us and tell us you are going to take away the large sum of £44,200 from the parochial endowments of £72,704, which are all we

1201
have now in the diocese of Llandaff. And what is going to be the result? I am only referring to the diocese of Llandaff. There are 109 parishes there where there is no Nonconformist minister. You may say, "But there is a chapel to which a minister from some other place goes." Well, there are fifty-three parishes where there is no chapel or minister, and that is in this diocese alone. If this Bill passes fifty-one parishes in the diocese of Llandaff will be left without a single penny of endowment, and fifteen parishes will be left with less than £20 a year. I ask, What will become of that sort of country parish? We are trying to do all we can to meet the enormous growth of population in the great industrial centres, and I do not think it is fair that we should be treated in this way. I most earnestly hope that your Lordships will pass the Amendment and refuse to give this Bill a Second Reading until the country has been able to express its views on the subject with the whole of the facts of the matter laid fairly and squarely before it.
The further Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY BILL. [H.L.]
Third Reading (which stands appointed for this day) put off till To-morrow.
FORGERY (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Committee of the Whole House (which stands appointed for Wednesday next) put off to Tuesday the 29th instant.
House adjourned at ten minutes past Eleven o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Three o'clock.