Sitting of 21 April 1914

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—
Inverness Water and Gas Provisional Order Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
Whitwell and District Gas Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
Local Government (No. 3) Bill,
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.

MERCHANT SHIPPING, 1912–13.
Copy presented of Return of Shipping Casualties and the Loss of Life for the year ended 30th June, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BANKRUPTCY (ENGLAND) GENERAL RULES).
Copy presented of the Bankruptcy (Administration Order) Rules, 1914, dated 4th April, 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copy presented of two Orders in Council, dated 30th March, 1914, under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
DOCKYARD PORTS REGULATION ACT, 1865.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 30th March, 1914, approving revised Regulations for the Dockyard Port of Portland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL DISCIPLINE ACT, 1866.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 30th March, 1914, approving revised General Orders for regulating the procedure of Naval Courts Martial [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 30th March, 1914, entitled the China (Amendment) Order in Council, 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
COPYRIGHT ACT, 1914.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 30th March, 1914, amending the Order in Council of 9th February, 1914, relating to Copyright in Italy [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
POLICE (COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS, ENGLAND AND WALES).
Copy presented of Report of His Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary for the year ended 29th September, 1913, with Statistical Tables appended [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
ARMY.
Copy presented of Correspondence relating to recent Events in the Irish Command [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ARMY COMMISSIONS (PROMOTION FROM THE RANKS).
Address for "Return as to the number of Commissions granted during each of the years from 1885 to 1913 inclusive (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 525, of Session 1912–13.)"—[Mr. John Ward.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  China (British Interests).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what steps His Majesty's Government is taking to safeguard British interests in the valley of the Yangtse where, in view of the financial activity of other Powers, no other than financial action can be effectual in this behalf?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): As I informed the hon. Member on the 8th instant, His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the necessity of safeguarding British interests in the Yangtse Valley. They are taking all possible steps to that end, but if the hon. Member suggests that His Majesty's Government should themselves advance money for this object, such action is not contemplated especially as there are British firms which are ready to take up projects which are properly secured and offer a fair profit.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask whether British firms are not now prejudiced by the fact that other Governments are assisting their nationals, and what steps the Government can take other than financial?
  Mr. ACLAND: We do not propose to finance doubtful propositions in the Yangtse Valley or anywhere else; and, if a concession is not worth taking up on its own merits, it is not worth our financing it when other people are not doing so.

  Persia.
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether a convoy of the Swedish gendarmerie was recently looted between Sultanabad and Kum; if so, whether the insecurity of roads leading from Southern to Northern Persia is prejudicing British business at Baghdad as well as on the shores of the Gulf, Manchester goods now being sent by parcel post through Russia in order to profit by
  730
  the peace and order secured by that Government in Northern Persia; and whether the interests of British trade in the Shah's dominions are receiving the attention of His Majesty's Government?
  Mr. ACLAND: I have received no official information in the sense of the first part of the question. His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the importance of restoring order and security on the southern roads in the interests of British trade and are giving every support to the Persian Government in their efforts in that direction. The answer to the third part is in the affirmative.

  China (Oil Concessions).
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether the agreement between the Standard Oil Company and the Chinese Republic includes the right to construct pipe lines and railways and a guarantee that the Republic shall acquire and make over to the company all lands needed for the development of its operations, and shall exclude other foreigners for a year from oil concessions in China; and whether His Majesty's Government is taking any steps to benefit British trade and British subjects in the opportunity afforded by the retirement of the United States from the loan consortium?
  Mr. ACLAND: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, the effect of the withdrawal of the American group from the six-Power consortium was that the American share of the loan was divided up amongst the remaining five Powers, whose position remained otherwise unchanged.

  British Interests in Pacific (Japan's Obligations).
  Mr. F. HALL (Dulwich)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if any alteration has taken place with regard to the obligations of Japan in reference to the protection of British interests in the Pacific since the last agreement was come to with the Australian and New Zealand Governments as to the naval strength to be maintained by Great Britain in Australasian waters; and, if so, whether he will state the date when such alteration was arrived at and what are the precise obligations of Japan in the matter?
  Mr. ACLAND: The answer is in the negative.

  Mexico.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked whether Mr. Cummins, the British Consul at Gomez Talacio, in Mexico, was threatened by General Villa and under duress was forced to carry a message by that General demanding the surrender to the Mexican rebels of the town of Torreon; whether any protest was made by the British Government at the treatment of Mr. Cummins; whether any representations were made to the Foreign Office with regard to the safety of certain oilfields in Mexico in which British capital was invested; and whether, as the result of those representations, other representations were made by the British Government to the United States Government, with the result that warships of the latter Government were sent to the disturbed area and the oilfields in question protected from the Mexican rebels?
  Mr. ACLAND: I have received no information with regard to the alleged treatment of Mr. Cummins by General Villa. Mr. Cummins resigned his appointment as British Vice-Consul on 9th March. With regard to the action of His Majesty's Government for the protection of British oil interests at Tampico, concerning the safety of which representations were made to me, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 14th instant to a private notice question by the hon. Member for Nottingham. The dispatch of United States warships at Tampico was, so far as I am aware, quite independent of the representations made by His Majesty's Government to the United States Government,
  Sir J. D. REES: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any damage has or has not been done to British interests in Tampico?
  Mr. ACLAND: I could not say for certain; perhaps the hon. Member will put a question down.

  INDIA.

    MILITARY FORCES AND CIVIL POWER.
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India, as regards the directions given by the Governor-General in Council on the 30th April, 1872, after the Kuka rebellion, whether they were published in the "Gazette of India"; whether they were meant to be a statement of the law for the
    732
    guidance of the magistrates when confronted with rebels with arms in their hands, gangs of dacoits banded together for the purpose of robbery and murder, persons in the act of waging war against the Crown, and all who aid and abet them, so as to authorise the magistrates and the military called to aid the civil power to use any degree of military force which might be necessary for the purpose of defeatng and breaking up such rebels or criminals; whether these directions have in any way been modified since 1872 so as to prevent civil or military officers taking action upon them in presence of such emergencies until the Government have decided whether the ordinary processes of law are sufficient to protect society, or whether the magistrate, confronted with armed bands of rebels or other criminals, is still held to the duty of preventing their escape and of attacking and defeating them without delay, or whether in all cases he must refer to the Government for instructions before using military aid?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Charles Roberts): The letter of the Government of India of the 30th April, 1872, was not published in the "Gazette of India." The Secretary of State does not read the particular paragraph to which my hon. Friend refers as a direction to magistrates, but as a descriptive statement of what the common law of England was at the time. It was strictly subordinate and subsidiary to the enunciation of principles that had been violated in the Kuka case. I am not aware that it has been modified by any later statement of a similar kind. It had no statutory authority. The Criminal Procedure Code invests magistrates with all needful powers for dealing with unlawful assemblies, and for employing force for the capture of criminals. It defines the conditions under which a magistrate may, on his own initiative, seek the aid of the military.

    TRIAL OF MR. SIM (BENGAL).
    Sir J. JARDINEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has information about the trial by the joint magistrate of Alipore, in Bengal, of a Mr. Sim, a European engineer, and some of his coolies, for an attack on the police in which Mr. Sim was sentenced to fine only and the coolies to imprisonment; whether the magistrate found as a fact that Mr. Sim ordered the coolies to make the

    733
    attack and that but for his action there would probably have been no disturbance; and whether any proceedings have been taken in the High Court to enhance the sentence on Mr. Sim or reduce those passed on the coolies?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The Secretary of State has ascertained that all the persons convicted by the magistrate appealed to the Sessions Court, with the result that Mr. Sim was acquitted and the sentences on nine coolies reduced. A further report is expected.
    Sir J. JARDINEasked whether Chapter 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been modified since 1903; whether any magistrate or officer in charge of a police station may command any unlawful assembly to disperse; whether, if it cannot be otherwise dispersed, and if it is necessary for the public security that it should be dispersed, the magistrate of the highest rank who is present may cause it to be dispersed by military force and may require any commissioned or non-commissioned officer in command of soldiers or volunteers to disperse it by military force; whether, when the public security is manifestly endangered and no magistrate can be communicated with, any commissioned officer of His Majesty's Army may disperse such assembly by military force; and whether inferior officers and soldiers are protected from prosecution in obeying such commands to act, and in what manner?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The answer to the first part is in the negative, and to the second, third, fourth, and fifth parts in the affirmative. In regard to the last part, no prosecution against an inferior officer or soldier obeying such a command can be instituted without the sanction of the Governor-General in Council; and the doing by such persons of any act in obedience to any order which they are bound to obey is declared to be no offence.

    ROYAL INDIAN MARINE.
    Colonel YATEasked whether the Report of Admiral Slade's Committee on the Royal Indian Marine has yet been considered by the Admiralty; and, if so, whether permission will now be given to the Government of India to arm the vessels of the Royal Indian Marine so as to enable these vessels to take their share in police and patrol work in the Persian Gulf and Indian seas and to afford the
    734
    people of India an opportunity of helping to strengthen the Imperial Naval forces in Indian waters?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: Admiral Sir Edmond Slade's Committee was appointed by the Government of India, with the approval of the Secretary of State. The Committee's Report has not been officially received or considered by the Secretary of State, and occasion has not yet arisen to consult the Admiralty as to its recommendations.
    Colonel YATE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman when the occasion will arise and whether anything has been done in this matter?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: It has not been officially communicated to the Secretary of State or the Government of India.

    INDIAN ARMY (REGIMENTAL SCHOOLS).
    Colonel YATEasked what sum is spent annually on regimental schools in the Indian Army; what is the pay of schoolmasters; whether any increased Grant has been made in aid of the regimental schools of the Indian Army during the present financial year; and whether the standard of education in the Indian Army is considered satisfactory?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The cost of regimental schools in the Indian Army is not shown separately in the accounts of the Government of India, and information is not available as to whether the Grant for 1914–15 has been increased. The pay of civilian schoolmasters varies from Rs. 20 to Rs. 25 per mensem, according to qualifications. Soldiers if so employed get Rs. 7 extra duty pay. The Secretary of State is not aware that the standard of education is considered other than satisfactory by the Government of India.
    Colonel YATE: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to find out whether any increased Grants will be given to the Indian Army in respect of schools this year or not?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I understand that is so, but I merely stated that we have no information whether the Grants have been increased.
    Colonel YATE: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly inquire?

    BANK FAILURES.
    Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has received reports of any general anxiety in the minds of the people of India as a result of recent bank failures; have deposits in the Post Office Savings Banks increased significantly of late, or is further hoarding or melting of gold for ornaments suspected; are legal proceedings contemplated against any of the persons connected with the management of the banks referred to; and are any alterations of the law relating to banking in India under consideration?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The information received is that the recent bank failures in India have weakened confidence in banking institutions; that deposits in the Savings Banks have in consequence materially increased, but that there is no clear evidence of increased hoarding or melting of gold. Legal proceedings have been taken, or are contemplated, in cases where the liquidators' reports indicate fraudulent management. The regulation of banking in India has for some time been under the consideration of the Government.

    FAMINE (AGRA AND OUDH).
    Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give further information as to the condition of the famine districts in the united provinces of Agra and Oudh; are the people becoming emaciated or have they begun to wander; or are their substantial resources greater, and are they showing more confidence and hope than in former famines; is the price of imported fodder prohibitive or is any large proportion of the cattle being saved?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The Viceroy in his speech on 24th March, at the close of the Legislative Council Sessions at Delhi, gave a hopeful account of the situation in the drought affected districts of the United Provinces at Agra and Oudh. He stated that the agricultural population had a series of good seasons behind them and not inconsiderable stocks, that there was promise of an excellent harvest in a great part of the Punjab, and that prices in the United Provinces were rising less rapidly than might have been expected. The latest reports are to the effect that there is little emaciation and little wandering, and that the general health and condition of the labouring and cultivating classes is
    736
    not unsatisfactory. General rain has recently fallen throughout the distressed area, which is expected to improve the situation to some extent. Fodder is scarce, and serious loss of cattle in some areas in unavoidable, but the Government is importing hay and advancing money for the purchase of fodder and for deepening wells.
    Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON: May I ask my hon. Friend if he has seen an official Report from the United Provinces that hundreds of thousands of animals are dying from want of food at the present time?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I have seen an official Report from the United Provinces, but I have not seen the fact reported to which the hon. Member refers.

    NEW IRRIGATION COLONIES (PUNJAB).
    Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will state, in connection with the increasing profits anticipated in the Punjab from the sale of waste lands in the new irrigation colonies, on what terms as to the payment of land revenue, etc., these lands are being offered or are to be offered for sale?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: Lands in the new colonies are subject to the payment of canal water rate, land revenue and cesses as in other parts of the Punjab, but it is usual to fix the land revenue assessment at a specially favourable rate for the first few years from the commencement of colonisation.

    AGRA AND OUDH (EXECUTIVE COUNCIL).
    Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give any information concerning the creation of an Executive Council for the united provinces of Agra and Oudh; has a proposal on the subject been made by the Government of India; and is the question now under consideration of the Secretary of State?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: The Secretary of State is not in a position to make any statement on the matter.

    FIRES IN CALCUTTA AND BOMBAY.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State has any information regarding the frequent fires which have

    737
    lately taken place in Calcutta and Bombay, whereby public and private property of value has been destroyed; and whether such are attributable to the action of conspirators against British rule?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: No official information has been received. The Secretary of State has no reason to suppose that the fires are due to the cause mentioned by the hon. Member.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the Secretary of State aware that that belief is, nevertheless, widely held in India?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I do not know that the Secretary of State is aware of the fact. He has no reason to take the view which the hon. Member suggests.

    MURDER OF INSPECTOR GHOSE (BENGAL).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under Secretary of State for India if he will state why the Bengali youth Boy, charged with the murder of Inspector Ghose, of the Bengal police, was not sent before the special tribunal of three judges without a jury under the Act of 1908, in view of the unwillingness of Bengali juries to convict Bengalis of so-called political crimes; and what action the Government of India proposes to take in view of Mr. Justice Stephen's refusal to pass an order that Boy's release was equivalent to acquittal?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: When the Act of 1908 was introduced in the Legislative Council, the Mover (Sir Harvey Adamson) explained that a considerable discretion was left with Government, and that anarchical crimes which were simple cases could properly be tried by the ordinary Courts, while in long and complicated cases there would be advantages in referring the trial to the Special Tribunal. The present case was dealt with on these principles, and fell naturally into the first category. When a prisoner has been discharged but not acquitted, the High Court may direct a further inquiry, but I am not able to say whether this course is being taken in the Roy case. The question is one for the Court, not for the Government of India.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLES: Has the boy actually been released?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: Yes, Sir; but he was not acquitted.

    PERSIA (LOAN BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under Secretary of State for India whether he
    738
    has official information to the effect that the Governor-General of India said in his Budget speech that the Government of India had lent the Persian Government a considerable sum of money for the creation of a force of gendarmerie under Swedish officers?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: In his speech at the closing of the session of the Legislative Council at Delhi, the Viceroy made a statement to the effect mentioned by the hon. Member. I would refer the hon. Member to a Paper presented to Parliament in August last giving details of the advance made jointly by the British and Indian Governments for gendarmerie purposes in Fars.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is it not an entirely new departure for Indian funds to be devoted to such a purpose; and is there any precedent for it?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I will see if there is a precedent.

  Civil Employment (Retired Army Officers).
  Colonel YATEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under the rules framed by His Majesty's Treasury under Section 6 of the Superannuation Act of 1887, officers of the Army on the retired list who accept civil employment under Government or any public Department do not draw the full pay on such appointments, but have to submit to a deduction of not less than 10 per cent. and up to the full amount of their retired pay, as the Treasury may determine; and whether, seeing that these officers have earned their retired pay by previous service, and the full pay of the civil appointments by doing the full work of the appointments, he will take steps to have these Treasury rules amended and the declaration at present required from officers when drawing their retired pay abolished?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The legislation of 1887 was very carefully considered at the time, and so far as I am aware nothing has occurred since which would render desirable its repeal, or an alteration of the statutory rules.
  Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider whether the statutory rules might be amended by him with advantage to the service?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I find that the Prime Minister went into this question very elaborately in 1907, and I will send the hon. and gallant Gentleman a copy of the reply he gave then. I should like him to read it.

  Undeveloped Land Duty.
  Mr. NEWMANasked the total acreage of land in the United Kingdom which has been valued and assessed for Undeveloped Land Duty as on the 31st March, 1914?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The area of the properties valued up to the 31st March, 1914, in respect of which assessments to Undeveloped Land Duty had by that date been made was some 800,000 acres.

  Valuation of Agricultural Hereditaments.
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, subject to the decision of Mr. Justice Scrutton in the Norton Malreward and Chells cases on 2Sth February, any valuations of agricultural hereditaments or assessments for duty on such hereditaments have been made by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue; and, if not, whether any temporary reduction has been made in the staff of the Land Valuation Department?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The service of valuations and assessments to Undeveloped Land Duty on agricultural properties affected by the judgments to which the hon. Member refers have been suspended. For the rest, I would refer to the answer I gave on the 16th ultimo to the hon. and gallant Member for the Tonbridge Division of Kent.
  Mr. NEWMANasked whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have as yet been able to come to a decision with regard to an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Scrutton delivered on 28th February in the cases known as the Norton Malreward and Chells cases?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: An appeal has been entered in the former case raising all the points of principle decided against the Crown in both cases.

  Local Taxation (Departmental Committee).
  Major HOPEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Departmental Committee on Local Taxation has yet commenced to take evidence in Scotland?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer is in the negative.
  Major HOPE: Is there any special reason for this continued procrastination and delay, and will not Scottish interests be adversely affected in regard to local taxation in consequence of this delay?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the interests of Scotland will be well looked after.
  Major HOPE: Why cannot the Committee commence to take Scottish evidence? I understand they have been doing nothing for three months?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We certainly cannot wait for the Report of the Committee on the Scottish case before we take-action.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: If there are any Grants given to England, will the right hon. Gentleman take good care to see that equivalent Grants are given to Scotland?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think that-Scottish Members will see to that.

  Scottish Fishermen (State Loans).
  Captain WARINGasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution passed at the annual meeting of the Scottish. Fisheries Association at Buckie on 3rd April, in which the Report of the Departmental Committee on North Sea Fisheries in respect of the question of State loans was condemned as not representing fairly the views of Scottish fishermen; whether he is satisfied that the composition of the Committee in respect of all its members and the methods adopted of obtaining evidence were such as to secure an impartial judgment; and, if not, will he order a fresh inquiry into the question?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The answer to the first portion of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative, subject to the observation that in the copy of the resolution sent to me it was the evidence given before the Committee and not the Report itself which was criticised on the ground mentioned. The answer to the second portion of the question is in the affirmative, and I do not think that further inquiry is, necessary.

  East Renfrewshire (Register of Voters).
  Captain GILMOURasked the Secretary for Scotland what steps have been taken by the town clerk of Glasgow to implement the directions of the sheriff of Renfrew and Bute under his direction of 30th January last; and if a register of voters for East Renfrewshire for the year 1913–14 has yet been made up in terms of the Statute governing Parliamentary elections?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am informed that a register of voters has been made up which, in the view of the sheriff of Renfrew and Bute, is in accordance with the statutory requirements.

  Small Holdings (Scotland).
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Secretary for Scotland, with reference to the refusal of the Board of Agriculture to proceed with a scheme for the registration of Mr. James Knox, of Cawfaulds, near Hawick, as a small holder, why the scheme is not being proceeded with at an early date, seeing that Mr. Knox has received notice to quit the dwelling-house at the Whitsuntide term and that the dwelling-house forms part of the subjects which Mr. Knox desires to have as a small holding?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am informed that the applicant wanted the most valuable part of Cawfaulds farm. The remainder of the farm could not have been let as a separate subject and the proposal was not one which the Board of Agriculture could recommend.

  Scottish Land Court and Board of Agriculture (Annual Reports).
  Sir G. YOUNGERasked the Secretary for Scotland when the Annual Reports of the Scottish Land Court and the Board of Agriculture will be presented to Parliament?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It is hoped that the two Reports mentioned by the hon. Baronet will be ready for presentation and issue by the middle of next month.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the other day it was suggested that the matter should be discussed on the Scottish Estimates, and will he bear in mind that that cannot be done until the Report is presented?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am aware of that fact. I could have wished that the Report would be out by now. As the hon. Baronet knows, both parties concerned are suffering a good deal from pressure of work.

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools (Scotland).
  Major HOPEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Committee to inquire into the conditions of reformatory and industrial schools in Scotland has commenced to take evidence?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Committee has not yet been appointed, so the answer to the question is in the negative, but I hope soon to be in a position to announce its appointment.
  Major HOPE: Will Scotland participate in the grant of 56s. per year per child which is the share England is to get as from 1st April, 1914?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am afraid I have no authority to answer that question in the affirmative.
  Major HOPE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries and see that the interests of Scottish schools are not adversely affected?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I have made inquiries.

  Johne's Disease.
  Mr. WATSONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of Johne's disease being a highly contagious one, and its recent increase, the Board are prepared to schedule this disease as a contagious one under the Diseases of Animals Acts?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis, for Mr. Runciman): The question of scheduling Johne's disease under the Diseases of Animals Acts will have to be considered when the investigations now in progress are completed.
  Mr. WATSON: When is the investigation likely to be completed?
  Mr. LEWIS: It is difficult to say at the present moment when the investigation will be completed.

  Somaliland.
  Mr. F. HALL (Dulwich)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if any Report has been received of a raid of Dervishes recently on cattle pastures occupied by men of the Musa Abokr clan of the Habr Toljala tribe, when thirteen herdsmen were surrounded at night and twelve of them murdered; if the men belong to a tribe which is nominally under British protection, if the place where the occurrence took place is within this country's sphere of influence; and whether any and, if so, what steps will be taken to punish these repeated attacks on friendly tribes?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I have no information beyond what has appeared in the Press, but I will communicate with the Commissioner of Somaliland on the subject. The question of future steps to be taken to deal with Dervish raids is engaging my careful consideration.
  Mr. F. HALL: I beg to give notice that I will repeat the question this day week.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    INSURANCE AGENTS (APPROVED SOCIETIES).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, whether insurance agents who are employed to do the work of approved societies are partly paid for such services out of money voted by Parliament; and, if so, whether the House will now be informed what remuneration is paid to them for such services?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The Vote provides for the fixed statutory proportion of the funds for defraying the expenses incurred by approved societies and chargeable to their administration accounts and not for the remuneration of the employés of societies as such. The answer to the second part of the question is, therefore, in the negative. The rates of such remuneration are determined by the terms of employment made by societies with their employés and are not, nor are required to be, within the knowledge of the Commissioners.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Can the hon. Gentleman say why Members of the House are encouraged to interest themselves in the remuneration of doctors who
    744
    are paid 7s. 6d. per head of insured persons, but discouraged and every obstacle put in their way to interest themselves in the remuneration of agents who are paid only from 1s. to 1s. 6d. per head of insured persons?
    Mr. BENN: I do not desire to discourage my hon. Friend from putting anything.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: In order to encourage me, will he give me information with regard to the agents in the same way as information is given with regard to doctors?
    Mr. BENN: This is not a matter which would be the proper subject of inquiry among societies by the Commissioners '
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the general policy of the Government to see that all employés employed in connection with any Government undertaking are employed under fair conditions?
    Mr. BENN: The employés of these societies are only in a very secondary degree paid out of public funds.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is it not the case that the whole of the remuneration paid to those persons is paid out of money taken compulsorily from insured persons all over the country?
    Mr. BENN: No, my hon. Friend is mistaken. Part of their time is paid for by a fund into which contributions are paid by the State.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether the Insurance Commissioners have addressed any inquiry to any of the following approved societies, namely, the Prudential, the National Amalgamated, the Liverpool Victoria Legal, the Royal Liver, and the Scottish Legal, as to what remuneration is paid to the insurance agents employed to do their work in respect of such work; and whether any of these societies have refused or are unwilling to supply the information?
    Mr. BENN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part does not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Has the hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that the approved societies desire to conceal the remuneration which they pay to their employés?
    Mr. BENN: No, Sir.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether the Insurance Commissioners have received any information as to the remuneration which is paid to insurance agents who are employed to do the work of approved societies, in respect of such work; and, if so, on what ground this information is withheld from the House?
    Mr. BENN: The Insurance Commissioners have not received information from approved societies' as to the rates of remuneration paid by them to their employés.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked in what respects the position of local insurance committees differs from approved societies so as to make it proper to recommend that a Fair-Wages Clause should be inserted in contracts made by the insurance committees but not proper to recommend that a Fair-Wages Clause should be inserted in contracts made by approved societies; whether the determining factor in making the recommendation to the committees was that, although not Government Departments, they were nevertheless engaged in spending public money; and whether approved societies are likewise engaged in spending public money?
    Mr. BENN: An approved society is defined by Section 23 of the National Insurance Act, 1911. In nearly every case the society, or the parent body of which it is a separate section, carries on other business than that of national insurance, and employs the organisation created for that other business for the purposes of national insurance. No comparison can, therefore, be made between these bodies and insurance committees, which are bodies created specially and solely in connection with the administration of certain benefits under the National Insurance Acts.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is it not the case that the doctors who are on the panel obtain a large part of their remuneration and earnings for work other than insurance work on the panel?
    Mr. BENN: Yes, I think that is so.

  Regent's Canal (Drowning Cases).
  Mr. BOYTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a recent inquest on the body of a boy of thirteen years who was drowned in the
  746
  Regent's Canal, St. Marylebone, by Grove End Road; whether he is aware that no less than six children from the St. Marylebone district have been drowned in this canal during the last two years; and whether he will instruct the Commissioner of Police to place officers on duty at certain dangerous points, particularly during the summer time, during school holidays, after school hours, and on Saturdays and Sundays?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): My attention has been called to the deaths of children from drowning in the Regent's Canal. The canal is private property, and the obligation to make secure the approaches and to deal with trespassers rests upon the Canal Company, who have statutory powers for the purpose. I do not think the police should be employed to prevent trespass in private grounds, but I will make further inquiry as to what steps can be taken to ensure that dangerous access to the canal by children shall be prevented.
  Mr. BOYTON: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that I received a similar answer on a previous occasion—I think from his predecessor? The Canal Company, the education authority and the borough council, and the police authorities are always very sympathetic at these frequent inquests.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is giving information and not asking it.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman know at what particular points the most frequent accidents occur?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think the point raised in the question is one of the danger spots.

  Drunkenness (Convictions).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the increase in the number of charges connected with drunkenness in 1912 as compared with previous years; whether he is aware of an increase from 89,937 in 1911 to 92,443 in 1912 in Scotland and an increase from 186,182 in 1911 to 197,936 in 1912 in England and Wales; whether any explanation can be given of this simultaneous increase all over the country during 1912, seeing that there had been a steady decline for a number of years; whether any orders, instructions, suggestions, or regulations have been

  747
  issued from the Home Office with reference to the deficit in the police pension funds and the loss of income to those funds from the decrease in the number of charges and the consequent loss of fines for offences under the Licensing Acts; and whether any of these fines, or any portion thereof, are paid to the police pension funds?
  Mr. McKENNA: I cannot answer for Scotland, but I am aware of the figures for England and Wales to which the hon. Member draws attention. The increase in proceedings and convictions for drunkenness in 1912 was a continuation, at practically the same rate, of the increase which the figures for 1911 had shown over those for 1910. The causes of the fluctuations in these figures are extremely difficult to assess. The matter is discussed from year to year in the Introduction to the annual volumes of Licensing Statistics, to which I would refer the hon. Member. No orders, instructions, suggestions, or regulations of the nature referred to in the question have been issued from the Home Office. Fines for offences under the Licensing Acts are generally paid to the police pension funds, but as any deficiency in a police pension fund is by law made good from the local rates, such fund is in no sense dependent upon the revenue from fines.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the increase spread over the whole country or is it confined to special areas?
  Mr. McKENNA: That is a very interesting point. I could not answer without reference to the figures.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an increase in the pension fund follows an increase in the consumption of drink?
  Mr. McKENNA: I believe that is the case.
  Mr. WATT: Is it not a fact that the pension fund is dependent on convictions for drunkenness?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, it is not in the least dependent on the convictions for drunkenness.
  Mr. CROFT: Is it not a fact that increased convictions for drunkenness have synchronised with the decrease of public-houses under recent legislation?
  Mr. McKENNA: I should have to examine the figures in order to see whether increases have taken place in those districts where the number of public-houses has been reduced.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it not a fact, borne out by the licensing statistics, that there is no connection whatever between the number of convictions for drunkenness and the number of licences?
  Mr. McKENNA: I could not answer the question as broadly as it is put by my hon. Friend.

  Jury System.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked if the Reports of the Departmental Committee on the jury system have been considered; and when will legislation on the subject be proposed?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Report has been considered, but the Prime Minister stated in the House, in reply to a question, last month that he feared it would not be possible to introduce legislation on this subject in the present Session.

  New Zealand (Naval Defence).
  Mr. F. HALL (Dulwich)asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the speech recently made by Colonel Allen, the New Zealand Minister of Defence, criticising the present policy of the Admiralty in depending for the protection of British interests in the Pacific on the treaty with Japan, and suggesting that it was unreasonable that New Zealand should be expected to contribute towards expenditure in the Imperial Navy when it was allowed no voice in the policy adopted; if any communications on the subject have passed between the Home and the New Zealand Government; and if he will lay upon the Table the Papers relating to the matter?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I have seen what has appeared in the public Press on this subject, but no official communication as regards the speech has been received. A Blue Book on the subject of Australasian Naval Defence is on the point of being issued by the Colonial Office.
  Mr. F. HALL: Has there or has there not been any breach of agreement with the Australasian Government as suggested by the Imperial Officer of Defence?
  The PRIME MINISTERS: I must ask for notice.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman now say whether any correspondence has passed between the Admiralty and the New Zealand Government in regard to a Conference being held this year to discuss this very question?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that arises, but I will inquire about that.

  Weights and Measures Acts.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the advisability of consolidating the Weights and Measures Acts and the Orders made thereunder?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): The law relating to weights and measures was consolidated by the Weights and Measures Act, 1878. Since then there have been some additions and amendments to the general law relating to the subject, and a Select Committee is now considering whether any further provisions for protecting purchasers of goods from short weight or measures are desirable. Should that Committee recommend legislation, the question of consolidating as well as amending the existing law will be considered.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: How many Acts have been passed and how many Orders have come into force since 1878?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I must ask for notice. I have not the details.

  Exports.
  Mr. CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the value of exports per head of population in 1913 from the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Belgium, and Holland?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The value of exports per head of population in 1913 from the United Kingdom was £11 8s. 3d.; from Switzerland, £14 3s. 3d.; from Australia, £15, or, including bullion and specie, £15 12s. 10d. The value per head of exports from Belgium was £18 14s. 6d., but this figure includes a certain amount of non-Belgian goods. Figures for New Zealand are not available for 1913, but in 1912 the value of exports per head was £19 2s. 6d. In the case of the Netherlands the values assigned to exports are official
  750
  values, which have remained unchanged for a long period and bear little relation to present prices. The result is to exaggerate greatly the apparent value of Netherland exports, which are also swollen by a large amount of goods not of native production. On the above basis the nominal value of the exports from the Netherlands amounted in 1912 to £42 3s. 11d. per head of population.

  Political Pensions.
  Mr. CHARLES PRICEasked the Prime Minister what are the terms of the declaration made by an ex-Cabinet Minister before he can receive a political pension; whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the amount of the personal estate of the late Lord Cross has been sworn at £79,299, and that Lord Cross for over twenty years prior to his death received a pension of £2,000 a year; whether, in these circumstances, the payment of a pension is contrary to the condition on which such pensions are tenable; and, if so, whether he will take steps to recover the sum of £40,760 which has been drawn by Lord Cross?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As required by the Act 4 and 5 Will. IV., cap. 24, sec. 6, re-enacted by the Political Offices Pension Act, 1869 (32 and 33 Vict., cap. 60), a declaration must be made by the applicant to the effect that his total income is inadequate to maintain his station in life. It has been customary of recent years for an undertaking to be given by the applicant, in addition to the signed declaration, to surrender the pension in the event of his pecuniary circumstances improving to a material extent, but there is no trace of any such undertaking having been given in the case of the late Lord Cross. I therefore do not see my way to take any further steps in the matter.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: How many appointments have been made by the present Government to similar pensions?
  The PRIME MINISTER: None.
  Earl WINTERTON: How many jobs?
  Mr. PRICE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will revise his decision in view of the fact that Lord Cross was in office between twelve and thirteen years and received something like £60,000 to £65,000 in that time?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As I have already said the conditional undertaking which was required in recent years does not seem to have been exacted from Lord Cross.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: May I ask if that conditional undertaking is now being exacted from those who are receiving similar pensions?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think there are any similar pensions.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that, one Noble Lord has become a director of eleven companies since he received a pension?
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Who is to be the judge of the difference in the pecuniary circumstances—the pensioner himself or the Government?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is left to the honour of the pensioner.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for War how many clerks are employed in the Army Ordnance Department at Island Bridge, Dublin; how many of these are serving soldiers; how many ex-soldiers; how many civilians; and whether any of the work required of the clerical staff is of such a nature that it could not be performed by soldiers or ex-soldiers?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): There are thirty-seven clerks employed, of whom twenty-two are serving soldiers, twelve ex-soldiers, reservists or pensioners, and three civilians. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. Preference is given, in the selection of these clerks, to men who have served with credit in the Army or Navy.

    FACTORIES AND DEPOTS (WAGES).
    Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary of State for War if he is yet in a position to make any statement in respect to the wages of labourers in the department factories and depots?
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office when the rise of the minimum rates of wages in the various Departments under his control will come into operation and the increase that it gives to individual sections of employés in the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Baker): It has been decided to raise the minimum wage for adult unskilled labour in the Ordnance factories and other War Department establishments in the London area by 1s. I hope to issue the necessary orders at an early date.

    CAVALRY HORSES.
    Mr. F. HALL (Dulwich)asked the Secretary of State for War if, in connection with the Easter training of Yeomanry, the Westminster Dragoons and Rough Riders utilised the horses of the Regular Cavalry; how many horses were lent to the Yeomanry for this purpose and from what regiments; and whether it is proposed that in time of war the horses of the Cavalry regiments shall be shared with the Yeomanry in this manner?
    Mr. TENNANT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Five officers and 133 other ranks of the Rough Riders were mounted on horses of the 18th Hussars, and ten officers and 154 other ranks of the Westminster Dragoons, on the horses of the 4th Dragoon Guards. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. F. HALL: May I ask whether the cavalry were given a holiday while the horses were being used by the Territorials?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir.
    Mr. F. HALL: Why not?
    Mr. PIRIE: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the desirability of giving the horses a holiday in view of the fact that it is becoming more and more the practice of the Territorial Cavalry to drill on Sundays, not even giving one day's rest in the week to the horses?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is quite obvious that the horses are required to be kept in hard condition, and that they require exercise for that purpose. There is no harm in giving the horses a proper amount of exercise. Care is taken that no horse will be over-exercised.
    Colonel GREIG: Is it not a fact that it has been stated at the Territorial Association for London that the War Office authorities are justified at this moment in saying that horses are in existence for mobilisation purposes, and are in existence in the county area?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir, that is so.

  Imperial Wireless Chain.
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the statement made on 14th July, 1913, by his predecessor that, under certain conditions, the second three stations of the Imperial Wireless Chain might be transferred from the original contractors to others whose system may be proved to be more efficient or more economical, he can say whether, in the case of the second three stations, the Marconi Company are going to employ the Goldschmidt system, which they have recently bought, or their own for these stations?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): I am unable at present to give the information required by the hon. Member, as the specifications for the wireless apparatus at the Imperial stations have not yet been settled.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who were the British delegates at the Conference upon international wireless time signals, held in Paris in October, 1912, upon the invitation of the French Bureau des Longitudes; if he will state or alternatively lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the Instructions given by the Government to such delegates; and whether they were to the effect that no co-operation in the scheme could then or thereafter be afforded by Great Britain or her Oversea Dominions?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The British delegates were: The Astronomer Royal; Captain J. F. Parry, Royal Navy, Assistant Hydrographer; the Director of the Meteorological Office; and Commander A. E. Silverton, Royal Navy, of His Majesty's ship "Vernon." No Instructions were issued to the delegates.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether, as the result of the International Conference on wireless time signals which took place in Paris in October, 1912, and which was attended by four delegates appointed by His Majesty's Government, and of the establishment of an executive body known as the Bureau Internationale de l'Heure, with headquarters in Paris, a preliminary list of high-power wireless stations organised to transmit time signals at slated hours has been issued; whether, although this list contains stations in every other part of the world, it contains no station in any part of the British Empire;
  754
  and whether, with one-fifth of the world's territory under British rule and in view of the preponderance of British shipping interests, the Government will consider the desirability of hearty co-operation with other nations in perfecting the international wireless time signal scheme discussed at and approved by the Conference?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that the Conference which met in Paris in October, 1912, drew up a list of thirteen stations which they expected to be ready on the 1st July, 1913, to act as centres for sending out time signals. None of these were British stations. The British delegates at the Conference made certain recommendations for the establishment of time signals at wireless stations in the Dominions and Colonies which would have the effect of greatly increasing the value of the scheme, and I understand that these recommendations have been brought to the notice of the Governments concerned. I would suggest that any further question on this point might be addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the non-establishment of any station throughout the British. Empire indicates that the Government disapproves of the scheme for establishing such stations?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No.

  Cable Services (Australasia).
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the Postmaster-General (1) whether, in compliance with the recommendation of the Dominions Royal Commission, he can say whether any of the formalities complained of by the Royal Commission connected with the sending of deferred and week-end messages to Australasia will be abolished; and whether the extra charge made to the public for the service communication will be abolished; (2) whether, in view of the fact that' the members of the Dominions Royal Commission in their interim Report said that the present high rates press more heavily on the community there than on that in the United Kingdom, and that the representations from the Dominions which are made from time to time in favour of the construction of an Atlantic cable receive less consideration than they deserve, he can say what is the present state of negotiation between the Australian Governments and the Home

  755
  Government with reference to the calling of a subsidiary Imperial Conference to consider the question of laying a State-owned cable across the Atlantic; and (3) whether, in compliance with the recommendations of the Dominions Royal Commission, he will issue instructions that, as far as the United Kingdom is concerned, week-end messages will in future be transmitted by telegraph in the United Kingdom, both ways, without extra charge?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is not proposed to modify the conditions to be fulfilled by the senders of deferred and week-end letter telegrams. They form a safeguard against abuse, and could not be relaxed without the consent of the administrations concerned. As regards the proposed subsidiary Imperial Conference to consider the question of laying a State-owned cable across the Atlantic, the hon. Member was informed by my predecessor in February, 1913, that a dispatch had been sent to the Commonwealth Government on the subject. No reply has yet been received to that dispatch. As stated in reply to the hon. Member's question yesterday, week-end letter telegrams will on and after the 1st proximo be forwarded by telegraph both ways in this country if it is necessary in order to secure delivery on the Tuesday. This service will be performed without extra charge.
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked whether the recommendation that a daily cable-letter service with Australasia should be established is receiving further consideration from the General Post Office, in view of the disagreement with the arguments put forward by the chairman of the Pacific Cable Board expressed by the Dominions Royal Commission?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): The matter is one which primarily concerns the Pacific Cable Board, who are not at present prepared to consider the suggestion.

  Vaccination (Post Office).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Postmaster-General whether unvaccinated persons are granted annuities on more favourable terms than those who are vaccinated; and, if not, will he explain why this is not done, seeing that his Department assumes, on the recommendation of the National Debt Commissioners,
  756
  that those who are unvaccinated are more liable to contract small-pox and die from it than are the vaccinated?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Annuities are granted on the same terms to vaccinated and unvaccinated persons. An applicant for an annuity is not required to furnish any evidence as regards health.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that many of the principal life insurance offices do not now make any difference in the rates charged on the lives of unvaccinated as compared with vaccinated persons; whether he will state on what date the National Debt Commissioners recommended the differential treatment of unvaccinated persons as compared with the vaccinated under the life insurance scheme of the Post Office; whether he is aware that conscientious objection to vaccination has been recognised by the State since 1898; and whether he is aware that life insurance companies which do not impose restrictions of the character mentioned upon the assured are getting business which would otherwise be done through his Department?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am aware that there is diversity of practice among the life insurance offices with regard to the acceptance of proposals for life insurance from unvaccinated persons. The question of the acceptance of an unvaccinated person under the life insurance scheme of the Post Office first arose about two years ago.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    COAL AND REPAIRS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what were the quantities and values of the coal supplied to the Admiralty in 1905–6, 1911–12, and 1913–14; and what was the cost of repairs in each of these years?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): I am advised that it would not be in the public interest to give the particulars asked for in the first part of the question. As regards the second part of the question, the direct expenditure on repairs and alterations of His Majesty's ships generally in the years referred to was as follows:—

    1905–06

    …

    …

    £1,582,160

    1911–12

    …

    …

    £2,690,444

    1913–14

    …

    …

    £3,319,695 (estimated)

  Public Auditors.
  Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSONasked the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury if he has appointed as public auditors under the Industrial and Provident Acts Mr. H. Goudie, Liberal agent, Consett, county Durham, and Mr. Murray, secretary of the Hetton Downs Co-operative Society, county Durham; and, if so, what certificates or other qualifications these persons possess to indicate their ability to perform the duties of public auditors?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Illingworth): Mr. Goudie was appointed a public auditor in January, 1912, and his appointment has been annually renewed. In a locality where professional accountants were not available, Mr. Goudie appeared to have gained considerable experience in accountancy in connection with public undertakings in the district, and had then acted for many years as an auditor of the Consett Co-operative Society. Mr. Goudie's present occupation is manager of the Consett Cooperative Society. He has never been a Liberal agent, but has acted as election agent. He has conducted two audits. Mr. C. H. Murray was first appointed a public auditor in January, 1913, and his appointment was renewed for 1914. He was the only applicant from the Hetton-le-Hole district, had been twenty-eight years engaged in industrial society work, and concurrently for seventeen years secretary to a large friendly society in the county. He has conducted no audits since his appointment. In past years, when friendly and industrial and provident societies resorted largely to lay auditors, the Treasury appointed men of this class and experience in localities where professional men were not readily available. In view of the Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment) Act of last year, which makes compulsory the audit by public auditors of the accounts of all industrial and provident societies, the Treasury, acting in conjunction with the Registry of Friendly Societies, is now scrutinising much more severely the qualifications of all applicants for these positions. In connection with the list issued early this year, the chief aim of the Treasury was to add to the list only those men—and there have been a large number—possessing undoubted qualifications, but in a year of transition in regard to audit work it was not thought desirable to add
  758
  to the complication which changes of this character involve by removing from the list of public auditors the names of any gentlemen who have held the position in past years. It is, however, the intention of the Treasury, before the list for 1915 is issued, to investigate closely the qualifications of all those public auditors whose appointments have been renewed from year to year, but who have not been engaged to a substantial extent in such audit work. I should like to emphasise the fact that political considerations carry no weight in regard to these appointments.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: Quite apart from the merits of these individual cases, would my hon. Friend consider the desirability of making a statement to the effect that recommendations from Members of the House of Commons, on cither side, will be treated as a disqualification?
  Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I would prefer that hon. Members did not write to me, because it would lighten my correspondence considerably. At the same time, I welcome any criticisms of appointments that are made. I would like to inform the House that over a thousand have been made this year.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the number of appeals lodged by pension officers against the decisions of local sub-pension committees in the county Sligo during the past twelve months; and in how many cases the appeals were successful, and the number of cases dismissed?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Two hundred and forty-seven appeals were received by the Local Government Board from pension officers against decisions of pension committees in Sligo county during the year ended 31st December, 1913. Of this number, 154 were upheld by the Local Government Board, in ninety-two cases the Board differed from the pension officer, and one case is at present under consideration.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary whether the Congested Districts Board have approached Mr. R. St. G. Robinson, J.P., of Sligo, with a view to the purchase of the grazing farm of Old-rock, Cloonoghill, E. Division, Tubber-curry Union,

  759
  county Sligo, now occupied by him; whether he is aware that twenty families were capriciously evicted from this farm forty years ago by the late Johnston Park, although their rents were paid up; and whether, seeing that many of the descendants of these evicted tenants are squatting on patches of reclaimed bog in the neighbourhood of this farm, steps will be taken to have it purchased so that congestion may be relieved?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have not approached Mr. Robinson regarding a sale of the lands of Oldrock referred to, and they have no information regarding the alleged evictions mentioned in the question. Inquiries will now be made regarding the property.

  Assaults on Strike Breakers (Dublin).
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Thomas Daly, who was recently sentenced to two years' and one year's imprisonment, both sentences to run concurrently, for assaults on two strike-breakers; whether he is aware that Daly had previously stood his trial on a charge of murder and was found not guilty; and whether, in view of the ordeal through which Daly has passed and of the fact that his employer testified to his being a sober, honest, and hardworking man, he will consider the advisability of having at least a portion of the sentence remitted?
  Mr. BIRRELL: My attention has been called to this ease. The facts are as stated. The exercise of the prerogative of mercy is a matter entirely for the Lord Lieutenant, who I am sure will consider carefully any representations made to him on behalf of the prisoner.

  Irish Local Government Board (Mr. Alfred Tennyson's Appointment).
  Mr. F. HALL(Dulwich)asked the Chief Secretary if Mr. Alfred Tennyson, who has recently been appointed an inspector under the Irish Local Government Board, was in the Civil Service before his appointment, if so, what position did he occupy; what are the salaries attached to his previous and his present post; if he was not formerly employed in the Civil Service, what was his employment before he received his present appointment; on whose recommendation the appointment was made; and whether it was confirmed
  760
  by him; and, if not, who was responsible for sanctioning it?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No such appointment as the one referred to in the question has been made. The gentleman named has been for some time, and still is, employed in a temporary capacity under the Irish Local Government Board. With regard to the remainder of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the similar question of the hon. Member for North Westmeath on 13th February, 1913.
  Mr. F. HALL: Did this Gentleman obtain his position after an examination in due course of events?
  Mr. BIRRELL: A temporary position is not obtained after an examination. This particular gentleman, I can assure the hon. Member, can pass any examination to which he would be likely to be submitted. He has already obtained the distinction, which both I and the hon. Member might envy, of passing a very severe examination for a clerkship in the House of Lords; and I think that many hon. Members would fail to pass that examination.
  Mr. F. HALL: How is it that the right hon. Gentleman knows so much about the qualifications of Mr. Alfred Tennyson?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I know all about him, because the gentleman in question happens to be my stepson.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all clerkships in the House of Lords are given on the nomination of the chief clerk?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No. The hon. Member is in an extraordinary state of ignorance. The nomination to which he refers is only for the privilege of presenting himself for examination.

  Small Landholders (Scotland).
  Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he can state the number of cases of market gardeners that have come before the Land Court since the commencement of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911; and how many of these have been admitted to the benefits of the Act?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Only three cases have been disposed of by the Land Court where the question of market garden was raised. In two of these the

  761
  objection was repelled, and the applicants declared statutory small tenants. In the third case the objection was sustained, and the application dismissed as incompetent under Section 26 (3) (d) of the Act of 1911. There are some cases pending before the Land Court where the question is raised.

  Richard Williams (Taxi-Cab Driver).
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the Home Secretary if he can now state the result of his inquiries into the case of Richard Williams, taxi-cab driver, who was arrested for being drunk and, although certified to be drunk by the divisional surgeon, was discharged by the magistrate?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have made further inquiry in this case and I am satisfied that there was no want of care on the part of the divisional surgeon.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

  ELECTORAL AREAS.
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of the Government of Ireland Bill receiving the Royal Assent during the course of the present Session, it is the intention of the Government to undertake and carry into effect any scheme of redistribution of electoral areas in Great Britain before resigning office?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to him on the 23rd February, to which statement I can add nothing.
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Return issued at the beginning of last month and showing the Government proposals in connection with the Government of Ireland Bill states that such proposals, if carried into effect, will involve new arrangements for the mode in which the authority of the Imperial Executive is to be exercised in any excluded area, and new arrangements with regard to finance, administration, and other points of detail; whether such new arrangements will be tabled by the Government in the form of suggestions; and, if so, when, or whether they will be carried out by Order in Council and without debate?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As I have already stated, I am not prepared at this stage to commit myself as to the method of carrying out the incidental or consequential adjustments to the provisions of the Bill, which would be necessary if our proposals are adopted as a basis of settlement.
  Mr. NEWMAN: May I ask whether there will be a chance given for debate on this question?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I say I cannot commit myself at present as to the method of carrying out the adjustments.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY MOVEMENTS (ULSTER).
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Prime Minister why Sir Arthur Paget was unable to assure General Gough, in answer to his communication of 20th March, that the duty as ordered him and his brigade consisted of the maintenance of order and the preservation of property, and did not involve the initiation of active military operations against Ulster?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am informed that Sir Arthur Paget considered that the matter had passed out of his hands, as he learnt that the officers had already been summoned to London before he had time to deal with their letter.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: At what time did Sir Arthur Paget receive the communication dated Curragh, 20th March, and signed by General Gough?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say exactly at what time, but my answer remains good.
  Mr. CASSEL: If this question had been answered, might not the whole difficulty have been avoided?
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is Sir Arthur Paget or any other officer entitled to give assurances as to the future action of the Government?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is covered by the new Army Order.
  Mr. AMERY: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how Sir Arthur Paget could have telegraphed the number of officers who preferred to be dismissed if he had not received General Gough's letter before that telegram on the night of 20th March?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I did not say he had not received it.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Was it not possible for Sir Arthur Paget to interpret his own instructions as conveyed to the officers?
  The PRIME MINISTER: He thought, as I have said, that the matter had then passed out of his hands.
  Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for War whether medical stores were ordered for or sent to Ulster; and whether bridging sections were ordered for or were actually on the way to Ulster during the late crisis?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am informed that the reply to both parts of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I wish to ask the Prime Minister the question, of which I gave him notice yesterday: Whether he will cause judicial inquiry to be made into the naval and military movements recently contemplated by the Government in connection with Ulster?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not sure that I understand exactly what is meant by "judicial inquiry." In any case, I see no ground for such a mode of procedure. If the charge which is made outside, that the Government have devised and organised what is called a "plot" with the object of provoking an armed rising in Ulster, is seriously made by responsible persons here, the proper place to make it and to meet it is the House of Commons. I need not say that I will give the earliest possible day for that purpose.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that already statements made by himself and his colleagues as to the facts have been proved to be false, and have not been defended by the right
  764
  hon. Gentleman himself, although he has had the opportunity, and what guarantee can we have that a similar line will not be taken always?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of anything of the kind. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to make and sustain that allegation I will give him the earliest possible day.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that I have twice-made it in his presence, and that he has twice had the opportunity of dealing with it?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to have a day?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that what we wish and what the country wish is that the truth should be told in regard to this matter, and that it is only when we get the testimony of those who are directly employed by the Government that we can get it?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know-on what authority the right hon. Gentleman claims to speak on behalf of the country. I have offered him, and I repeat the offer, the earliest possible day for the discussion of the whole matter.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he proposes to lay upon the Table of the House the White Paper which he has promised, and whether it will contain what we have so often asked for, the written statement by General Paget as to the instructions which were verbally given to him by the War Office, and the communications which he made to his officers?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The White Paper is in course of preparation, and will, I hope, be laid to-morrow, or as early as possible, and then the right hon. Gentleman will see what it contains.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: When we see the Paper we shall consider what steps it is worth while to take. In the meantime,

  765
  will the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell us why, if he has nothing to be ashamed of, he objects to have the truth tested, where the statements are given on oath, and can be established?
  The PRIME MINISTER: This, Sir, is an allegation against the honour of Ministers, and the only place, in accordance with our constitutional practice, in which such allegations can be made—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Marconi Inquiry?"] the Marconi Committee?—a roving inquiry to discover whether or not you have the materials for a charge—the only place in which, in accordance with our constitutional practice, allegations of this kind can be made is this, the inquest of the nation.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. Why is he afraid to have the facts tested where not only Ministers but others concerned are on oath, and are subject to examination?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not in the least afraid. If the Leader of the Opposition on his responsibility makes a charge against the honour of Ministers, he must make it in this House.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that I have already accused him of making a statement which was false, and that he has refused to take advantage of the opportunity of either explaining—[Interruption.]
  Mr. J. WARD: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not himself put down a Resolution relating to this subject, so as to make the Opposition—[Interruption.]
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman now state to the House whether he still adheres to the statement he made in the "Times," and which appeared in the form of a letter signed by himself?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Nothing appeared in the form of a letter, but I adhere to all the statements.
  Mr. HUNT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is his objection to our having
  766
  evidence of the officers who really do know what happened, and how are we to get at the truth if we cannot have their evidence? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he will not allow us to have that evidence, is it not the fact that the Government are afraid?
  Mr. F. HALL (Dulwich)asked the Under-Secretary of State for War when Colonel J. G. Hogg, D.S.O., joined the 4th Hussars; when he was appointed to the command of the regiment; whether at the time he was the junior major; if he-passed over Majors Underwood, Graham, and Watkin, P.S.C.; if so, on what grounds; and on whose report or recommendation Colonel Hogg was promoted over the heads of senior officers possessing high military qualifications?
  Mr. TENNANT: Colonel Hogg joined the 4th Hussars in February, 1896, and was appointed to the command on 13th May, 1913, by the Selection Board in the ordinary way
  Mr. F. HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why it was that he received different treatment from the officers of the 16th and 5th Lancers?
  Mr. TENNANT: I do not know what different treatment the hon. Gentleman refers to. He was promoted in the ordinary way.
  Mr. F. HALL: Is it not a fact in regard to the trouble in the Irish command lately that Colonel Hogg received treatment different from that of other officers in the command?
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: May I ask why this question was not raised at the time of Colonel Hogg's promotion instead of some weeks after, and whether the only reason for the Opposition not taking this course—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can not be expected to answer that question.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is this gentleman the same Colonel Hogg to whom the First Lord of the Admiralty sent a" telegram recently?
  Mr. TENNANT: That is a question which should be addressed to the First Lord of the Admiralty.
  Mr. J. WARD: I would like to ask if this is the officer who refused to go on strike at the suggestion of the leaders of the Opposition?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I sent no telegram to Colonel Hogg. It is for the hon. Gentleman to say how he obtained his information that Colonel Hogg sent a private telegram to me.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: May I ask whether the only offence of this officer is that he showed undue willingness to conform to his military duty?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I desire, by the leave of the House, to make a brief personal explanation. Yesterday, at Question Time, the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) asked me a question as to what communications had passed between myself and Colonel Hogg, of the" 4th Hussars.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: If any?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is very unusual in this House for questions to be asked about the private correspondence of Ministers or Members, and I am sure any Member of this House, in whatever part he sits, would say that such a procedure would be greatly to be deprecated from every point of view. However, as the question has been asked, I have now obtained permission—but the hon. Member will not assume that I do not resent his gross personal intrusion on my private affairs—to read the communication. Before I could do so I had to communicate with Colonel Hogg, who sent me a personal and private telegram. Colonel Hogg telegraphed to me this morning in answer to my inquiries whether I might publish his telegram or not. He replied that he had no objection to the telegram being published, provided it is stated that it was sent with the knowledge of his general, General Gough, and that his general, General Gough, agreed to its being sent.
  768
  He wished to show that he acted fair and square by his commanding officer. I wish to make it absolutely clear that this is a private and personal telegram which reached me on the Saturday morning. Of course, these are old brother officers of mine. The telegram was:—
  "To Et. Hon. Winston Churchill.
  "Personal. To-day all officers Cavalry Brigade required to decide whether prepared to accept liability active operations in Ulster on pain of dismissal. Enormous majority ready to accept dismissal, but later adopted proposal that authorities should be asked to define employment. Brigadier and great majority ready to undertake duties of preserving order and property, provided no initiative in offensive action against Ulster contemplated. Convinced, if tactfully handled, Brigade can be saved; but if unconditional service demanded from outset, Brigadier and practically all officers will accept dismissal. Appeal to you to ensure sensible handling.—HOGG."
  To that telegram I, of course, sent no reply. Now, Sir, I have stated the entire correspondence that passed, and it rests with the hon. Gentleman to state how and by what— [An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish!"] It may be what the hon. Gentleman has in his mind. Anybody can shout out "Rubbish!" while a Debate is going on.
  Sir G. PARKER: As you used to do.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is for the hon. Gentleman to state how it came, and from what source and what persons he obtained information of this purely private and personal document.

  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: I wish to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture a question, of which I have given him private notice—it is: Whether any decision has been arrived at by his Department as to the opening of the Port of Dublin for the exportation of cattle for slaughter or otherwise?
  Mr. FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman at the same time state what Regulations have been made regarding the adjacent counties?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): As the result of a conference between the representatives of the two parties concerned, it has been decided to open the

  769
  Port of Dublin at an early date. Some arrangements have to be made on both sides of the Channel as to the area from which the cattle shall be drawn. No time will be lost, and I hope on Thursday to make a definite announcement as to the actual date.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Are we to take it that the Thursday morning cattle in Dublin market will not be allowed to land here?
  Mr. RUSSELL: We will not be able to open the port of Dublin on Thursday. The arrangements cannot be made in that time.
  Mr. O'SHEE: At the same time, on Thursday, will the right hon. Gentleman make some announcement with regard to the port of Waterford?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The difficulty about Waterford is that though it is itself entirely clear of disease, it lies between Cork and Tipperary, and both of those counties have been seriously affected by the disease, and I am not prepared at present to take the risk of opening the port of Waterford.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir Daniel Goddard reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Snowden; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Affiliation Orders Bill): Mr. Pointer.
Sir Daniel Goddard further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (in respect of the Criminal Justice Administration Bill): Mr. Burns; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the said Bill): The Lord Advocate.
Sir Daniel Goddard further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee C the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Criminal Justice Administration Bill): Sir William Anson, Mr. Attorney-General, Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck, Major Baring, Mr. Charles Duncan, Mr. Lewis Haslam, Mr. Hoare, Mr. Edgar Jones, Mr. Kellaway, Mr. Meehan, Mr. O'Shee, Mr. Samuel Roberts, Mr. Secretary M'Kenna, Mr. Wedgwood, and Colonel Yate.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Mr. Stuart-Wortley reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Agricultural Holdings Bill, the Public Rights of Way Bill, and the University of Sheffield Bill), and Mr. Eugene Wason to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Coombe Street (Exeter) Independent Chapel Charity Bill, the Old Sleaford (Lincolnshire) Chapel Charity Bill, the Marden (Kent) Congregational Chapel Charity Bill, the Foleshill Road (Coventry) Congregational Chapel Charity Bill, and the Horsforth (West Riding) Baptist Chapel Charity Bill).
Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Colonel Robert Gordon Sharman Crawford, for the Borough of Belfast (East Belfast Division).
BILLS PRESENTED.
  COUNTY TOWN AND PARISH COUNCILS (QUALIFICATION; (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To extend the qualification for membership of county, town, and parish councils in Scotland." Presented by Mr. MCKINNON WOOD; supported by the Lord Advocate; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 193.]
  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC BILL.
  "To make better provision for carrying into effect the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts, 1854 to 1913." "Presented by Mr. BARNSTON; supported by Mr. Bathurst, Sir Luke White, and Mr. Fiennes; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 29th April, and to be printed. [Bill 194.]
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (EMPLOYMENT IN SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To extend the Metropolitan Police Act, 1860, to Scotland." Presented by Mr. GEORGE LAMBERT; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 195.]
  AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT BOARDS BILL.
  "To provide for the establishment of Agricultural Employment Boards; and for other purposes incidental thereto." Presented by Mr. LESLIE SCOTT; supported by Mr. Astor, Mr. Hamilton Benn, Lord Henry Cavendish-Bentinck, Mr. Goulding, Mr. Oliver Locker-Lampson, Mr. Lyttelton, Sir Gilbert Parker, Colonel Rawson, and Sir Mark Sykes; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 196.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
  Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [30th April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—[Lord Robert Cecil.]
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question." Debate resumed.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: It was a matter of common observation yesterday, notwithstanding that speakers of great competence took part in the Debate and the speeches were of unusual excellence, that the House paid but very languid attention to the discussion—indeed, that the benches, especially the Treasury Bench, were singularly empty, and very little interest was taken in this question, although it is one of the deepest interest and touches the whole spiritual life of the nation. The Under-Secretary for Home Affairs, who wound up the Debate last night, gave as one of the reasons for that lack of interest on the third time that this question has been presented under the Parliament Act the fact that we were in two camps, that the question of principle had been decided between us, that there was no use whatever in dealing with details, and that whilst hon. Gentlemen opposite were firmly persuaded that it was right to Disestablish and partially Disendow the Church, we on this side were convinced, to use his own words, that Disestablishment was an act of national apostasy, and Disendowment an act of national spoliation and even of sacrilege. Those were the words in which the Under-Secretary described our attitude, and he did not describe it falsely. We do, indeed, consider that Disestablishment is an act of national apostasy, and Disendowment an act of national spoliation and even of sacrilege. Another reason why undoubtedly the House was empty and the Debate excited little interest was the operation of the Parliament Act. The Parliament Act has reduced the House of Commons on all occasions when large Bills of this character are presented for the second or third time to the position of a melancholy mausoleum. There were very few people here, because it was quite obvious that, although the Government may feel that the country have turned against them since they introduced the measure, that voters are going over from their side to ours, and that the House itself is in favour of many Amendments to their Bill, they cannot introduce a single Amendment, as they are hedged in and bound by the operation of the Parliament Act.
  The Under-Secretary, who is capable of a most serious contribution to this or any other Debate, chose rather to indulge in jokes and ridicule of a kind far more suited to cause mirth and merriment in a Radical
  778
  drinking club on a Good Friday. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that we on our side made no attempt to arouse or to test the indignation of the people against a measure which we call an act of spoliation and sacrilege. He quoted as evidence of that the fact that in three elections—Linlithgow, Wick, and Bethnal Green—no mention of the Welsh Church question was made by the Unionist candidates either in their addresses or in any other prominent way. I do not know what happened at Linlithgow, but I do know what happened at Wick. We all know what happened at Wick. Interest was concentrated, not on the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church, but on the establishment and endowment of a harbour. In the face of the very tempting bait held out by the Radical candidate, I dare say it might have been useless for the Unionist candidate to have tried to interest the Wick electors in the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in Wales. I know still more what happened at Bethnal Green. The hon. Gentleman's information on that point is entirely incorrect. The hon. Member who now represents South-West Bethnal Green, in the place of the latest Member of the Cabinet, who is so popular that it is quite impossible for the Government to find him a seat in either England, Scotland, or Wales, put very prominently, not in his first address, but in his second address, which he issued with the voting card to every elector, that be was entirely opposed to the robbery proposed to be perpetrated on the Church. He not only placed it in his address, but he put on all his voting cards, "Vote for Wilson, and no robbery of the Church." I would inform the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond), who is so eager to dethrone Christianity in this country, that he carries the bag, I am told, into which are poured the contributions of his rich friends for that purpose, that a large number of the Jew electors in Bethnal Green told us that, while they had never voted before for a Conservative or Unionist candidate, on this occasion they would do so, because they entirely disapproved of Disendowing a Church of any kind.
  The Under-Secretary for Home Affairs might have mentioned other by-elections while he was on that topic. He might have mentioned Poplar. There, also, men "who had never voted Conservative in their lives gave their active support to our candidate on the sole ground that he was pledged to resist the spoliation of a great

  779
  Church. He might have referred to the recent election at Reading, when many avowed Liberals voted and worked for the Unionist candidate, with the result that there was a considerable turnover of votes. My hon. Friend who now represents Reading owes his election to a great extent to the attitude which he took up on the Welsh Church question, and to the fact that many old Liberals were hopelessly disgusted with the policy of the Government towards the Church in Wales. The hon. Gentleman can hardly say that we have been shy of bringing this question before the electors, nor can he deny that we have obtained votes at every election on this question, so far as English constituencies are concerned. While the Government have gained no votes on this question, there is hardly a constituency in England in which a by-election has taken place where we have not gained votes, and whenever the General Election comes this question will play a very great part in turning out hon. Gentlemen opposite and in placing our party in their places. [Laughter.] If that pleases hon. Gentlemen opposite, it pleases us as well. We are winning votes, and we are trying to do so. The only way in which we can stop these infamous measures is by winning votes. But hon. Gentlemen will not give us the chance if they can possibly help it. They will not put any of these questions before the people. We would beat them on any one of them individually, but collectively we would beat them even more.
  It is not we, but hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are shy of consulting the people on these questions. They very seldom find an opportunity of discussing Disestablishment and Disendowment. When they do, they do not use the word "Disendowment"; it is always called "religious equality," or something of that kind, so that the people shall be singularly unsuspicious of what is really intended. Every day we are winning votes in Wales alone. Take the recent petition, which seems to have caused such anger in the opposite camp. One hundred and three thousand, two hundred and twenty-four Nonconformists over twenty-one years of age signed that petition. There may have been here and there, perhaps owing to the fault or folly of a canvasser, some want of explanation to the person signing the petition, and possibly a few hundreds, if you like, would like to withdraw their signatures. But thousands would remain
  780
  —a hundred thousand, at any rate. Let hon. Gentlemen examine the petition as carefully as they like, it is impossible to avoid the enormous significance of the change of opinion which is coming over Wales now that the people actually know what is intended by Disendowment. The right hon. Baronet (Sir A. Mond) had some second-hand stones which he has picked up somewhere as to the way in which a few signatures were obtained. It is impossible to deny that the opposition to the signing of the petition was organised, systematic, and influential, and proceeded from the great governing body of the Free Churches. If it had not been for the influence used to prevent people from signing that petition, there would, I believe, have been at least 50,000 more signatures appended to it. It is a very powerful petition, and one which must carry great weight, and I believe it will be followed by other petitions of the same kind, unless the whole organisation of the Free Church Council is put into force to threaten and bully those who would like to sign, but who may possibly find, in view of their material interests, that they had better not to do so.
  The only argument of any strength which the Government have put forward in favour of the Bill is that upon which the Attorney-General laid such stress yesterday, namely, that from the point of view of representation in this House Wales has, for years and years past, always sent Members to Parliament to support Disestablishment and Disendowment. That that is a powerful argument we cannot and do not attempt to deny, but I think it is carried a great deal too far. Hon. Gentlemen opposite put a limitation on this right of local majorities. Would they put forward the view that a local majority in Wales was entitled to hold any religious views, and to put those religious views into an Act of Parliament? Of course they would not—at all events, the Government would not. If the whole of the Members for Wales, without a single exception, should hereafter become persuaded that Wales was in many ways deteriorating in manners, morals, and spiritual growth, and if they then desired to set up again in these parishes resident ministers and all the apparatus of a religious establishment, would the Government say that they were bound to accede to that request because all the Members from Wales demanded it? Of course, they would not. The Government

  781
  would say that there must be some limitation even if the whole of the Members for Wales demand that they shall have some form of Established and Endowed Church. "That," the Government would say, "we cannot grant: once we concede that, it is giving away all our arguments in favour of Disestablishment and Disendowment." I put another question. I would put it to the Members of the Government if there were any of them here. They never are here. The Prime Minister is never here. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is rarely here. There is only one Member of the Government here on an occasion like this. [An HON. MEMBER: "And not a Cabinet Minister either."] Not a Cabinet Minister! But what do they care? What does it matter to them what takes places in this House? There is another House to which this Bill will go. Then the Bill will go somewhere else; then no matter what the people may think, the Bill will become law—no matter either what we may say or do.
  I would put this case to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ellis Griffith). He attaches much weight to this argument of a, local majority to do what it likes in the matter of religion, or to do nearly all that it likes. Suppose a local majority were to come to this House, and to say, "No matter what the people of England think, we in Wales think that we ought to limit the use of taxes and the use of rates to secular education." Would the Government allow that? I doubt it—I very much doubt it! I doubt very much if the whole of the Members from Wales were to insist upon having a system of secular education in which no rates and no taxes were used for any religious education of any sort or kind, whether the Government would bring in a Bill to satisfy the desires of these Members from Wales. Therefore, I say that the Government themselves put some limitation, and a strong limitation, too, to this right of the local majority to demand measures connected with religion. I say again there is a very important difference between the demand made by the majority of the Irish Members in 1869, and the demand made by a majority of Welsh Members in 1914 and previous years. After all, the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church of Ireland did not dismember the Church in England. This is a very different matter. Is a local majority in Wales to be allowed to dismember the Church in England when a great majority of the Members
  782
  returned by English constituencies are entirely and wholly opposed to anything of the sort? The hon. Gentleman who yesterday finished up the Debate said that dismemberment must accompany Disestablishment.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): I said that they were the same thing. If Wales desires Disestablishment from the point of view of the rest of the Province of Canterbury, it is dismemberment. I said they were two names to the same thing.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: Exactly! I do not want to misinterpret the right hon. Gentleman at all, and I do not think I am doing so. If we are to give Wales Disestablishment affecting four dioceses, that naturally means dismemberment of the Church so far as these four dioceses are concerned.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Yes.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: Yes, but I say it is a double sin. If it is not so in Wales, it is certainly a great sin as regards the English Church, to force these four dioceses in the Church of England out, and to deny them the ordinary rights which all the other dioceses still will have.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: They are two names for the same subject!
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: They are two injuries. The one is the injury in Wales and the other undoubtedly an injury in England, and to a majority of the English Members. That is my point: that the Government is now using this argument of a local majority to force something on England which a majority of Englishmen do not want. I say there ought to be some limitation to this argument of the rights of a local majority. I say it is pushed too far, much too far, when it is applied to the dismemberment of the Church which has a majority of supporters in this House. Apart from that, it is in my opinion, a retrograde measure. What the Government ought to ask is not whether there is a majority—in these days of quick changes majorities may be temporary—in favour of the Bill, but whether the measure will strengthen or weaken the position of the Christian religion in a Christian country. Does the Church of Wales in this country tend to promote or weaken the cause of Christianity? Are its means inadequate or are they far too great? If

  783
  they were too great there might be some argument for taking them away. But it would still be spoliation. Possibly we might consent if we had more money than we wanted to give some of that money for other good works; possibly to endow other Churches. We are not, I hope, illiberal in our views. We have not too much money to carry out all that we would wish our Church to do. In these days, when there is a universal complaint—anyone who reads the papers devoted to Church work—and I am now talking of the work of all the Churches—will find the universal complaint that the great octopus of materialism is spreading itself out and is gradually engulfing the soul of the nation. The right hon. Gentleman to whom I alluded just now who has lately been admitted to the Cabinet is the same right hon. Gentleman who, speaking on one occasion, deplored from that box the way matters were moving. He said:—
  "England was slowly drifting away from the Christian religion."
  England and Wales were slowly drifting away from the Christian religion! I do not share that gloomy view myself, but at all events, if he holds that view, what is going to arrest this drifting away from the Christian religion? Are you going to arrest it by Disendowing the Church in Wales, by taking away from her something like £158,000 a year out of her present Endowments? What could we do with that £158,000? If it were a separate gift handed over to us now it would suffice to keep 400 resident parish ministers at £400 a year, which, I think it will be allowed, is not too much for ministers of religion to have. Does anybody mean to tell me that that would not help to stop the drifting away from the Christian religion? Will anyone tell me that if you take that money away you are doing nothing to hasten that drifting away from the Christian religion? The question has been asked and answered very often as to whether the Church in Wales is doing its duty at the present time. Again and again I think it may be admitted possibly must be admitted—that there have been periods in the history of the Church of England, both in England and Wales, when it would have been perhaps difficult to say that if you Disendowed her at that particular period that you were doing any great harm in the cause of Christianity or religion. Those were the evil days of the Church spoken of yesterday
  784
  by the Attorney-General. They were well depicted by Mr. Gladstone himself in an article he wrote in one of the magazines. Describing the Church as it was some forty or fifty years before 1874, he said:—
  "After a full half century the actual state of things as to worship was bad beyond all parallel known to me in experience or reading. Taking together the expulsion of the poor and labouring classes (especially from the town churches), the mutilation and blockages of the fabrics, the baldness of the service, the elaborate horrors of the so-called music…and, above all, the coldness and indifference of the lounging and sleeping congregation, our services were probably without a parallel in the world for their debasement; and as they would have shocked a Brahmin or a Buddhist, so they hardly could have been endured in this country had nut the faculty of taste and the perception of the seemly or unseemly been as dead as the spirit of devotion."
  That was Mr. Gladstone's opinion of the Church at the time to which I refer. He wrote another article some years afterwards, after the Tractarian movement had had its effect. This is what he said of the Church then:—
  "A strange vitality was soon discernible in the long-neglected parishes. The doctrinal and practical teaching of the Prayer Book was again taught from the pulpit. The Sacraments were rightly and duly administered: services were celebrated on Saints' Days, and even daily. New churches rose to meet the requirements of the increasing town population. Parsonages were built in the country parishes, the ancient fabrics were purged, repaired, and beautified, and music was again, made the handmaid of devotion. Every accessory of worship was once more instinct with life and meaning. Above all, to the poor the Gospel was preached."
  Which of these two pictures is applicable to the Welsh Church to-day? We have it on the authority of the Prime Minister himself that it is the later picture, the favourable picture, of the work of the Church which is applicable to the Church of Wales to-day. I have the Prime Minister's words here. In the Debate on the Bill in 1912 he said:—
  "Things have changed, and no one has acknowledged more fully than I have during the whole of this controversy the great work which the Anglican Church in, Wales has been doing for a generation past, not only to make atonement for the shortcomings of the past, but to discharge the duties it owes to the community."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May. 1912, col. 1150, Vol. XXXVIII.]
  If that is so, why do that which tends to prevent her further ingratiating and endearing herself to the people? For my own part, I do not despair that she will do it. Why take away her funds? Why Disendow her? Why maim and mutilate her at this time when she is doing her duty? Surely there is nobody going to argue, nobody in or out of this House, that the Church would be stronger if you take away from her £158,000 a year! I know the hon. Gentleman yesterday disputed this figure. He said, "We are not taking away £158,000 yearly from the Endowments of the Church in Wales." Well,

  785
  when divergent, absolutely different statements are made by Members of the Front Bench opposite to the statements which are made by other Cabinet Ministers in another place, we have learnt lately that the truth is to be found in the other place—not here! Lord Crewe himself stated in the House of Lords only a short time ago that the Church was to have £158,000 a year taken away from her Endowments. We all know that that is subject to life interests; of course it is. But are we legislating for to-day or to-morrow only? Have we no thought for the great future of the Christian Church? What is twenty, thirty, or forty years in the history of the Church, a Church which has done good work through centuries, and will do good work through the centuries to come?
  I say the hon. Gentleman himself must be perfectly well aware of the fact that the sum which the Church will be deprived of—taken, that is to say, from her present Endowments—is not £51,000 a year, but £158,000. After all, the life interests have ceased and have absorbed the amount of money set at their disposal. That is not the style of speech that the hon. Gentleman generally adopts. I cannot help thinking that he must have learnt it from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to see double when he sees a duke, and the hon. Gentleman appears to see less than half when he sees the Church. We have had better speeches from him than we had last night, and I hope we may have better speeches from him. I am deeply in earnest about this matter. We know that we shall have to make this money up if it is taken away—of course we shall, as good Churchmen. Those who have to do it will have to take it from other things. There is only a limited amount of money, and if we give to one Church, probably you cannot give to another. If we give to one object, possibly we shall have to diminish our subscriptions to something else. I do not say the money cannot be found. I am perfectly certain it will be found. But it will be found at the expense of other good works, of other charities, and other philanthropic enterprises. It must be so! For whose good? The one question right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite never will answer is, for whose good? Look now at the purposes for which this money is applied, and look at the purposes to which you propose to apply it to-morrow, and ask yourselves which of these purposes is for the real
  786
  benefit of the people, which of these purposes will most advance their moral and spiritual welfare? I am perfectly certain that if the question was put to any fair and open-minded jury which is the better use of the money, whether it would be better used by the Church or the county councils or the universities, this money never would be taken away from the purposes for which it was intended. This House has a noble record, which is ideal and high. It has done much for the welfare of the people from the physical, moral and spiritual point of view. In the long course of its career blemishes have occurred, cases of injustice have occurred, cases of persecution, cases of cruelty and cases of shame. To-day, I say, if this House should pass this Bill, it will mark another blemish in its history by an act of gross injustice, and an act which will strike a grave and serious blow at the cause of Christianity.
  Sir DAVID BRYNMOR JONES: I listened with great attention to the remarks of the right horn Gentleman who has just spoken. I believe this is almost the first, if not the only occasion, upon which he has taken part in the Debates upon this Bill in the last two Sessions and this Session, and I confess that, having regard to the general tenor of our discussions, I find it a little difficult to reply to his observations.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I have tried again and again to enter into the Debates upon this question, but I have not been successful; but it was not for want of interest in the subject.
  Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I can only say that I regret that the House has not had before now the benefit of his contribution to the controversy. But, on the other-hand, let me say this, that he has intervened by bringing all sorts of irrelevant matter, electoral and otherwise, into the discussion that seems hardly fitted for debate upon the Second Reading of a Bill of this character. He began his speech with tempestuous words, and I could not help thinking when I listened to him of an expression used by a great Liberal statesman about the "ill-advised ravings of a rash, rancorous tongue." He took up the subject of Saturday Radical drinking clubs, and he referred to all sorts of considerations that perhaps occupy the attention of some of our fellow-citizens, but which have nothing on earth to do with

  787
  the grave controversy in which we are concerned. What Radical drinking club does he refer to? He referred to a Radical drinking club meeting on a Good Friday to discuss this topic. What club does he refer to? Has he no connection with clubs? Is he not the honoured president of the Fulham Football Club, which played a game on Good Friday last 2 What is his point? Is it worth mentioning these things upon an occasion of this kind? If the right hon. Gentleman will pardon me, I will not attempt to answer arguments and points of that kind. I shall refer to the speech of the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) who moved the rejection of this Bill, and I will try to answer the more substantial ground and considerations which he advanced in the course of his speech.
  I refer to the speech of the Noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill, because I regard it as of importance in other respects. First of all, it is the speech of the Mover of the rejection of this Bill on the third occasion that it comes before the consideration of this House under the Parliament Act. I take it, from the very wide ground which he covered, and from the part which he has played in this controversy, that we may regard his speech as the considered answer of the Opposition, and because I also conceive that his statement, though his language is sometimes strong, is the result not of ingrained prejudice, but is founded upon what he believes to be adequate and trustworthy information and upon sound reasons. I have been considering his speech as a whole, and I find that he does not know yet the very first principle upon which we base our claims to this Bill. He has not replied to our main argument. What is that argument? That argument is that Wales is a separate nationality. We say, for reasons which the Prime Minister expressed most felicitously in one of his speeches in this House not long ago, that whether judged by every test of a separate nation that as Ireland and Scotland may claim to be separate political entities, so also Wales may claim to be a separate political entity. And as a corollary from that, we say we are entitled to manage our own domestic affairs. We do not claim any special position in regard to foreign policy in regard to the Army and the Navy, but we do say that in regard to our domestic concerns—in the
  788
  sphere of education, in the sphere of religion, in the sphere of certain Departmental matters, including such topics as agriculture—we are entitled to decide questions for ourselves. That being so, the Noble Lord did not, in the whole course of his speech, meet that main point upon which we depend. He came very near it when he said that our argument is that in whatever we say here we convey the wishes of the Welsh people, constantly and overwhelmingly expressed, that these wishes should be gratified. He said that that argument is a plausible one. I put it higher. I said this is a convincing argument once our first principle is admitted. The Noble Lord went on then to base upon the Act of 1662, the Act of Uniformity of Charles II., the leading burden of his argument. He said you may go back very far into history if you like, but for myself I say there was a real adjustment of the relations in regard to the Church of England and the nation at large in the year 1662.
  I may remind the House that in the very first speech I made upon this question, when the Bill was first introduced, in 1912, I suggested that the Act of 1662 might be looked upon as a resettlement of the religious conditions of England and of Wales. The Noble Lord yesterday recited the facts and the history of the disputes arising in the reign of Henry VIII., and carried it down to 1660, when Charles H. was restored to the throne. I suggested I was willing to look upon the Act of 1662 as a kind of resettlement of these religious controversies in regard to the whole country, and I pointed out that in regard to Wales there is a special provision introduced into the Act. Taking our stand, then, upon the Act of 1662, for the sake of argument—I do not want to abandon any argument any hon. Friend of mine might like to base upon the preceding period—but starting from the year 1662, when this Act of Parliament was passed, let us see how the conditions stand. I admit that grave wrongs have been done to the Church of England by the Parliamentary party—by the Puritan faction, if you call it a faction—in the middle of the seventeenth century. But I have also to assert that very grave wrong was done by the resettlement effected in 1662. I pass by any attempt to recount the influence of the injustice in regard to many of the ministers who had occupied benefices in Wales after the Act of 1662 came into operation. But taking that as

  789
  a starting point, what has happened in Wales between 1662 and the present time?
  If you admit our first principle—the principle that Wales is a national entity and entitled to decide this question for itself—the question really is this: How has it come about that Nonconformity has attained to a position of unparalleled supremacy, I might almost call it, in Wales as a result of something like 225 years' operation of the Act of 1662, and all the arrangements then made? The Noble Lord did not yesterday, I think—though at the earlier period of our controversy he did—raise the question of figures as to the strength of Nonconformity. He did not state the number of Nonconformist members as compared with the communicants of the Church of England, or enlarge upon the position which Nonconformity occupies at the present moment in the Principality of Wales. The Noble Lord, and I think the whole House, has now frankly accepted the position that the overwhelming majority, or at any rate the very great majority, of the Welsh people have abandoned the National Church and have adopted various persuasions, of which the four great denominations, Calvinistic Methodists, Congregationalists, Baptists, and Wesleyan Methodists are the principal. How has this great change come about? I am always arguing on the basis of the first principle.
  Go back a little earlier, to the reign of Queen Elizabeth or Henry VIII., and you find Ireland and Wales intensely Roman Catholic. Notwithstanding all the changes that have taken place, Ireland has remained overwhelmingly Roman Catholic. How does it come about, taking England and Wales, that in Wales alone the various phases of Nonconformity have become the overwhelming influence in national affairs and the religious life of the nation. The Noble Lord opposite (Lord Robert Cecil), who is a great advocate, and knows how to conduct his case, yesterday fastened upon something which did play a part in this transformation when he dwelt upon what he called the general lethargy and apathy of the nation during the eighteenth century in regard to religious matters. I adopt that, but I do think that among the causes, and perhaps the first cause, of the phenomena that has taken place in Wales, was the lethargy and apathy in general of the people and their leaders during the eighteenth century. But here I enter a caveat. I think the Noble Lord exaggerated
  790
  to some extent this lethargy and apathy of the eighteenth century in regard to religious matters. I do not think that a century that produced so many illustrious Churchmen can be described as lethargic or apathetic. In view of this fact I am not inclined to attach so much importance to this argument about lethargy and apathy as one of the contributing causes towards this great change in Wales. A more important cause to my mind is what I might describe as the social condition of the Welsh people, and a want of recognition on the part of the central Government of the special problem which that condition generally raised.
  What was the position of Wales at the beginning of the eighteenth century? Most of us think of Wales simply as a part of England, where the whole of the Welsh counties are practically so many English counties, but the moment you read any books about the condition of Wales at the beginning of the eighteenth century, you form a totally different impression. You find the people with a structure of society quite different in many respects from the structure of English society. The people are not of a totally different race, but while they have lived in this island side by side with the English people for many centuries they have never lost the characteristics and, to a certain extent, the blood of the original tribe who were here when the Romans left the island. You find that owing to English legislation the conquest of the South was a rather prolonged matter, extending over something like 260 years, and it took that time to arrive at the final result Then followed the conquest of North Wales by Edward I., and finally the conversion of the whole of the Western part into the thirteen counties which now form the Principality of Wales, and in that society you find two different classes—the upper or governing classes, English in sentiment, speaking English, brought up under English influences, and carrying out the behests of the central Government. Under them you have the people of Wales who have been living for centuries upon the land, speaking a different language to that of their rulers, and coming into contact with people who spoke Norman-French and ecclesiastics who spoke Latin, but in the main a set of people speaking their own ancient tongue, which has been handed down to them from generation to generation, and which they still speak in defiance of all the attempts of the central Government to Anglicise them. At the beginning

  791
  of the eighteenth century you had, in fact, two nations, and on this point I should like to read an extract from a report, written long after the time I am referring to by a gentleman who was appointed a Commissioner to consider the state of education as late as the year 1847. He says that in the year of his investigation he finds a singular phenomena. He finds an upper class speaking the English language, and well below he finds a large population speaking a peculiar language, living in an underworld of their own. Some of these people are agriculturists, whilst others are engaged in industrial pursuits. He describes the Welsh people as living in an under-world of their own. If that were true in the year 1847, it was was still more abundantly true at the beginning of the eighteenth century, and that structure of society is a very large factor in the rise of Nonconformity in Wales. The next cause to which I attribute the rise of Nonconformity in Wales is the neglect of the provisions of the Act of 1662 by the governors of the Church. By the 27th Section of that Act it is provided that, on and after the printing of the Prayer Book, the whole of the Divine Service shall be used and said by the ministers throughout all Wales within the said diocese where the Welsh tongue is commonly used in the Welsh tongue. That was studiously ignored from the time the Act of 1662 became law. For a few years, however, some attempt was made to conform to the law, but, as a matter of fact, shortly afterwards it became almost universal to disregard that provision, and not only was it disregarded, but another construction was placed upon if. Not only was it ignored in regard to the benefices, but as a matter of policy the Crown gave up the practice of appointing Welsh-speaking bishops, and for nearly 170 years not a single bishop appointed was a Welshman or able to speak the Welsh language, or carry on any service in Wales in the Welsh language. That I take to be the true reason why this rise of Nonconformity on an unparalleled scale took place.
  I think the next reason was the misuse of the funds of the Church, and the maladministration in general of its affairs. At that time the Government could not possibly undertake the pooling of the funds of the Church, or treat Wales apart from the rest of the area over which the English Church reigned. There may be some excuse for this, but looking back at the
  792
  causes, it seems to me not unfair on our part to point out that the maladministration of the funds with which we are concerned in this Bill was undoubtedly a very great contributing cause to the failure of the Church and the rise of Nonconformity. I think we have been very lenient in our criticism of the conduct of the leaders of the Church in the eighteenth century, and we are quite willing to accept the proposition that the Church failed in its duty. We have not attempted to enlarge upon that part of the subject by referring to many of the things which were little short of scandals that took place in regard to the use of what we consider was national property. In reply to some of the attacks made upon us, I remember one instance which was given of a very flagrant character, in which the trust funds were, in our judgment, misused. There was the case of a Bishop of St. Asaph's not more than 100 years ago, who, with four or five of his relations, was in the possession of Church preferments to the amount of £25,000 per year, and at the same moment the total amount in the diocese of St. Asaph's devoted to the working clergy of the diocese only amounted to something like £17,000. I quote that as showing that it is quite un-necessary for me to attempt to apportion responsibility for what I regard as the wrong use of trust funds; but, somehow or other, owing to some want of understanding of the dignity of his calling, this bishop allowed these things to go on.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The law would not allow the Church to deal with the question.
  5.0 P.M.
  Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I think that point is quite immaterial. I am speaking as a Welshman representing the Welsh nationality. We never asked to be joined with you. We were brought by Act of Parliament after Act of Parliament into the British realm. We were incorporated with the British realm, and now the Welsh people are commenting on the deeds of the Government, and are entitled to do so. The Noble Lord admitted that the Church had neglected its duty in the eighteenth century, and I am explaining how this has come about. The more you examine it, the more just seems to be the present claim of the Welsh people. Your argument is that it is all past history. You say, "We are doing our duty now." I will deal with that point presently. I was pointing out that the general policy of the Government

  793
  was towards this suppression of every effort of the Welsh people to be governed according to their own views. Yours was a policy of anglicising them. It began before the time of Henry VIII. The moment that Henry VIII. determined to make the whole area as like England as possible, there at once arose the first movement in an opposite direction, and with it came the rise of Nonconformity in Wales. I say the policy of the Government as a whole was one of the factors in that rise, not only in regard to religion, but in regard to many other matters; but, above all, it was in regard to religion. You used the Church and its preferments as a political instrument—as part of a political game.
  Another point which has to be borne in mind was adverted to by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General yesterday, and it was the character and temperament of the Welsh people. That is an element which I venture to think the Church does not at the present time take sufficiently into account. Anybody who knows anything of the life of Wales, knows that when you go into a Church of England and a Nonconformist's place of worship, you will see in the latter a different and warmer tone throughout the whole service. I should like if I had time to analyse the character of the Welsh people. Really in the Middle Ages we were very different from what we are now. We were described, without contradiction, as "a haughty nation, proud in arms," but except that we were very devoted to the Catholic religion and to many of the usages connected with it; there was nothing specially religious about us. If I may trust the accounts I have read, I should say it was very much the other way. Taking all these things into consideration, what reason can we urge for not complying with our wishes in regard to this Bill. Here we are overwhelming Nonconformist. You are not disinclined to give us some measure of Home Rule—some devolution of autonomy. Federalism is very much in the air. Opinion seems to be trending in that direction, and I should like to know what sound reason can be urged against allowing us to govern ourselves in these matters in our own way. Is there any reason why the ecclesiastical law so far as we are concerned should not be abolished. That is my general answer to the Noble Lord's speech. He has not grappled, as I conceive, with our first principle—the principle of nationality. He admits it, but only in a qualified way.
  794
  Taking it even on its own basis, and starting from the year 1662, I say that changes have taken place which entitle us to ask at the hands of this Parliament, an opportunity of developing according to the natural bent of our beliefs.
  There are many points on which I should like to say a word or two, but having regard to the time I will only deal with one or two. I should like to touch on the general principles upon which we base the Disendowment Clauses of this Bill. Our contention is that the property of the dissolved corporations must be dealt with in a just and expedient way, and we assert that the adjustment made by the Bill is a fair and reasonable one. We say that, according to the original trusts, the funds were appropriated to the corporations, not simply for purposes of worship, but for a much more enlarged spiritual purpose—for various godly uses, and for other purposes which involved a performance of duties wider than those usually performed by the Church. On this question the subject of the origin of tithes arises. That is the largest head of property which is proposed to be transferred to the Commissioners under this Bill. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been very bitterly attacked for a statement he made as to the origin of tithes. It has been called by the bishops "a Greek theory of the origin of tithes." We can all admit that the origin is obscure. I notice, however, that the bishops rush in where lawyers fear to tread. The origin of tithes is part of a great historical development, and in order to find it out you have to read the whole of the history of the Church, not only in the Principality, but in other countries as well. My view is that the origin of tithes, by which I mean the custom of paying a tenth part of certain annual produce, becomes important in our Debate because tithe was a species of property which arose before the Church organisations became general. The real point of controversy is as to the appropriation of this tithe property for tithe. I will not remind the House of the provisions made by Statute for the appropriation for parochial purposes of this kind of property, but I should like to give my views as to the origin of tithes in Wales.
  My right hon. Friend asserted that before the tenth century there is no evidence that tithe was commonly payable in Wales. That was stated in answer to

  795
  the argument that tithe was a spontaneous, voluntary offering on the part of the Church people of that time towards Church purposes. I admit that at that time probably only renters had paid. I am nearly certain my right hon. Friend is right in this matter. The question is being discussed outside this House in magazine articles as to what is meant by tithe. I have looked at the works of Giraldus, and have examined all the texts I can find that have a bearing on this point. The first and principal refers to the existence of a somewhat curious custom about tithe. Tithe on special occasions was paid. On such occasions, for instance, as death one-tenth of the property was paid over. English lawyers have been talking about the special tithe a Welshman paid to the bishop on the occasion of his marriage, or on the occurrence of some equally important event. But those gifts of one-tenth of a man's property had nothing to do with the general custom of giving one-tenth of the agricultural produce every year. There is no doubt that that is the way in which tithe was originally paid in Wales, and the question is, when did this custom of paying annually by the renter arise in Wales? It appears to me, on general considerations, it is extremely unlikely the custom became usual before the Norman Conquest. We have direct testimony in regard to Ireland that no such tithe was paid in the twelfth century. On that we have the personal evidence of Giraldus Cambrensis, and we have the fact that the organisation of the Church in Wales was at that time very similar to the organisation of the Church in Ireland. In England and Wales alike the origin of the Church organisation appears to have been this: First the diocese, next the parish in some form or other, next your archdeaconries and rural deaneries. In regard to Wales, the bulk of the dioceses were only created at a very late period, and the reason was that the character of the Church in Wales before the Norman Conquest, and before they came under the influence of Theodore and his successor, was monastic, not monastic in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) spoke yesterday, when he interposed with a remark during the speech of the Attorney-General, but monastic in the sense of a kind of tribal community. That was the character of the Church organisation. In that kind of organisation all the
  796
  brethren worked themselves, and it is almost inconceivable that they should have been able to go outside their own area and demand that the population should pay one-tenth of the produce of the soil. That is a general observation. My next observation is that we have direct evidence from Giraldus Cambrensis upon the point. I would ask the permission of the House to read one extract from his biography, because it is directed to the condition of things in Wales, and it seems to me to carry with it the mark of absolute truth. He said:—
  "On his return from studying at Paris, he immediately began to apply himself, and with the very greatest success, to Church work both in England and Wales.
  Afterwards as one born for the benefit not of himself but of his country, and proposing to the utmost of his powers to be a good man for the sake of the common weal, he displayed remarkable character in working for the Church's profit and doing his best to make good her losses. Accordingly seeing that throughout nearly the whole diocese of St. David's, especially in the counties of Pembroke and Cardigan, owing to the remissness of prelates tithes were not given either of wool or cheese, he went to Canterbury, to which at that time the Church of St. David's as indeed also all Wales was de facto by the lex provincialis sub-ordinate, and on his pointing out these losses to Archbishop Richard, the then president, who had risen to be both Primate of all England and legate of the Court of Rome, he was at once sent back by the archbishop to Wales as his legate, to cure these defects and any others he might there find. The archbishop further issued an admonition in his spiritual letter; and with a view to a remission of sins enjoined on all who had hitherto failed to give these tithes, that in future they should give them. And to such as were willing to comply with his admonition and give tithes he remitted one-third of the penance that had been enjoined, but to such as were recalcitrant and refused to give tithes he directed that the judgment of the Church should be strictly enforced against them. Immediately all the Welsh people in obedience to these reasonable admonitions conceded that the above-mentioned tithes should be given, and not only all the Welsh people, but the whole population of the whole country except the Flemings of Ros and their associates."
  That appears to me to show exactly what the Home Secretary suggested, that it was, at the beginning of the end of the twelfth century, when the Normans forced Norman bishops upon the four Welsh dioceses, that this custom of paying tithe became obligatory according to law. Here you have the direct evidence of Giraldus Cambrensis, writing in the third quarter of that century, to the effect that it was only upon a direct order and admonition from the Archbishop of Canterbury that the people of Wales complied with the custom and paid tithe. I shall not delay the House further by a reference to these topics, but it seemed right as the Debate proceeded for those of us who get up and speak on the side of the majority to deal respectfully with the arguments on the other side. That must be my apology for dealing at such length with what may be only one and that not a very important

  797
  point in our controversy. I am much obliged to the House for the kind indulgence they have shown to me, and I can only say that, notwithstanding the criticism that has been made upon this Bill, it appears to me to be eminently just and expedient, and I am perfectly certain that it will not lead to that amount of bitterness, to which it is generally asserted on the other side that it will mean, but that it will be a great message of peace and prosperity to that country.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down devoted the last twenty minutes of his speech to a discussion of the theory of tithes advanced first in this House by the Home Secretary. I might have supposed that the Home Secretary had got that theory by a kind of inward illumination, but it appears, although Giraldus Cambrensis is an authority which I presume everybody who is interested in the early history of Wales has studied, that the passage which is so conclusive to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, has escaped the notice of many learned historians who have dealt with this subject, and that it was reserved for the learned Gentleman, acting upon this hint derived from his inner consciousness by the Home Secretary, to discover that there really Was historical foundation for a theory, which, though advanced from that bench by one high authority, has been contradicted from the same bench by another authority equally high. I do not propose to follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his discussion for more than one reason. In the first place, I have not the apparatus, either of inward intuition or acquired learning, which distinguishes both the first author of the theory and its last supporter. I am quite unable to add anything from what I know of theory or of Giraldus Cambrensis either for or against the argument which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has advanced. In the second place, I heartily agree with an observation with which he prefaced that very interesting discussion to which we have just listened, the remark, I mean, that it had very little to do with the subject before the House, and that it really had very little bearing upon the fundamental issues which we are discussing. Indeed, the beginning of his speech was quite sufficient proof that was so. How did the right hon. and learned Gentleman begin? He began by reproaching my Noble Friend behind me (Lord Robert Cecil) for
  798
  having made in the course of his very admirable speech yesterday no reference at all to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite called the "central argument" on which everything else in this discussion depends. That central argument, I need hardly say, has nothing whatever to do either with tithe or Giraldus Cambrensis.
  What is that "central argument"? The central argument, according to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, is that Wales is a separate nationality, and, being a separate nationality, and having declared by the votes of the Members it sends to this House year after year that it desire" the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in Wales, it follows from those two things, the fact that it is claimed to be a separate nationality and the fact that its representatives here have given their support to that policy, that this House ought to accept it. I always touch on this question of nationality in fear and trembling. I do not at all deny that we may very properly, each one of us, consider and be moved by the particular patriotism of the part of the United Kingdom in which we happen to have been born, or where our fathers were born. I quite agree with that; but I think, and I must say so frankly, that we are getting—not we alone, but other communities are also getting—to abuse this notion of nationality and are carrying it to an excess which is really deleterious from the point of view of the interests of the separate party. I do not suggest for a moment that a Welshman ought not to be proud of being a Welshman. Of course, I do not. I do not suggest for a moment that the Welsh have not shown and do not now show qualities which, to a certain extent, are different from other citizens of the United Kingdom, partly due to their history and partly due to their origin, and which make them a most invaluable element in that historic compound which we call the United Kingdom. Do not let us, and do not let them, drive this point of view to excess. There is a danger of its being driven to excess.
  I am told that at this moment just across the North Sea the small country of Belgium is being torn asunder by the controversies of two sections of its population, to whom this principle of nationality has begun to appeal in a way which it never appealed to them before, and who no doubt do speak different languages, and are to a certain extent of different blood. Nothing

  799
  but harm can come to Belgium from that division, and nothing but harm can come to us if we are perpetually thinking not of what we have in common but what there is which separates us. I do not in the least want to undervalue the historic continuity of the Welsh people. The right hon. and learned Gentleman traces it down from mediaeval time. He told us, among other things, that although there had been a continuity of blood and of tradition, that bad not been found inconsistent with a great change in character. He said that in mediæval times the Welsh were a cheerful nation, and a gay nation, and a happy nation, and that in modern times a shade of melancholy had come over them, some traces of which I even thought I discovered in the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but, be the Welsh grave or gay, be they like the happy mediæ;val peasants or whether they prefer the more learned melancholy type, whether in past times or in the present, they are an element in the United Kingdom which deserves and receives all other respect and affection. But do not let them always be thinking that they are Welshmen and not Britons. Do not let them always be reflecting what events in their history have made a division between the East and the West, between their mountains and the great plains of England. Let them remember, whatever the past may have been, that in the historical future we must be one nation, each, no doubt, adding some separate elements of excellence to the common stock, but more concerned with the great things which we share together than with the relatively small things which we each hold by a separate tenure.
  The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps allow me to leave the learned part of his speech and come to the application of what I have just been saying—to what he calls the central argument on which all this controversy in which we are engaged depends. He seems to claim—he does claim, as I understand it—that because the vast majority of the Welsh Members have shown persistently for several Parliaments and for many years that they desire Disestablishment and Disendowment, therefore, on the principle of nationality, it ought to be given to them. On the principle of nationality, as interpreted by the present Government, it ought not to be given to them. In the part of the United Kingdom which, above all others, the present
  800
  Government treats as a separate nation, and to which they wish to give separate powers, they deliberately exclude from the Parliament which is to be set up—a Parliament with powers far in excess of anything I understand to be desired or claimed by the Welsh Members, even those who are most anxious for a federal system—that Irish Parliament is not allowed to touch the questions analogous to those which the right hon. Gentleman says it is inherent in the very notion of nationality should be decided by the separate Parliament. I do not understand how he can vote for the Home Rule Bill after that. According to him, it is a direct insult to Irish nationality. The one great thing he claims for Welsh nationality is that it should determine the very things, religious and educational, which are deliberately excluded from the Irish Bill. There fore, if he will allow me to say so, the doctrines of nationality as practised by his own friends are wholly inconsistent with the doctrines of nationality as he desires to see them practised in connection with this Bill.
  I do not wish to dwell too much upon the inconsistency of the application of those principles as exhibited by the present Government and their supporters. The contradictions are great. I say that as long as Welsh Members are an element in this House they must carry with them authority as to the wishes of Wales, but that authority does not settle how a question they bring before us is to be decided. We must be allowed to use our own reason; we must be allowed to apply the principles of justice which we think generally applicable to the claims that they put forward. They come before us with all the authority behind them of a majority in their respective constituencies, but that authority, however great and however high you choose to put it, docs not overbear the great principles which ought to animate an assembly like this when it is dealing with vast interests of property and vast interests connected with religion. It is an extraordinary thing that, while the right hon. Gentleman tells us that we ignore the one argument for this Bill, he and his Friends spend almost the whole of their time in explaining—in speeches of great interest, let me add—and bringing forward facts which, in many cases, I am not at all prepared to dispute, how it comes about that the Church has lost the position which it once had. I do not know how many explanations have not been given of that fact, which I think is

  801
  important. The Attorney-General, who is not at this moment in his place, gave us a very interesting account, from his point of view, of how it happened. He says, and I am not at all sure that his argument was not endorsed by the right hon. Gentleman who just sat down, that the English Established Church has lost its position in Wales because it really is not suited to the Celtic temperament. Why is it not suited to the Celtic temperament according to these Gentlemen? It is because there is a certain cold dignity—this is their view—about the services of the Established Church which does not commend itself to the warmer sentiments and more readily aroused feelings of the native Welsh. I do not see how that theory, that ingenious ethnological theory, really fits in with the facts. In the first place, as the right hon. Gentleman told us, the Welsh were at one time most devoted adherents of the Roman Catholic Church.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: Never of the Reformed Church.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I said the Roman Catholic Church. Then we come to the time between the Reformation and the outburst of religious revival in the eighteenth century. The right hon. Gentleman says they were not devoted to the Reformed Episcopal English Church. The Attorney-General says just the reverse. He told us—it is one of his criticisms of my Noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil)—that when the Parliamentary settlement of 1662 took place, Parliament in England dealt with ecclesiastical property which had at one time belonged to the State considered in its religious aspect—I do not say I endorse all this, but it is the argument—and that in 1662 it used all those resources for the English Church. But he went on to say that the argument of my Noble Friend that there was a Parliamentary settlement in which Parliament, well knowing the existence of dissent, nevertheless, in spite of their knowledge, gave a Parliamentary title to the English Church and to the property now held by the English Church, that argument, says the Attorney-General, does not really apply in the case of Wales, because in Wales there was no dissent. That was the whole point of the Attorney-General's argument. These right hon. Gentlemen, sitting upon benches in the closest proximity, seem to me to differ upon a question which I will not say is vital to this issue, because in my opinion
  802
  all these historical arguments, with which I am now dealing out of respect to those who have preceded me in the discussion, are very remotely connected with the issue upon which we have to decide. Nevertheless, the fact remains that there was this great devotion in mediæval times to the Roman Catholic Church, which surely is as far separated as the English Church from the present Welsh religious position! I am utterly unable to follow this argument about the Celtic character. When I consider what the view of the peoples whose language is or has recently been Celtic, either in Ireland, in Wales, in Britain, or in the Highlands, I am utterly unable to bring together the theory of the Attorney-General with the notorious facts of the case in those other parts of the world where the Celtic temperament is, I presume, as strong as in Wales, of which he was speaking.
  I do not really think that we ought to waste too much time over these discussions. We have to consider in this Bill what we are doing for the future. Hon. Gentlemen opposite really appear to think that when they have accounted for the fact of dissent in Wales they have justified what they are going to do to the Church. There is no connection that I can see, in logic or anything else, between the two propositions. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down almost apologised to the House for bringing forward some story—I know he takes a great deal "of trouble over his facts—some discreditable story about a Bishop of St. Asaph who lived a hundred years ago. I do not care whether there are a hundred stories about a Bishop of St. Asaph one hundred years ago or two hundred years ago. It is important to know that these unhappy results have occurred, and that there is this division, which, perhaps, need never have happened, in Welsh religious feeling, and that that has been partly due—I do not say wholly due—to the apathy or misunderstanding of the English Church, and partly to the shameless way in which Welsh benefices were used as political rewards by eighteenth-century statesmen.
  I have no doubt that these stories are true and might be multiplied. I have no doubt they have a great deal to do with the present position in Wales. I accept the account of them, although you might qualify it by a discussion of details—probably the right hon. Gentleman and I would not wholly agree as to the details—but as to the broad facts we all accept, on both sides of the House, that events

  803
  have occurred for which, no doubt, the general religious condition in England and Europe was partly responsible, which have had the melancholy result of dividing the Church of England from many of those who, in happier circumstances, would have been her contented and her devoted sons. I do not think there was a speech made from this side of the House which did not accept that statement. We ask two simple questions. Grant that the Church has lost much of the position which she once held, grant that in times past she deserved to lose it, what is there in contemporary history which justifies this Bill, which, firstly, Disestablishes her, and secondly, Disendows her? I think those two questions ought to be treated separately. There I differ from the Under-Secretary for the Home Department who, at the beginning of the proceedings, in an interposition in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher), said that Disendowment and Disestablishment were two names for the same thing.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was here when I made the interruption?
  Mr. BALFOUR: I was.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I am in the recollection of the House. What I said was that Disestablishment and Dismemberment were two names for the same thing.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. May I take up that revised—
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: It is not revised.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I never confounded the hon. Gentleman with the Lord Chancellor—not for a moment! I quite admit that I misunderstood him. I think what he has now said is interesting and important. He says Disestablishment means Dismemberment. If it means dismemberment, what becomes of the national argument? If it means dismemberment, why are the Welsh Members, and the Welsh Members alone, to settle the dismemberment of the English Church? And what becomes of the right hon. Gentleman who told us that the whole essence and foundation of the case they were laying before us was that the Welsh Members wanted to Disestablish the Welsh Church, when the learned Gentleman who speaks on the
  804
  same side from the Front Bench says that carries with it dismemberment of the English Church, and the English Members are not to have any say in the matter? They are to follow the lead of the Welsh Members, and because the Welsh Members desire the division of the English Church, they are to follow on the grounds of rationality. The English never are allowed to have a nationality. I do not think there can really be a stronger argument against that aspect of the Bill, or against the fundamental proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, than the doctrine laid down earlier in the evening by the learned Gentleman. Disestablishment and Disendowment are then, it is agreed, quite different propositions. One can take place without the other, and I should have thought it would be even possible for the full sentiment of Welsh nationality to be satisfied by some arrangement which would prevent what apparently hurts their feelings so much, namely, the Metropolitan authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury. They do not appear to desire that. All they want is to cut the English Church into two, and treat the Welsh party as if it had no connection with the body of which for centuries it has been an integral portion.
  I cannot understand quite what is expected to be gained by Disestablishment. Take one of these small Welsh farmers, who, I quite agree, are, largely in agricultural districts, the people we have to consider. In what way will his position or his outlook on the religion of his country or his own religious practice, or that of his friends or anything else, be altered by the Disestablishment of the Church in his district, supposing he is a Nonconformist? The vicar is not removed; the old services go on in the old church. No doubt they may be in time crippled by want of funds. No doubt great suffering will be or may be inflicted upon the curates, but how does he benefit by that? What religious or irreligious sentiment is aided by the fact that the bishops of the Welsh diocese no longer take part in Convocation and that there is no further appeal to Ecclesiastical Courts? He thinks perhaps now, when he votes for an hon. Gentleman who is in favour of Disestablishment, that there will be some change which affects him. What change will there be? No one has ever been able to describe it. You hear some talk of religious equality. I am not going to discuss realities or irrealities of that kind, but I am asking how equality will have

  805
  been gained in the eyes of my supposed parishioner. How are Church and Chapel more levelled than they were before, except that the Church is poorer than it was before? What other difference is there? I believe it is a confusion of ideas rather than a want of generosity of spirit which makes people talk in this way about inequality. I do not believe that any important section of Welshmen gloat over the impoverishment of the Church to which they do not belong. All the same, what is it they mean by equality in concrete fact? What is it that in their actual lives makes a difference in anything which is within the ambit of their own experience in their own parish or diocese? Nothing; it can make no difference to them—this local difference of the Court of Appeal. It can make no difference to them that the four dioceses of Wales are within the Metropolitan See of Canterbury. Is that what you mean by inequality? And if it is not, what is it except money? It all comes back to that. No one has ever been able to tell me what it is except money. I rather think I have the explicit declaration of certain Welsh Members that it is money. Did not the hon. and learned Gentleman express his contempt for any ecclesiastical reform which had not money in it?
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: What I said was that Disestablishment was a social programme, and that no social programme was worth having unless there was money in it.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I do not see that the hon. and learned Gentleman has bettered. his case by that explanation. He will see, I think, that he has confirmed the proposition I was trying to establish, which is that really and truly when they talk of equality all they are thinking of is money. Unconsciously it is money. No one has ever been able to explain what else it is, and no one can now explain. That brings us to what is really the central point of this Bill, which is not Disestablishment but Disendowment. That is what you are really after. It is this £158,000 which is in question to-day. High-sounding phrases—the use of the word "equality" and the word "liberty"—are brought in with reckless frequency and no meaning, as far as I can discover, whatever. But if you come to Disestablishment, you come across principles on which, if the Welsh Members will allow me to say so, it is not for them specially to offer
  806
  an opinion. You come to the question of the principles of jurisprudence, on which the House ought to be guided when it is dealing with great corporate property. I say that without doubt this is a violation of every sound principle for dealing with corporate property. I believe I am not wrong in saying that the Supreme Court of the United States had to deal with this very question of Disestablishment and Disendowment not so long after the Declaration of Independence and the establishment of the American Constitution. It was, I think, in Virginia, where there had been an Established Church, and where that Church was Disestablished, and then came the question which so interests hon. Gentlemen opposite—whether it should be Disendowed also. It is not a matter in which I have any special learning, but I believe the case came before the Supreme Court of America, and I believe they decided that by every principle of equity and justice—those, I think, were the phrases they used—it was a fact that the Church being Disestablished did not carry with it any ground whatever for saying it ought to be Disendowed, and implying that there must be some abuse of the trust before they could deprive a corporation of its property.
  6.0 P.M.
  Were not the Supreme Court of the United States perfectly correct in their statement? Is it not contrary to natural equity and natural justice that you should take away from a great body like the Church of England money which, by common admission, is being properly used and, by common admission, is being used for the purposes for which it ought to be used? No amount of historical refining will ever get over that broad principle. The unfortunate Church of England is not allowed ever to have a claim. If you say that her title goes back for immemorial centuries, you say there was a break at the Reformation, and you take advantage of the inevitable fact that anything which goes through centuries must undergo some alteration. If you take my Noble Friend's point and say that Parliament gave a title in 1662, in the Act of Settlement, then you say Parliament did a most iniquitous thing, because it took funds which were intended for the nation and gave them to a sect. Then comes down the hon. and learned Gentleman and says they were not a sect; they were a nation. That is turned round and made an argument for saying that the Act of 1662 did not give a Parliamentary title. This unfortunate Church never can be right. If you were

  807
  dealing, not with a Church which for various historical reasons you wanted to injure, or, at all events, to Disestablish and Disendow, if you were dealing with any other corporation, if you were dealing with a Nonconformist corporation, what would you say to people who said it had a Parliamentary title 260 years old, but it was a Parliamentary title that ought never to have been given? Can you manage civilised societies on these principles? The jurisprudence of every civilised society in the world regards security of possession and long tenure as being a necessary element in every well-governed State, and you are going to bring in insecurity where security ought to have been found, you are going to disturb property, you are going to disturb ancient landmarks which ought to be left, at the very time when you are violating all the principles which you try to apply to an Established Church in order to secure the property of this or that Nonconformist body. The inconsistency is so gross, and the violation of all sound principles is so grave, that I cannot believe that hon. Gentlemen, when they come to think it over, and when they can get out of their heads the mere fact that the Welsh political representatives have desired this for two or three Parliaments, will feel that they should come to the House of Commons and in the name of Wales make this application and offer up this prayer to us that we should endorse this gross act of injustice. I think they will feel when they have had time to think it over that they are doing not only a very ill service to the Church, and a very ill service to religion, but a very ill service to those fundamental principles of public policy which we are all bound to respect if we mean to maintain the stability of civilised institutions. I certainly do not think it worth while, even if I were capable, to deal with the historical arguments which, I think, are largely irrelevant, and the irrelevancy of which I have tried to show.
  There is one observation, suggested to me by the learned Attorney-General's speech, which I think I may be allowed to make in conclusion. The learned Attorney-General when he got to his peroration passed a eulogy upon the Parliament Act, and he turned round to his Friends—I do not quote his exact words—and said in substance that this happy reform of our institutions will make this the last time
  808
  upon which we shall have to read this Bill a second time. That may well be the case. I think it is quite possible, but have not the Parliament Act and the Welsh Bill rather changed places? The Parliament Act was originally an interim arrangement, intended to allow the Home Rule Bill and the Welsh Church Bill to pass. That was the object with which it was brought in. We were avowedly and boastingly deprived of our old constitution, and we were reluctantly deprived of any immediate hope of the new and revised constitution promised at the time, and the promise of which remains on the Statute Book. But the unhappy interval in which we are working under these provisional institutions was to be used for passing the Irish and the Welsh Bills. That was the avowed object. The Parliament Act was the instrument intended to carry out these reforms. I now begin to think that these reforms are going to be carried in order to justify the instrument. I do not believe for a moment that hon. Gentlemen opposite are happy either over the Irish Bill or the Welsh Bill.
  I do not for a moment believe that they think that either the events or the arguments which have occurred in the last two years since the Parliament Act was passed have made those measures, for which the Parliament Act was passed, more acceptable to their countrymen, or more likely to conduce to the return to office of the party who proposed them. On the contrary, every human being who has discussed the Home Rule Bill—we will have other opportunities of dealing with that subject—everybody knows that has got them into difficulties they never foresaw. The difficulties of the Welsh Bill are of a less lurid description, but I think more and more the country is beginning to feel what we have always felt, and is opening its ears to arguments that we have always urged, namely, that in essence and fundamentally this Bill is nothing else than a Bill for robbing a Church which is doing its duty. The Nonconformist deputation which the right hon. Gentleman refused to see is but a symptom of what is going on in every part of the country, and in every part of the country where this problem is being considered they brush all your irrelevant history aside, and they ask themselves this question, "Is the Church in Wales doing its duty?" And the answer they get is a unanimous answer from all sides, that it is doing its duty. The next question they ask is, "Is the Church in

  809
  Wales over-endowed with this world's goods; has it got more than is required to enable it to carry out its duty?" And again the answer comes unanimously from every party and quarter of the House, from every authority, that it has not got more than is required. With the plain common sense of Englishmen, whether they be Nonconformists or Conformists, whether they belong to the Established Church or not, can they do otherwise than draw the inevitable conclusion? Then why in that case are you taking away money which is avowedly not being misused by those who are responsible for its expenditure? [An HON. MEMBER: "Because it does not belong to them."] If the hon. Gentleman who interrupted me can find a single Nonconformist body in this country, or anywhere else, which has a better title to its funds than the Church in Wales has to its funds, it will be time to take his interruption seriously.
  I think myself that what I have ventured to put to the House as to the change of opinion in the country, both on the Irish Bill and on this Bill, is coming home to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that I did not exaggerate when I said that they are quite as anxious to pass these Bills in order to justify the Parliament Act as they were originally to pass the Parliament Act in order to get these Bills. It is the cry of baffled legislators as much as anything else which moves them to give the Government the steady support—well, I do not think it is very steady on the Welsh Bill—but to give the measure of support which the Government can still claim on this matter. I think the whole procedure of forcing these Bills through under these circumstances is iniquitous. There is something grandiose, no doubt, about the Irish part of the policy. You dismember a great historic union. You have a lurid background of possible civil war. There is a certain splendour about it and a certain dramatic impressiveness. But what are we to say of this Bill? There is no splendour about this Bill. There is nothing impressive and nothing dramatic. It is a thoroughly mean proposal, having for its object nothing connected with the spread of religion, nothing connected with those social reforms spoken of by the learned Gentleman, if by social reforms he means, as I hope he does, not merely certain material changes, but the development of the spiritual life of the whole community. There is
  810
  nothing connected with these. No, the one object of the Bill, and the only object which it will successfully attain, is that of taking away from those who have too little money already to carry out their great duties two-thirds of the Endowments they have inherited by an undoubted title from an immemorial past.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I will not do more in regard to the concluding part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, in which he dwelt on the relation of this Bill to the Parliament Act, than make two observations. The first is that I take note of his statement that the Parliament Act was avowedly passed as an instrument in order that this Bill and another Bill with which we are familiar might pass into law.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Immediately pass.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The second observation I have to make is that the right hon. Gentleman decerns by some form of intuition, which I certainly do not share with him, indications of opinion that the country is less in favour of these Bills now than it was two or three years ago. I should like very much to know on what evidence that statement is made. The truth is, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me here—it is my apology for making a very short draft on the patience of the House—it is extremely difficult at this time of day to say anything in regard to this measure which has not been said, and said well, before, in many cases twenty or even a hundred times. Twenty years ago, when I held the office of Home Secretary, I introduced a similar Bill—a less generous Bill I agree as regards its dealings with the Endowments of the Welsh Church—and we argued then those same great differences of principle which have been repeatedly argued afresh in the course of these Debates.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: And you were immediately defeated at the General Election.
  The PRIME MINISTER: At that time, apart from the argument of principle, the point of policy—though I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is not conclusive, but still it lies very near the root of the matter—namely, that the opinion of the Welsh people, for whom, if for anybody, the claim for Disestablishment exists, clearly expressed as it has been, was certainly not so plainly defined or so

  811
  emphatically asserted as it has been now, for in these twenty years we must, I think, in all fairness regard as the settled judgment of the Welsh electorate the opinion which has been expressed at three, if not more, General Elections. That opinion has been affirmed and reaffirmed. The right hon. Gentleman says this is a petty affair. Well, Wales is a small place. The Welsh people are not a numerous population, but although Wales is small in area, although her inhabitants are not numerous, judged by the standard of England or other great countries, they have just as intense a feeling of national patriotism. They are quite as much moved by corporate sentiment, corporate instincts, corporate aspirations and ideals, as any of the larger communities which go to make up the British Empire.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted what I said, in quoting my use of the word "petty." I did not mean that the Bill was petty because Wales was a small country. I meant that it was petty because it was mean.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Wales is a small country, but the Welsh people regard this as the most serious of all matters. I do not believe that there is one political or social question which has had the same tenacious and enduring hold upon the mind of the Welsh people as this question has had for the best part of the lifetime of two generations. Therefore, though the sum of money involved is very small, and though the right hon. Gentleman may think that in this respect more generous terms might have been held out to the Church, yet when we come to the question as to whether or not this Bill should be read a second time, we are really face to face with the question whether this repeated insistent demand by the vast majority of the Welsh people with regard to a matter in which they themselves are most intimately and directly concerned should not have effect given to it by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman made some interesting remarks in the early part of his speech on the subject of nationality. He paid a tribute, not, I think, for the first time—I have heard him do so more than once before—to the value of these separate threads or strands which go to make up the cable of our Imperial unity or strength,
  812
  and he said, very truly, that we ought not to get into the habit of thinking not of what we have in common, but of what separates us.
  I agree with him. But unless you do that with due regard to that which is distinctive, and that which is peculiar, in its historical origin—for unlike the right hon. Gentleman I maintain that in a matter of this kind you cannot divorce either the present or the future from the past—and unless you have regard to those elements which were and are distinctive, those peculiar characteristics, which are deep-rooted in many cases in the past traditions and experience of one of these constituent elements in our common unity, you will not get that habit of thinking in common in regard to common interests which it is all-important that we should develop to the utmost of our power. In other words, the deference and concession in all matters of local concern, where local sentiment and interests are deeply indicated, are one of the first conditions of vivifying and stimulating our Imperial strength. I agree again with the right hon. Gentleman that in a complex organism like the United Kingdom it may be that for special reasons, and in special cases, in reference to some particular section of the community, even a strongly expressed wish must be either denied or at any rate postponed. But the burden of proof lies ort those who maintain that proposition in a particular case. I am not going into these elaborate, and, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, to some extent irrelevant historical disquisitions on this subject. But we cannot get rid of this simple fact, that to the vast majority of the Welsh people the Welsh Church, as it is called, is not a national institution. It is four dioceses in the Province of Canterbury.
  The reason for that deeply rooted and ineradicable conviction in their mind is owing to the fact that for over two centuries, if not for more, the Church in Wales was treated as an outpost and a convenience of the Church of England. Before I pass from that point, though I may be old-fashioned, I have some belief in representative Government, and I take it that the opinions of the elected representatives from Wales, returned, so far as this matter is concerned, in substantially the same numbers over a long series of elections, must be taken as the authentic expression of the convictions and judgment of the Welsh people. We were told in the course of this Debate that we ought to modify

  813
  that view in consequence of certain petitions and protests which have been presented to me by Welsh Nonconformists. The right hon. Gentleman was wrong in saying that I refused to receive a deputation. I did receive one deputation. I refused to receive a second one, but I received the first one and heard it for a considerable time, and I have, in regard to the petitions, to make these two observations: In the first place, it was quite impossible, as it would have been possible if they had proceeded in the ordinary way of petitions to the House of Commons, to test the reality and genuineness of these signatures which were adhibited to the petition. Of course, grave allegations were made, both on one side and the other, as to how these petitions were got up or were more or less canvassed. It is impossible for me to form a judgment on a point like that. I can have no means of forming a judgment. I cannot say how much Nonconformist sentiment these gentlemen, either in one case or the other, really represent.
  But the second point, which was much more important was this: I asked them—we had to conduct our communications through the medium of an interpreter; they were obviously Welsh peasants and tradesmen—but in answer to my question they were all in favour of Disestablishment. The hon. Gentleman who introduced the deputation will agree with me that that was the case. They were in favour of Disestablishment. The only part of the Bill to which, they took exception was the Disendowment Clauses, and it seems to me that prima facie, at any rate, many of them had a very vague notion as to what the Bill itself did and what it took away from the Church. I confess that I cannot see anything in this particular proceeding by way of Nonconformist protest which invalidates or impairs in any way the weight of evidence that both Disestablishment and Disendowment are desired by the overwhelming majority of the people of Wales. I only say I do not think that that is conclusive, but I think that it takes us a considerable distance on the road when you are considering this question from the point of view of policy. I will now go briefly into one or two points, which were insisted on by the right hon. Gentleman, around which, as at the beginning so now at the end, this controversy seems to me to turn. The first is as to the ethics. The question of Disestablishment, I think
  814
  can hardly be described as an ethical question.
  People may hold, and many people do hold, perhaps the majority of the people in England, that an Established Church acquiesced in and supported by a majority of the nation, has from the religious and spiritual point of view, special and peculiar advantages In the first place, they will say that it gives corporate expression to what may be described as the religious aspect of the community. In the next place—and I think that I have heard the right hon. Gentleman on previous occasions develop this argument—they say that it secures a wider range of thought and activity, a more elastic interpretation of formularies and dogmas, a more educated ministry, a more independent laity, and a larger and freer atmosphere, both theological and ecclesiastical. That is the argument which has been presented with the illustration of experience, in favour of Establishment. But may I not gain general assent when I say that the strongest supporter of Establishment must admit, if he is a candid and fair-minded man, that there are conditions under which a nation can, without any such Establishment, show itself as religious in the truest, highest, and deepest sense of the word, and at least as free and efficient. What true friend of the Church of England—and I hope I may count myself as one of the number—who is not at this moment at times tempted to lament that in matters real and vital she has no autonomy, and that she is bound and fettered by dogmas and formularies of the sixteenth and seventeenth century? After all, wisdom did not cease with these centuries, and as our recent experience has shown, any substantial modification, however much desired in the interests of a larger ecclesiastical life, is a painful, laborious, even if indeed it be a. possible task.
  Look rather, then, to our great kindred nation, the United States of America. There we see how it is possible both to have without Establishment the religious life of a community as strong and vital as it could possibly be under the ægis of an Established Church, and with at least as large and liberal an atmosphere of thought and an infinitely greater power of elasticity. I think that the argument with regard to Disestablishment is not an

  815
  ethical one, although one's individual standpoint may vary, but is really based on considerations of expediency, and, at any rate, of experience. As regards Disendowment, where the ethical question undoubtedly does come in, as I have frequently said, in the course of these discussions, we claim here to deal with the ancient, as distinguished from the modern Endowments, as we believe in the interests of the community, and with all due regard to existing interests, and I believe that that is a claim which is vindicated both by history and by precedent. I do not want to go once again into the much vexed question of the origin and purpose of these old Endowments. It is common ground which cannot be disputed, though we have not been able to dive into the bosom or the secret thoughts of those pious benefactors who have long since crumbled into the dust, that these Endowments were given to the nation on its spiritual side in the days when Church and State were co-extensive entities.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: There is no such common ground. It is not common to our side.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I thought that it was. I thought that I should have commanded assent in that. They were given at a time when Church and State were coextensive entities. I always held—and I incurred some disfavour, I think, with some of my best friends, who reproached me with lukewarmness in this respect—that those benefactions were given to the Church, not only as the only religious, but by far the greatest eleemosynary agency then existing. You cannot speculate as to the precise intentions or motives of those pious founders in the past, but if you look at the form which their benefactions took, it seems to me at any rate reasonable to suppose that in many cases, while undoubtedly the religious was the dominating factors, they were people who were intensely interested in the promotion of charity and the development of education, and they found in the mediæval Anglican Church the only agency by which their interests in that respect could possibly be carried into effect. Therefore, when you are dealing with the ethics of this Bill, I do not think it is possible to ignore that side of the case. But when you come to the question of precedent, the right hon. Gentleman talks, as he did in his peroration just now, about
  816
  robbing the Church. When we hear of robbery, spoliation, and sacrilege as though they were appropriate epithets to describe the process on which we are engaged in this Bill, I am obliged to say once more that you have a precedent in this respect which is absolutely material—the precedent which is on our Statute Book, the Irish Church Act. In point of principle you have there placed on the Statute Book, initiated by one of the most devout and greatest of Churchmen of our time, and carried through the House of Lords, a measure to which, if your argument is well-founded, every one of those terms is at least as applicable. But when you come to the purposes to which that part of the Endowments of the Church, which is now going to be appropriated, are to be applied, you will find that in the use of a very large surplus which was left undisposed of by Parliament on the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Irish Church, both parties in the State, with perfect impartiality, have dipped their hands into this sacrilegious windfall, if I may use such a word, for the most secular and least religious purposes possible to conceive. I now come to the question of dismemberment, which means, in this connection as I understand it, the formal separation of these dioceses from their synodical position in the Convocation, or otherwise of the Province of Canterbury. I agree that it is a very necessary effect of the Bill, just as in the case of the Irish Church, which was united by the Act of Union to the Church of England. You dissolved the bond which had then existed for very nearly seventy years, and dismembered two bodies which had previously been united. When you have made that admission, as I do, it follows that Disestablishment means in that sense dismemberment. What then! What is there to prevent the continued union and community of interest and connection of these four dioceses with the rest of the Church of England in any different sense from what they are now? Unless you treat Convocation as something so essential to the unity of the Church and the common corporate action of its different parts that the fact that a diocese is separated from legal representation in Convocation inflicts upon it and upon the Church from which it is separated something in the nature of an irreparable injury, I do not see that this argument about dismemberment amounts

  817
  to really more than a technical one. The experience of this and other Christian Churches, not only in this but in other countries, shows that it is perfectly possible, without anything in the nature of such formal legal incorporation as a common representation in Convocation involves, to co-operate to the fullest extent, with the most fruitful results for all the common purposes for which a Church exists.
  The right hon. Gentleman, towards the close of his speech, said what does the Welsh Nonconformist farmer gain by Disestablishment? He said he was not speaking of money, and I am not speaking of money either. What does the Welsh Nonconformist farmer, he asked, gain by Disestablishment? What difference does it make to him? Is he better off after the Church is Disestablished than before. To what length does that argument of the right hon. Gentleman take us? If carried to its logical conclusion, that argument means, or ought to mean, to a rational, sober-minded, industrious, and perhaps not over-zealous inhabitant of this country, a matter of the greatest indifference whether the Roman Catholic Church is Established or whether the Anglican Church is Disestablished, or whether any other form of religious organisation is singled out for a position of superiority as compared with its rivals? It is not a question of pounds, shillings and pence. The Welsh Nonconformist farmer will gain very little materially from the passing of this Bill, but he will gain that which he and his forefathers and the forefathers of his forefathers for two centuries past have looked upon as essential to the completion and quickening of their national life, the sense that all religious denominations are put on one and the same footing, and that the principle of religious equality has been established.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The right hon. Gentleman has been guilty of a very grave historical inaccuracy. The right hon. Gentleman said that for two centuries the forefathers of Welsh Nonconformists have been in favour of religious equality by means of Disestablishment.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I did not say that. What I had in my mind was this, that the founders of Welsh Nonconformity, who were all zealous Churchmen, down to the eighteenth century, and who were all anxious, I agree, to remain within the walls of the Church, were really the originators of this movement.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that even as late as 1834, the leaders of Welsh Nonconformity publicly dissociated themselves from the Disestablishment movement. As regards the eighteenth century, the congregations of Nonconformists in Wales were few and far between. I quite admit that the congregations of Church people were not very large cither. To represent that this movement goes right away back in the history of Wales is to state what is not the case. In regard to Convocation, I cannot understand what difference it would make if the Government cut out part of Clause 3, thus giving the Church in Wales what she is asking for, namely, the right to attend the deliberations of the Province of Canterbury, the right that she should remain an integral part of the Church of that union of which the Church in Wales wishes to remain part. That would not affect Disestablishment at all; it would merely be that the Church of Wales would be represented where she desires to be represented, and that she would maintain that spiritual continuity and descent which she believes is vitally necessary to her traditional position. Many Churchmen look to the day when Convocation will be the real and vital spiritual authority in the Church. If Disestablishment comes, and if further autonomy comes, it will give a new direction to Convocation, to which Churchmen look for the future guidance of their spiritual life. Churchmen in Wales at their diocesan conference have asked for and demanded that they should have that freedom which is enjoyed by other Congregational Churches, by being represented in the Synod of England and Wales together. I remember at Nottingham meeting the hon. Member for Mid-Glamorgan (Mr. Hugh Edwards), and I asked him, "What are you doing here?" He told me he was a Welsh representative at the annual meeting of the Congregational Union of England and Wales. All we are asking is that we should be allowed to send, as we have sent for centuries, our clergy and our bishops to that Synod, that ancient Synod, of the Church of England, where purely spiritual matters affecting the Church of England are discussed by the spiritual leaders of our denomination. That is denied to us specifically in this Sub-clause in the Government Bill. We do ask as Churchmen, and not as politicians in any way, for that essential freedom and the right of any free Church to remain part of the communion of which we

  819
  wish to remain part. That is our position on that point. I do think that the right hon. Gentleman's Liberationist principles ought to concede that point. It is one of the outstanding points of difference which is causing the greatest ill-feeling in Wales. By it you are doing something on the spiritual side against the Church in Wales. One of the first things we should agitate for would be the removal of that Clause which forbids us to remain members of Convocation. One of the first things we should do if this Bill passes is to ask for the repeal of that part and other parts of the Bill.
  I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has fairly estimated the opinion even of Wales, and certainly not of England, upon this Bill. I do not wish to exaggerate the importance of the protest. I do not wish to bring it out as a great party triumph, but to take it absolutely at its face value. The protest from the diocese of St. Asaph's was very much the smallest and the humblest, as it was the first, and I hope they will not consider it offensive on my part if I say that it was the most amateur of those protests, compared with the gigantic protests from South Wales, led by the treasurer of the Anglesey Liberal Association. Here you have prominent leaders of Liberal opinion in Wales giving their names and going out to organise this protest. It seems to me far more significant than the 103,000 signatures to the protest which the Prime Minister so courteously allowed me to bring to his room are the remarkable names which followed upon that protest. There were all the members of the Cory family in Cardiff, one of whom was High Sheriff of Glamorgan, and another treasurer of the Baptist College in Cardiff, and a Mr. Richard Cory was a conspicuous figure in South Wales with great Liberal traditions behind him while you have, again, the treasurer of the Cardiff Liberal Association. You have those gentlemen coming cut for the first time against the Disendowment proposals of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that those people are in favour of Disestablishment. A great many of them are, but some are not. Some of the gentlemen he indicated were in favour of Disestablishment and some opposed to it, but all are opposed to Disendowment. When he says that these gentlemen are led away by misrepresentation, are gentlemen like the members of the Cory family going to be led away by
  820
  them? Is Mr. Henry Radcliff going to be led away in that way? Some hon. gentlemen opposite laugh when Mr. Radcliff's name is mentioned, but every Nonconformist denomination in Wales is only too anxious to get money out of Mr. Henry Radcliff—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"]—and to praise him and to flatter him, and to regard him as a leader of Nonconformity in Wales, when he subscribes to their Church with admirable munificence and supports them in that way, but when he objects to their political propaganda—and I take the statement of the Leader of the Welsh Liberal party that this is a political question and not a religious question—then they laugh at him and they throw over Mr. Henry Radcliff. As one who represents a Welsh constituency and who has some Welsh blood in his veins, I say that that is the sort of thing which makes people accuse the Welsh people of being an ungrateful people. I have heard that accusation made by English people against the Welsh people. I think it is a very unjust accusation, but it is the attitude of the hon. and reverend Member, with his sneers at Mr. Henry Radcliff, which causes—
  Mr. TOWYN JONES: I never sneered at Mr. Radcliff, and I never received a penny. We would be very glad to give to the Church party Mr. Henry Radcliff.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am sorry if the hon. Member wishes to turn him out of his denomination. I thought his laughter, when I mentioned his name, was a sneer. Whatever the Prime Minister may say to English Members, he will admit that I, as a Welsh Member, have a right to speak against this Bill in the name of a small section, and I believe a growing section, of Welsh opinion. I think the right hon. Gentleman has not done justice to the significance of the protest, and I think he has quite exaggerated the electioneering mandate. I would remind him that the great elction of 1906, which was claimed yesterday as a clean sweep in Wales, was not a clean sweep of Wales for this policy. If a single proof of that were wanted, we have it in the fact that the then Prime Minister, the late Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman, went down to Wales at the election and made one speech there, and, while he dealt with a variety of questions, he never mentioned Disestablishment or Disendowment in the whole of that speech. I do not believe the Prime Minister has been in Wales since, or that he has made

  821
  a speech there. If I look for another confirmation of that attitude I take the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Everybody will admit that he is the leader of Welsh Liberalism. How many speeches has he made on this question? He has made dozens of speeches on the land, and on the Budget, and upon every conceivable question, even on Home Rule for Ireland, but never in the country does he speak on Welsh Disestablishment. The truth is that the Liberal party do all they can when face to face with the people to keep this question in the background, and to bring to the front other items of the Liberal programme which are attractive. The land question and great industrial questions and a social programme have proved most attractive, and Wales has been consistent in her support of the Liberal party, not because of any antagonism or real animosity to the Church, and not because of this Disestablishment or Disendowment question of any shape or kind, but because Wales as a whole is thoroughly Radical.
  I do think that the Disestablishment and Disendowment question has helped the Liberal party with a certain section of the people in Wales, not as against the Conservative party, but as against the Labour party, who, in South Wales, would, I believe, have swept the Liberal party entirely out of the way if it had not been that they had the organised force of the chapels, and the deacons, and of the middle clases in South Wales to stem the tide of the socialist and syndicalist advance in South Wales. I wish to bring one further testimony from Welsh sources as to the changing attitude in Wales to this question of Disendowment in particular. There is a growing feeling in Wales against voluntaryism, of which I think the Member for West Carmarthen (Mr. Hinds) is still old-fashioned enough to be one of the few supporters left. There is hardly a denomination that is not searching the ends of Wales and England in order to get a Central Endowment Fund. If the hon. Member opposite doubts that, I have here a very remarkable quotation from a meeting of Nonconformists ministers, and which appeared in the "Manchester Guardian" on the 16th April, as follows:—
  "The quarterly meetings of the South Wales Calvinistic Methodist Association opened at Borth. Recommendations were received from various monthly meetings as to establishing a fund for the maintenance of the ministry. Pembrokeshire suggested the formation of a fund of £150,000 for the purpose. West Glamorgan and Hast Glamorgan approved of the
  822
  proposal, with a minimum salary of £100 per year to rural pastors and £125 per year to urban pastors. The Rev. Evan Williams moved an amendment that a large central fund be formed. If ministers were paid from such a fund, rather than be dependent upon the uncertain good-will of their flocks, it would be a moral gain to the churches."
  There you have in fact the complete overthrow of the old voluntary principle—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"]—and the demand of those Methodist societies to have a central endowment fund, so as to enable the pastors to be independent of the fluctuating good-will of their congregation.
  Mr. HINDS: Have they ever asked for or have they ever come to the State to ask for a single penny?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Nor does the Church of England.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Church of England has never asked for Endowment of any sort or kind.
  An HON. MEMBER: They have taken it.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: So have the Nonconformists. There was at one time in the nineteenth century a Parliamentary Grant, and Nonconformists took it as well as the Church. It is rather a significant thing, that one of the few Endowments left to the Church under this Bill are those very Parliamentary Grants and State Endowments, whereas absolutely clear, voluntary titles are set aside. While on that point of the origin of voluntary titles, I want to bring forward an instance I have come across in my own Constituency. We have heard that tithe and glebe and all that sort of thing were given to the Church as well as to the monasteries—which, I think, is historically inaccurate—not merely for specifically religious purposes, such as the provision of a resident minister, but for education and for almsgiving. I do not think that has ever been proved in regard to the secular clergy. I think there is a great deal to be said for it in regard to some abbey and monastic foundation. Look at what happened. In my own Constituency there was an ancient monastic foundation of St. Peter's at Ruthin. That monastic foundation, along with all the other monastic foundations in Wales, was Disestablished and Disendowed by King Henry VIII., and the money used, as it is to be used under this

  823
  Bill, for secular purposes. The Endowment of the ancient collegiate church was secularised and passed into the private hands of two citizens in London, namely, John Bates and Henry Wells. They became the lay impropriators of the tithe; they enjoyed the Endowment and the glebe of the ancient collegiate church of St. Peter's, Ruthin. I noticed a very remarkable phrase by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. Llewelyn Williams) in the current issue of a magazine edited by the hon. Member for Mid-Glamorgan. It was astonishing to find this sentence:—
  The worst tiling that Henry VIII. did in Wales was to destroy the monasteries."
  To return to the point with which I was dealing, there was a small boy growing up who remembered the secularisation of this ancient church fund. When he grew up to be a distinguished scholar he bought with his own private money the ancient Endowment of St. Peter's from these two citizens of London or their descendants. The deed relating to the transaction is still in existence. At the end of Queen Elizabeth's reign he died, and left that money by another deed, which is also in existence, to St. Peter's Church. For what? For the maintenance of a minister, who should live in the ancient cloisters the minister in St. Peter's, for six almshouses, and for the foundation of a grammar school. That leads me to think that the ancient collegiate church fulfilled those obligations? What are you going to do now? You are going to leave the money to the grammar school and the almshouses, but to take away every penny that goes to the spiritual work. That will be the second time St. Peter's Church has been Disendowed. That money was given to St. Peter's when the same services as now were being held, the same liturgy used, and the same Bible read. Can you wonder that there is feeling in Wales when there are cases of this sort? This case does not stand alone. If there is anything in the argument of the Attorney General that some of these Endowments were given for the poor and for educational purposes, that is an argument which ought to have been used to Henry VIII.; £38,000 a year of Welsh tithe goes to private individuals and secular corporations. In the town of Carmarthen only £7 a year of tithe goes to the church, while over £1,000 a year goes to secular lay impropriators. But
  824
  that £1,000 is not to be touched. What comes of the theory of frankalmoign, of the necessity of saying masses for the dead, of respecting the wishes of the pious donors and the original purposes for which the money was given? Everybody knows that that is not your object. The object of this Bill is to take money from the Church, because hon. Members opposite think that the Church in Wales is a very good nursing ground for Conservatives and political opponents. For some reason or another they regard the Church as a political opponent, and, therefore, they are determined to spoliate her.
  Look at the concessions which have been offered. We ask for certain other small concessions, the most important of which are the churchyards. Indignation is rising high among Churchmen in Wales against the proposal to take away the churchyards and hand them over sometimes to this authority, sometimes to that, in some cases to the borough council, in some to the burial authority, in some to the parish council, and, where there is no parish council, to the chairman of the parish meeting and the overseers of the poor. An hon. Member spoke about the ancient Celtic Church. I believe that the only remains of the ancient Celtic Church in Wales are to be found in some of the ancient churchyards. It was the custom of the Celtic Church, and I think almost the individual custom of that Church, to plant yew trees in the churchyards. The largest yew trees and the oldest are in Wales. In the old churchyards of Wales there are yew trees which aboricultural authorities declare to be 1,500 years old, dating from the earliest introduction of Christianity into Wales. They were the specific emblems of the Celtic Church in Wales. The churchyards are to be taken away from the traditional body which has come down through the centuries, and handed over to these new secular authorities. I cannot see the justice of that. It was not done in Ireland. Wherever Disendowment has been carried out, that has not been done. There is no precedent for the confiscation of the churchyards. The hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Ellis Davies) attended a meeting the other day, and said that the whole Bill should go rather than that the churchyards should be surrendered. There is a most violent feeling on the part of hon. Members opposite against the Church's retaining her ancient churchyards. The Church in Wales is perfectly prepared to give every

  825
  parishioner the right to be buried in the parish churchyard. The Government can put that in their Bill if they like. In fact I believe it is in the Bill at present. To take away this sacred spot and hand it over to the chairman of the parish meeting, who may be most hostile to the Church and not a Christian at all, is most unwarrantable persecution. There is no other word for it. It is a persecution of the tenderest feelings and sentiments of Church people in Wales. We were not able to discuss this question of the allocation on Clause 8. My Amendment on the question of glebe was the last part of the Clause to be reached.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: We had a long discussion on churchyards. I spoke on the question myself.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think the hon. Member is wrong. I remember the particular day. The whole of Clause 8, after the word "glebe," went through under the Closure. The only discussion we were able to take on the question of the churchyards was on a subsequent Clause, on which we could not raise the question of principle or of allocation. It was ruled by the Chairman that that formed part of Clause 8.
  Mr. E. JONES: I spoke on the point.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I will pass from that to the question of the curates. The junior Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) announced yesterday on behalf of the Labour party, that they would support compensation for curates. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO."] He stated, at any rate, that he and some of his Friends would support it. I do not accuse the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) of having done so. He is always more liberal than the Liberals. He has lost all traces of independence. With regard to the curates, I have a letter, which it is my duty to read, from the president of the Association of Welsh Curates, who have banded themselves together to put their case before the Government. It runs as follows:—
  "Dear Sir,—I should feel much obliged if you would refer in your speeches in the House of Commons to the injustice which is about to be done to Welsh curates (about 500 in number) if the Welsh Bill passes. We have spent hundreds of pounds at great sacrifices on our own and parents part to be trained, and this Bill will probably cause many of us to leave our present curacies for lack of funds, etc., and yet not a penny compensation is granted us. It will mean a notice to quit for no offence on our part. I have not seen anyone trying to defend this injustice, but have heard many denouncing it, and saying all the clergy should
  826
  be treated alike. From a legal point of view "re cannot claim compensation, but from a moral standpoint our claims are irresistible.
  Yours very truly,
  ROBERT R. ROBERTS,
  President Curates' Defence Movement."
  That is what the curates of Wales ask. I believe that they will be content with less generous terms than you gave to the Irish Church, where you put in safeguards that no unfair advantage should be taken of them. These people, who have educated themselves for service in the Welsh Church expecting the Church to continue in the enjoyment of its Endowments, are suddenly told that they are to be part of a Church cut off from the great stream of the Church of England, and that they can never hope to get on in the Church of England as a whole.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): Why not?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Because it will be dismembered. You say that dismemberment is the essence of your Bill.
  Mr. McKENNA: Does the hon. Gentleman say that branches of the Church of England which do not share in Convocation do not provide ministers for the Church in England?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: In one or two rare instances they may, but in the majority of cases the curates go through the ranks in their own or a neighbouring diocese. The number of curates or clergymen serving in the Church of England, as a whole, drawn from the Dominions or from other Churches in communion with the Church of England is comparatively very small. You minimise, you lessen their chances of being adopted elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman agrees with me.
  Mr. McKENNA: You said we spoilt their chances.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I will say lessen their chances. The very first people to suffer in Wales under Disendowment will be the people who have no legal claim under this Bill, or no legal claim on the Church of England now. They, as the hon. Gentleman has said, are the workers of the Church. I think that you err in not giving them some compensation for the loss of prospects, as well as for the loss of their immediate position. I think their claim ought to be met. That is one of the things which is making your Bill so

  827
  profoundly unpopular in Wales. These are three points of this aspect of the question of Disendowment. I want just to say one or two words upon the general question of Disendowment, not that I can add anything to what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) on the general ethical question of Disendowment at such a time as this. The other day I came across a most remarkable quotation from one of Macaulay's Essays. I think my mind, running, as it usually does, upon the iniquities of this Bill, suggested how exactly the cap fitted. What does Macaulay say:—
  The laws of all nations have widely established a time limitation after which titles, however illegitimate in their origin, cannot be questioned. It is felt by everybody that to eject a person or persons from his estate on the grounds of some injustice committed in the times of the Tudors would produce all the evils which result from arbitrary confiscation, and would make all forms of property insecure. It concerns the Commonwealth—so runs a legal maxim—that there be an end of litigation."
  When you are bringing up the evils of the eighteenth century, when you bring up the case of the Bishop of St Asaph's a hundred or more years, the origin of tithes and glebe, and say that because of all these things that thereby you are going to set aside the prescriptive right of at least 250 years, you set aside the very foundation principle upon which all kinds of property are held, namely, that so long as a body makes a good use of its money, and uses its funds for high and good purposes, that that body shall be secure in its title, and secure in the enjoyment of that property. I say that the ethical case and the legal case against Disendowment is overwhelming, especially at such a moment as this. Three Nonconformist deacons in South Wales wrote to the "Western Mail" the other day, and in their remarkable letter they said:—
  We, Nonconformist deacons in a mining district of Pontyates, wish to express our deep appreciation of the self-sacrificing efforts of the local Church people in the building of their new Church, and that we desire to live and work with them in peace and harmony. The means of carrying on God's work in industrial centres are far too scarce, and we earnestly believe that the taking away of the ancient Endowments of the Church and applying them to worldly purposes, would not only be injurious to the Church, but to every religious cause in the place.
  (Signed) JOHN-BEVAN. Baptist, Ponthewry,
  WILLIAM Lewis, Independent, Pontyates, and MOSES REES, Baptist."
  The hon. Gentleman opposite discounts that letter.
  Mr. E. JONES: We are not taking money away from the mining district.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is the district round about Abergavenny a mining district? I happen to know that in a particular area, I think it is in the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, that you have there ten contiguous parishes who will lose every single penny of their Endowments. Two thousand nine hundred and fifty pounds a year is to be taken away and devoted to secular purposes. Of course it is said, I know, that the Endowments are to be pooled. Do hon. Members opposite think that the Representative Church Body will have so little regard for the existing trustees, and so little regard for the trust deeds of the Endowments in the parishes—and mark you, the only Endowments you are leaving are modern Endowments, so that the trustees will probably be in existence! Do you think we shall have so little regard for the parishes, and their titles to their Endowments, that we shall take the money from them under your Bill and spend it on other parishes We are not likely to disregard the legal titles, trust deeds, or specific Endowments of special parishes for special purposes. I am perfectly certain that the Church in Wales will not so disregard them. You say that in addition to the private benefactions you have left the Grants from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. What security have we got there? The greater portion of the Endowments left to the Church is what? Is it from Welsh sources? No. The Grants from the English Ecclesiastical Commissioners are from English sources. That is the thing you are leaving. In that very moment you are saying that your Cabinet Ministers and leaders are saying in the country that the Disendowment of the Church in Wales is only one argument for the Disendowment of the Church in England, and that they mean to go forward immediately to the Disendowment of the English Church. In twenty or thirty years from now the present case will be a precedent. The "Westminster Gazette" urged hon. Members opposite not to make too many concessions to the Church in Wales because this Bill would be used as a precedent, and a line upon which the Disestablishment and Disendowment would be followed for the English Church. Yet the only Endowments which we have for pooling purposes are Grants from the English Ecclesiastical Commissioners from English sources.
  We all know that the Liberal party today is similar to the Combes party in

  829
  France. The Liberal party stands as an anti-Church party. It stands for taking away the funds of the Church and for hampering the Church in the matter of its Endowment. We ask for liberty, and it is always the Liberal party that blocks our Bills and stands in our way. Look at the Liberal party's action in connection with our schools! Look at the action of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. Llewelyn Williams)! May I say that I consider him the most able, the most lucid, and the most eloquent leader of the Welsh Nonconformists in this House. It has been publicly given out in the "Times" and other newspapers that he stands for absolute secularisation in the schools. He is for complete secularisation, for no religious teaching of any kind, not even undenominationalism, not even New Theology. What is the Welsh Nonconformist to-day? A complete secularist, and the Liberal party, too, is heading straight for secularisation! That is the position to-day. We do not look forward to the future in this matter with any great hope. We see nothing ahead but danger. We see Wales to-day torn not with religious differences or with theological points as she used to be 100 years ago. We see Wales torn by different philosophies, not by theologies any more. In the mining districts there is a general loosening of the bonds of all the religious denominations. It is not moral difference. It is complete doubt. It is a complete overthrow of the historical Christianity that has come down to us in these lands. We know what follows in the wake of all this! The new theological principles assert that man is absolutely divine: that it is human to err, and that therefore to err is divine: that there is no such thing as good and evil, that it is a sort of sliding scale—and that sort of thing! This is what we, see generally advancing in the country.
  Hon. Members opposite say they are going to Disestablish the Church in order to nationalise it. We shall set our faces against nationalisation of that kind. We do not wish to be cut away from the greatest things which have come down to us. We do not wish to become a small sect. We wish to remain an integral part of the great Catholic Church. It is most important to us to see what some Welsh Nonconformists think about this matter. There is a paper called the "Welsh Outlook," and in it there has been a discussion with regard to co-operation between the
  830
  various denominations in Wales. All the Nonconformist writers agree that any prospect of co-operation with the Church of England either before or after the Bill is passed it quite out of place. I agree it is absurd to suppose it will be possible after this Bill. A Calvinist Methodist minister says that "co-operation with the Anglican Church in Wales will, we fear, be difficult owing to political differences or the recollection of them." Far more significant is the letter of "A Congregationalist," who writing last month to the "Outlook," says:—
  "I am deeply interested in those problems which were so ably dealt with by 'Free Churchmen' in your February number… In looking towards that 'happy day' (of union), let us not delude ourselves with regard to at least two things:(1) That the Established Church (even when it will he no longer 'Established') can form part of that union for many generations. With regard to this first point, I am absolutely certain that the Disestablished Welsh Church will always gravitate towards England rather than towards a federation in Wales. That has always been our complaint against the Mother Church, and the signs of the times seem to indicate that this tendency Englandward is likely to become more pronounced as time goes on."
  It is not the tendency Englandward; it is the tendency towards Catholicism—not Roman Catholicism. It is a tendency which is growing, but growing towards the Church as a whole. It is one that does not regard sects and national values as important, but regards the primitive and universal organisation of the Church as important. That is what I agree the Church of England is rapidly tending more and more towards, and will so tend after Disestablishment, and the reason is not far to seek. One of the reasons against Disestablishment is that I contend it is against breadth in the Church. Sooner or later you have a definite, clear, code or creed, and principles. That is an argument generally against Disestablishment from the Church point of view. Disestablishment we know is only an academic question. There are only three Clauses in the Bill in any way touch it. The rest of the Clauses are Disendowment Clauses. Public opinion in Wales, as in England, is growing against these Disendowment Clauses. They are held to be wrong. They will create bitterness in the Church, and will hamper our power for good. They will restrict our energies, and will throw our organisation into confusion. I believe the proposal will recoil more and more upon the head of Wales. As a Welsh Member more than a Churchman, I deplore the Disendowment Clauses of this Bill. In this policy of secularisation you do not seem to care where the money goes to or what your county council

  831
  schemes shall be. It seems to me that this policy, which other nations have tried, can only lead to one thing—that is moral ruin! It is because of the future of Wales that I say this—and I am perfectly certain of it—that if one of the first actions of Wales as a nationality, as a political entity, is to destroy or hamper or to restrict the most ancient institution of that country—whether you like it or whether you do not, at any rate it is ancient—and to hamper the greatest tradition of all time, it can only redound not to the credit, but to the discredit, of the people in Wales to-day, and your children will be saying what the right hon. Gentleman has said of Henry VIH., that the worst thing Henry VIII. did was to destroy the monasteries. Your children will be saying that the worst thing you can do in Wales is to hamper or Disendow her ancient Church.
  Mr. JOHN WILLIAMS: I rise to heartily support the Second Reading of the Bill now before the House. In doing so I am conscious of the fact that nothing new can be said for or against the Bill. And the more I hear, the more I attend or listen to the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite, the more I am confirmed that I am doing the right thing. No new argument or suggestion can be adduced to-night that would enlighten the Debate upon the subject-matter of this Bill. I have listened to all the arguments before, and I have read them all in the last quarter of a century. I am absolutely cognisant of all the facts which the hon. Gentleman has given us to-night. The Debate, Session after Session upon this Bill, or similar Bills to that now before the House, have been of a very exhaustive and searching character, and, therefore, I agree nothing new can be obtained by further discussion of the principle of the Bill now before the House. I do not believe that any arguments other than those adduced in former Debates can be further adduced. The arguments contained in these Debates were all of an historical and also of a logical character. I appreciated the tone and spirit when listening to these Debates, and I plead that hon. Members to-night could not improve upon the speeches then made. If I desire to deal with this matter historically I would start, I believe, with Melchizedek. He had something to do with tithes, and then I would come down to Moses, who had something to do with the Church and
  832
  State in Egypt, and, further, I would come down from those to the time of Judas Maccabeus and his brother, the first reformers of the Jewish Church, and from them to John the Baptist, and from him to the end of the first century, and then I could quote from the writings of many others to confirm me in the action I am taking to-night in supporting this Bill.
  I do not intend to-night to discuss the present Bill from either of the two standpoints I mentioned, namely, the historical or the logical standpoint, as I fully believe that sufficient has been said from these two standpoints up to the present moment, and as the case for the Disestablishment of the Church in England has been fully established upon the floor of this House over and over again by right hon. Gentlemen sitting upon these benches, and by hon. Members behind me. From time to time I have been fully convinced that the case for Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church of England in Wales has been established. I do not intend to repeat the arguments that have been used in Debates from time to time, but I desire to inform the House that upon the strength of these arguments a majority of the Welsh nation are looking forward to this Parliament for an immediate redress of their long-standing grievances. So long as preferential treatment is kept up by the British Government to one particular denomination at the expense of another denomination, so long will the majority of the Welsh nation feel greatly wronged and deeply aggrieved. The treatment meted out to Welsh Nonconformity, in my opinion, is as cruel as it is unjust. The Welsh nation is fully entitled to all that she is asking for, and that without in the least degree inflicting any injustice upon the Anglican Church in Wales. The Welsh nation is entitled to all she desires from the standpoint of her representation in Parliament. At the last General Election Wales sent thirty-one representatives to this House, pledged to the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Established Church in Wales, and only three pledged against it. Surely this great majority entitles her to be heard upon the floor of this House; but I cannot for a single moment understand the opponents of this Bill towards majorities.
  I thought majority rule was one of the fundamental principles upon which the British Constitution had been built, but I am beginning to believe otherwise. The majority of the Welsh nation has for

  833
  generations been endeavouring to accomplish that which I hope she "will accomplish, notwithstanding the attitude of the opponents of this Bill in this House and in another place. What is the attitude of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen and also Noble Lords opposite towards majorities? During the past years I noticed in this House that their attitude has been one of disrespectful disregard, and also one of bitter and obstinate hostility. They have declined to listen to the voice of the majority of the Welsh nation up to the present moment. The opponents of this Bill are also the opponents of Home Rule for Ireland. They also decline to give ear to the majority of gallant little Wales, who are appealing for religious freedom and equality. Further, the party opposite decline to observe the majority decision of the last General Election which took place in 1910. In fact, they decline to hear their master's voice. The nation is their master, let them remember that. The democracy, after all, is their master. In fact, hon. Members do not know their master's voice, but thanks to the Parliament Act, they will presently recognise their master's voice, when they will hear that voice calling upon this Bill, as it stands, to proceed to another place. I hope and trust that the Lords spiritual and the, Lords temporal will receive this Bill with open arms. Otherwise, if they do not, they will witness it pass by them to receive the Royal Assent, whilst they with their arms folded look on sullenly, and with an expression of mortification upon theirfaces.
  Before the Bill proceeds to the other House. I should like to draw the attention of the Home Secretary; who is in charge of this Bill, and to whom I must say the majority of the Welsh nation owes so much for the brilliant and able manner in which he has conducted their case, and for his sympathy with their national aspirations and ideals, to the fact that the present spirit and temperament of Welsh Nonconformity in the Principality will not allow any further alterations in this Bill. They are sick and tired of hearing of concessions. They hate and detest the words "further compromise." To grant further concessions in the matter of the Endowments to the Anglican Church, in my opinion, would be to destroy every particle of confidence reposed by Welshmen in the present Government. We, on this side of the House, have been described as robbers and confiscators. Personally, I am not a confiscator, neither am I a robber.
  834
  [An HON. MEMBER: "Prove it!"] I have my own opinion as to what a robber is, and what a confiscator is. [An HON. MEMBER: "So has a robber."] If I allowed my Celtic spirit to lead me, I should probably make such statements as would not be very agreeable to Noble Lords opposite; again I say that I am not a confiscator, neither am I a robber. Personally, I am fully prepared to mete out the most just and even generous treatment to the Church in Wales in the matter of Endowments. From the point of view of justice, undoubtedly the Anglican Church in Wales is fully entitled to make a strong, and I hope a noble effort, to secure all that is due to her, and to which she has a good title, but when one peruses this Bill, one cannot fail to discover the very, very generous treatment which is meted out to the Established Church in Wales by the Home Secretary; in fact, his generosity has already incurred the displeasure of many of his supporters on this side of the House. I trust that the Government will solidly and most emphatically decline to consider for a single moment any further overtures that may be made to them by the opponents of this Bill for further concessions.
  The people of Wales believe that the Government have been too weak in the defence of their case, and they appear to have been quite unable to withstand the overtures for concessions made by the representatives of the privileged Church in Wales. This weakness or impotency must disappear forthwith, and the rights of Welsh Nonconformity must be fully respected and maintained. It has been pointed out to us by hon. Members opposite that it is the urgent desire or sole object or wish of Welsh Nonconformists to Disestablish the Anglican Church in Wales in order that they may secure the Endowments. A more wicked and misleading statement could not be made, and such a statement is absolutely untrue and without foundation. We are also charged with having the desire to destroy the Anglican Church as an institution. Again, this statement is as false as it is misleading. Who can destroy the Church of God? Who can destroy the real and true Ecclesia? I am sorry for the people who have more faith in their gold than in their God. Has the spiritualising power of Christianity failed? Has the vital power of Christianity decayed? Is the religious life of the Anglican Church dependent upon temporalities? It is not for me to answer. I fully believe that the

  835
  passing of this Bill and the consequent Disestablishment and the Disendowment of the Church in Wales will be conducive to the spiritual welfare of the Church itself, and will conduce to religious unity and co-operation between Episcopalians and Nonconformists in the Welsh Principality. In conclusion, I desire to say that the great progressive forces of this country are extremely anxious to see this religious controversy ended, and Welsh Disestablishment and Disendowment removed from the political arena to make room for legislation of a character that will assist and help the poor people of this country to become better Christians and nobler citizens.
  Mr. CASSEL: This is the first occasion upon which I have intervened in these Debates, and I do not propose now to deal with the general merits of the Bill. I intend to confine my attention to one particular question, which if it is not entirely new, at all events, I think has not received sufficient consideration. It is a question of very grave constitutional importance, namely, that it is contrary to the letter and spirit, and manifestly and clearly contrary to the Act of union between Scotland and England, that this Bill should be forced upon the people of England against the wishes of the majority of the representatives of England, including Wales, which is included under the Act of Union. It is contrary to the letter and spirit of that Act that this Bill should be forced upon England purely by Irish and Scottish votes. During the course of this Debate not a single Scottish or Irish Member has spoken, and yet they are going to do their duty in the Division Lobby in favour of this Bill at the end of the discussion. The point I desire to make clear is that at the time of the Union between Scotland and England greater precautions could not have been taken to ensure that the Establishment in each country should be safe from interference by the votes of representatives of the other country at every stage. In the first instance, there were two Acts of Parliament, under which power was given to the Queen to appoint Commissioners to negotiate a treaty between Scotland and England. In that Act a special Clause was inserted which placed the Establishment of the Churches in the two countries entirely outside the authority of any Commissioners that might be appointed.
  836
  The next step is that the Commissioners met, and on the 22nd July, 1706, they agreed to a treaty, and that treaty was referred for ratification to the two Parliaments of Scotland and England. It came before the Scottish Parliament first, and what did they do? Before they proceeded to ratify the treaty they first passed an Act securing the Presbyterian government of the Church of Scotland, and only after they had passed that Act did they proceed to ratify the treaty, and in the Act ratifying that treaty they not only recited the actual terms of the Act securing the Scottish Church, but they stated that it was to be an essential and fundamental condition of Union that that Act should be maintained, and that the Establishment of the Scottish Church should also be maintained. There was also a Clause that the English Parliament was to be at liberty to do the same, and any steps the English Parliament took to secure the Establishment of the English Church were ratified by the Act of the Scottish Parliament. Then you come to the English Parliament, which adopted precisely the same procedure. Before they adopted the Act ratifying the treaty they passed an Act securing the Establishment of the Church of England and, having passed that Act, they then proceeded to pass an Act ratifying the treaty, and in that Act they recited both the Scottish and the English Acts securing the Establishment of the Church in the two countries. After having recited them, they proceeded to say that an essential and fundamental condition of the continuance of the Union was that the Establishment of the Churches in each of the countries was to be maintained. It is put so clearly that I will read to the House Clause 11 of the Act of the English Parliament ratifying the Articles of Union. These are the words:—
  "And it is hereby further enacted by the authority aforesaid that the said Act passed in this present Session of Parliament, intituled the Act for securing the Church of England as by the law established, and all and every the matters and things therein contained, and also the said Act of Parliament for Scotland, intituled an Act for securing the Protestant religion and the Presbyterian Church government, with the Establishment of the said Act contained, be and shall for ever be held and adjudged to be, and observed as fundamental and essential conditions of the said Union, and shall in all times coming be taken to be and are hereby

  837
  declared to be essential and fundamental parts of the said Articles of Union; and the said Articles of Union so as aforesaid ratified, approved, and confirmed by Act of Parliament of Scotland and by this present Act, and the said Act passed in this present Session of Parliament, intituled an Act for securing the Church of England as by law established, and also the said Act passed in the Parliament of Scotland intituled an Act for securing the Protestant religion, and the Presbyterian Church government are hereby enacted and ordained to be and continue in all times coming a complete and entire union of the Union of the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland."
  8.0 P.M.
  It would have been impossible for any two Parliaments to have taken greater precautions to ensure that the Established religion of neither country should be interfered with by the representatives of the other. Unless those precautions had been taken the Union between England and Scotland would never have taken place. The one block in the way of Union was that the Scotch Presbyterians were afraid that the result of Union might be that English representatives might swamp them and Disestablish the Church in Scotland and introduce an Episcopalian Establishment. On the other hand, in England the greatest alarm was felt that the Scottish members might combine with the minority of Dissenters in this country to Disestablish the Church in England. That is the contingency which alarmed them, and which they meant to prevent, and which will happen to-day if this Bill is carried against the wishes of the majority of the representatives of England by Scottish and Irish votes. For this purpose the only unit which you can regard is England, including Wales. You cannot for this purpose regard Wales as a separate unit. The contract was between Scotland on the one hand and England, including Wales, on the other. No lawyer can place a different interpretation on the Act of Union. The Church referred to in the Act of Union, the maintenance of which was by the Act of Union declared to be an essential and fundamental condition, was the Church of England, including the four Welsh dioceses, and no other Church. If the Welsh representatives—and I do not think it is right in this connection to speak of the Welsh Church—it is the Church of England in
  838
  Wales—if the Welsh representatives were able to establish that for some reasons of nationality coming down from the past they ought to be entitled to separate Church government; then it is to the English representatives alone that they should address their arguments, and they are debarred by contract and statute from carrying their case against the English representatives to a tribunal of Scottish and Irish representatives—the thing which they are endeavouring to do now in flagrant defiance of all plain national obligations. I do not go so far as to say that if this Bill is carried in defiance of English votes by Scottish votes, the Act will not be a valid Act recognised by the Courts. I think, although they may not have intended it, that as a result of the Union they have set up a Sovereign legislature, which is all-powerful so far as legislation is concerned. It is true they may not be able to make black white, but they get the nearest approach to that by saying that black shall be deemed to be white. But although they have these great powers, I say that the Union Parliament is bound to exercise them honourably, having regard to the terms of the treaty and the essential condition on which that treaty was based.
  It may be said that there have been some variations in the Establishment of the Scottish Church through various Acts of Parliament—the Churches of Scotland Act, 1905, the University of Scotland Act, 1853, and the Church Patronage Act, 1712. But with regard to all of these it cannot be said that they were carried against the wishes of the Scottish people. The Church of Scotland Act, 1905, was introduced into this House and carried as a result of the almost unanimous wish of the Scottish people. The same applies to the University (Scotland) Act, 1853. All these are mere modifications in the existing Church establishment in Scotland, and are not disestablishment of the Scottish Church. I should like to know what the Scottish representatives would say if, in defiance of the wishes of the majority of the Scottish representatives, the representatives in England were to force on them the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Established Church of Scotland in any part of Scotland. It would unite the whole Scottish representatives in one strong protest against any such thing being done. My appeal to them to-night—I see there is not a single one here on this occasion—my appeal to them would

  839
  be if they were present to do as they would be done by. I must say one word on the argument with reference to the Irish Act of Union. With regard to that Act it may be said there is some precedent for what is being done now, because under the Irish Act of Union, in the 5th Article, the maintenance of the united English and Irish Churches, was made an essential and fundamental condition, and yet the Irish Church has been Disestablished. If that argument is going to be used against me I have a very complete answer. I have heard Members on the Nationalist Benches, and on the Front Bench opposite also, defend it on the ground that it was because the majority of the Irish representatives were in favour of the Disestablishment of that Church. I have not myself been able to appreciate the force of that argument, because it is difficult to see how the Irish representatives to-day are really the successors of Grattan's Parliament. But if it be an argument it is in my favour, because, if the Disestablishment of the Irish Church was justified because the majority of Irishmen were in favour of it, there can be no justification for the Disestablishment of the English Church by Scottish votes, when the majority of English representatives are against it. The very act of justifying the Disestablishment of the Irish Church on the ground that the majority of the Irish representatives were in favour of it, turns against the Government when you have regard to the fact that the majority of the English representatives are against this measure and have been against it on every important Division. I have had every important Division analysed—that which was taken on the First Reading, and those on every Second and Third Reading, and on every important Amendment—and on each occasion there has been a substantial majority of English Members overborne simply by Irish and Scottish votes.
  There is one further argument to be drawn from the Irish Act of Union, and it is this: Members opposite are always telling us that we should not be justified in reducing the number of Irish representatives in this House because that would be contrary to the Act of Union with Ireland, and against the wishes of the Irish representatives. If that be their argument, surely they have no justification whatever for violating the Article in the Scottish Act of Union! It is, in fact, an
  840
  argument in my favour. They constantly rely upon this Article in the Act of Union with Ireland as a ground for not reducing the number of Irish representatives in this House. It may be said against me that we have argued that we are entitled to reduce it, but in the Fourth Article of the Act of Union of the countries of Great Britain and Ireland it is not stated to be an unalterable, essential, fundamental condition. By reason of its nature it must be alterable. The Fourth Article provides—
  "That it be the Fourth Article of Union that four Lords Spiritual of Ireland by rotation of Session and twenty-eight Lords Temporal of Ireland elected for life by the Peers of Ireland shall be the number to sit and vote on the part of Ireland in the House of Lords of the Parliament of the United Kingdom: and 100 Commoners two for each county of Ireland two for the City of Dublin two for the City of Cork one for the University of Trinity College and one for each of the thirty-one most considerable cities towns and boroughs be the number to sit and vote on the part of Ireland in the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom."
  I put it that that cannot possibly have been intended to be an unalterable condition. It obviously must be alterable when it changes according as new cities, towns and boroughs spring up. From the very nature of the case it must be alterable. But even with regard to that I have heard the Foreign Secretary argue that it would be grossly unfair to alter it against the wishes of the majority of the Irish representatives. If the Liberal Government argue that that Article is unalterable, how can they say, with regard to the essential and fundamental condition on which the Act of Union with Scotland was based, it can be right for the Scottish Members to take part in enforcing this upon England against the wishes of the majority of the English people?
  I am told not very much importance has been attached to this point, because it is a constitutional point, a point of treaty obligations, and treaty obligations are of no consequence any longer. I should like to put that matter, at least, to the proof. Is it to be said by the Government that treaty obligations are no longer worth the paper on which they are written? I know that in the matter of private contracts they have been ready by their Acts of

  841
  Parliament to tear them up. Their maxim has been taken from Mr. Larkin, who said, "To hell with contracts!" Is their watchword now to be "To hell with treaties"? Has the Foreign Secretary, who has just gone over to France, gone there having nailed to his mast the motto, "To hell with treaties"? If this House no longer pays any attention to treaties, I say it has no right any longer to demand or insist upon the observance of treaties. There could have been no more solemn treaty obligation or contract entered into between two countries than the contract and obligation entered into by England and Scotland at the time of the Act of Union, when they mutually guaranteed the establishment of their respective Churches in their own countries, free from the interference of the representatives of the other. I only wish to make this appeal to the Scottish Members. I believe that Scottish people have been recognised to be honourable and scrupulous in the observance of their bargains. I call upon them to implement and to fulfil their bargain and not to commit what would be a plain, palpable, flagrant, and indefensible violation of an essential and fundamental condition of the Act of Union.
  Mr. HAYDN JONES: The hon. Gentleman opposite appears to attach great importance to petitions, and I rise to refer to a petition which is supposed to have been sent by Nonconformists in the Principality. Last Session or the Session before we had an example of a petition from Wales against this Bill. We had a petition against the Bill as a whole—against both the Disestablishment and Disendowment Clauses. The petition just received is against the Disendowment Clauses only, and that in itself is a step in advance. With regard to the first petition, the general one against the whole Bill, 564,000 people are supposed to have signed it, people who were said to be resident in Wales, but many of whom had no connection of any kind whatever with the Principality. One significant fact in regard to the petition is this: By the Rules of the House more than 200 petitions, with 364,000 odd signatures, were set aside as having transgressed the Rule of the House. That is very significant.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Were they not ruled out of order?
  Mr. HAYDN JONES: Yes, by the Petitions Committee on account of having a
  842
  large number of signatures in the same handwriting. Now I come to the last of the petitions presented. Personally, I never attach any importance to petitions. I attach importance only to the expressed wish of the people when they have the secrecy that is in the ballot box, for then we get at the real opinion of the people. We are told that a petition with 103,000 signatures of Nonconformists has been presented to the Prime Minister. The first question I ask is this: Why is the petition presented to the Prime Minister and not to the House of Commons? The second question I ask is this: Did the petition really originate with Nonconformists? It was so in the case of the diocese of St. Asaph, where a number of Nonconformists took it in hand, and, I believe, organised the matter, but what more did they do? A significant thing about those Nonconformists is that they are more Tory than they are Nonconformist. That is one of the facts I wish to impress upon the House.
  There are, in Wales, thousands of Nonconformists who have invariably voted Tory. I know them in my own Constituency, and it is no matter of surprise to me to find them signing a petition against Disestablishment, because they have always voted for Tory candidates. After the Nonconformists started the petition in the diocese of St. Asaph, I ask hon. Members opposite what connection Nonconformity had with the petition? I have made careful inquiry in that part of my Constituency which is in the diocese of St. Asaph, and I find that invariably the petition was taken round, not by a Nonconformist, but by the parson, or the curate, or a landlord, or an agent, or an agent's wife. If Nonconformity were going to express its free and unfettered opinion on this Bill, surely there would be some other way of doing it than to get Tories to take a petition round. I find that people were selected to go round and see certain persons, because it was felt that if they called upon them they could not refuse to sign. I will give an instance. The wife of one of the agents of a large estate called upon the people on the estate. How many of those people could be expected to say "No" in a case of that kind? [HON. MEMBERS: "All of them."] Is that your view? It is not my view of it. If they were allowed to express their views for or against it in the ballot box, you would find that not a man would vote against it.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I thought you said they were all Tories.
  Mr. HAYDN JONES: I never said so.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: You said so about five minutes ago.
  Mr. HAYDN JONES: I said that a large number of these people are Tories. The petition might have been left in a central place, and an advertisement or some notice might have been given that anybody wishing to sign it, if they called at a certain place, might do so. Nothing of the kind took place. It was taken from door to door by the vicar. I would have said nothing if he had represented facts as they really are, but here is one tale that did much service for the Church: "Are you in favour of closing this graveyard? Are you in favour of doing away with it? Is it not a fact that you have relations buried here, and is it not your desire to be interred here also?" "Yes, of course." Then immediately came the reply, "You have got to sign this or there will be no graveyard." That is a tale which did service in my Constituency, and I venture to challenge contradiction. You can show me no case of a Nonconformist signing that petition knowing that he was signing against the Disendowment of the Church in Wales. There is another matter. I have already referred to the petition of last year with 500,000 odd signatures, and I would ask hon. Members opposite if they have ever inquired how many of the signatories to the last petition were contained in the first petition. I have made inquiries here and there, and I find that in one of the most populous towns in that part of my Constituency which is embraced in the diocese of St. Asaph it is said that, on careful calculation, nearly 50 per cent. had previously signed. We are told this is an indication of the growing indignation of Nonconformity against the Bill. If Nonconformity had indignation, and if that indignation were growing, it would not be necessary for a parson or a curate, or an agent, or anybody else to go round and solicit signatures. There is no spontaneity about this petition at all. It is simply a case of the Church making use of its position, employing agents, and practically compelling people to sign, and to sign against their will. I go further, and tell the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Bridgeman) that I can give him an instance of a parson who went round my Constituency and obtained the signatures of wives who knew nothing at all what
  844
  they were signing. They allowed them also to sign the names of their husbands in their absence and without their consent. Does he approve of that?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I certainly do not approve of it, but I should like to have instances of it.
  Mr. HAYDN JONES: I can give evidence of it, if necessary, and prove the case right up to the hilt. If the hon. Member will allow me, I will show him names and everything. Even people under twenty-one have signed. I simply say this: If you are going to attach any value to that petition at all, you will agree to refer it straight away to the Petitions Committee or to some impartial tribunal for investigation. Let us inquire into the methods adopted to get the signatures.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: We have already asked that it should go to the Petitions Committee.
  Mr. HAYDN JONES: I am pleased to hear it, and I have no doubt that we shall hear more about it in a day or so. The only possible way of dealing justly by Nonconformity is to allow the petition to be inquired into so that the House may know how it is that so many Nonconformists or alleged Nonconformists have signed. I want to make one other point. I venture to assert here that amongst the 103,000 signatures you will find a large proportion of people who are not Nonconformists at all. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil) yesterday said that they were all members. He then corrected himself by saying that they were adherents. I venture to prophesy that you will find that a large number of them have never frequented any place of worship, Nonconformist or Established Church, or Catholic. They have for this purpose been counted as Nonconformists; but what would they become if you had that religious census in Wales which you so ardently desire. Every person who does not frequent a Nonconformist chapel would then be said to be a member of the Church of England; every one of them. I venture to prophesy that you will find thousands of that class in the petition. In view of the fact that it is common ground that this petition is to be referred to the Petitions Committee for investigation, I will leave the matter there.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Prime Minister would not allow it.
  Mr. HAYDN JONES: Are you prepared to let it be investigated by the Petitions Committee?
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: We asked him, and he said that he would not allow it.
  Mr. CROOKS: It was not presented to the House.
  Mr. HAYDN JONES: Will hon. Gentlemen agree to present it to the House so as to get it referred to the Petitions Committee?
  Mr. POLLOCK: How could you put it in form?
  Mr. HAYDN JONES: Then I take it that hon. Gentlemen do not want it referred to the Petitions Committee?
  Mr. POLLOCK: His original point was that certain petitions were not in accordance with the forms of the House, and he now asks the impossible task that some hundreds of thousands of signatures should be cast in a form in which they can be presented to the House. It is obviously an impossibility, and he has given the answer himself.
  Mr. HAYDN JONES: The Prime Minister did receive one deputation, and he told it distinctly that it was not in a form in which it could be presented to the House. There were further pettions prepared, and they knew perfectly well that they could not be received, but they still persisted on doing it. Hon. Members will draw their own inference as to why they insisted on doing it. The fact of the matter is that they do not want it investigated, and hon. Members know it perfectly well.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That is not true.
  Mr. HAYDNJONES: That is my opinion in any case, and notwithstanding what the hon. Member for the Oswestry Division says, I adhere to that opinion. You must always remember that there is among Nonconformity a Tory section in Wales. You must also remember that there is among Nonconformists a large section of the people who are dependent upon the Church people, the. landlords and the wealthy class in Wales. These people have not the independence which I would like to see them have. It is radically wrong in anybody to go round to these people and give them even an opportunity of signing things they do not believe. We in Wales are looking forward to the passage of this Bill. We have looked forward to it for many a year, and are now pleased to feel
  846
  that we are about to achieve the object we have had in view, namely, religious equality. It has been said that we Nonconformists are robbing the Church. We have managed to paddle our own canoe without any of their Endowments. We are not robbing the Church. It is grossly unjust and unfair to say that we are robbing them of £157,000, when in the Bill there is a commutation scheme which will enable these people to start, not on the same common ground as Nonconformists, but with an Endowment fund of £2,000,000. It would be far juster to state the true position of affairs, instead of going round with petitions of this kind, and instead of saying that we are going to close the burial grounds. The burial question in Wales is a burning question. We are going to fight to the bitter end to get for the parishioners the right of managing their own burial grounds. The hon. Member for the Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) was very indignant at the idea of handing over the burial ground to a body elected by the parishioners. The parishioners will have far more confidence in the elected body than in any one who is preferred to a living without any consultation with them. Small as we are, we are a nation for all that. We have our ideals, and are determined to get justice in this matter. It would be far better if hon. Gentlemen opposite realised that the question is not one of Nonconformity versus the Church, but a question of privilege. We want to be put on an equality. If hon. Members only realised that, they would not attack us for wanting to rob the Church or to do injury to a body which is engaged in religious work. We have no such object in view. We only want to be put on an equality, and until we are put on an equality we are not going to rest.
  Mr. CAMPION: In the course of my wanderings I have paid several visits to the Principality of Wales, and have made many friends there. I appreciate the Welsh people, but I have never yet heard a speech more derogatory to their intelligence and dignity than the speech to which we have just listened. What does it come to? It comes to this: that so small is the intelligence of the Welshman that he is prepared to sign an important petition, and to state that he is a Nonconformist when he knows that he is not. That is the point the hon. Member made. He said that many of these men were not Nonconformists at all.
  Mr. HAYDN JONES: The information I have is that a large number of people signed the petition, and that the denomination has been filled in by somebody else.
  Mr. CAMPION: I do not believe it. I think better of the Welsh nation than to believe that a man has so little regard for his religious opinions and his principles that he is willing to sign a petition and allow another man to fill in the statement as to what his religion is, and fill it in wrongly. I believe the Welsh nation is a much more earnest, more upright, and more religious-minded people than to allow anything of that sort to occur. The hon. Member's intervention in this Debate has not weakened my conviction in the absolute honesty and bono, fides of this great manifesto of protest with 103,000 signatures of Nonconformists in Wales. The hon. Member tells us that some of the men who signed are Nonconformists, but Tory Nonconformists. What then becomes of the argument that has been put before this House over and over again, that Wales is a Nonconformist nation, if a great number of the Nonconformists of Wales are themselves opposed to, and prepared to sign a protest against the Disendowment of the Church of England in Wales. The whole of that argument, or a great part of it, at once falls to the ground. Another statement which the hon. Member made at the commencement of his speech is one which certainly I, and I believe most hon. Members of this House, will be prepared to accept. He advocated the secrecy of the ballot - box. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Precisely! Then why not give the people not only of Wales, but of England also, who are equally interested in this matter, an opportunity of expressing their opinion in the ballot-box?
  Mr. HAYDN JONES: They have done it many times.
  Mr. CAMPION: The hon. Member said he did not attach importance to a petition, but he did attach importance to the secrecy of the ballot-box. Will he take advantage of the secrecy of the ballot and allow the voters of this country to express their opinion in the ballot? That is all that we want. We are perfectly prepared to abide by their decision. That is what the Government and the hon. Member and those who sit by him refuse, namely, to allow the people the privilege of deciding this question for themselves—a question
  848
  that has never been put before them adequately. The line which the hon. Member took up, supporting the argument which has been repeated over and over again by the Government and their supporters, is the only argument really left to them—that is, the argument that we must allow the Church to be dismembered and the four dioceses in Wales to be Disestablished and Disendowed because thirty-one Members out of thirty-four from Wales support Disestablishment and Disendowment. It is the argument that Wales demands Disestablishment and Disendowment. It was the argument dwelt upon by the Home Secretary and dwelt upon yesterday by the Attorney-General, and which was referred to this afternoon by the Prime Minister when he said there is a repeated and insistent demand from Wales for Disestablishment. They are perfectly right to bring that argument prominently forward, because it is the only argument that has not been absolutely defeated and disparaged in this House up to the present moment. What does it come to? You admit, we all admit, that some fifty or sixty years ago, or even forty years ago, there was a real demand from Wales for Disestablishment. But the position has changed. It has not only changed since that time, but all the evidence in this country and in Wales is to the effect that we have every reason to suppose—let us put it to the test and go to the ballot-box, if you like—that the position has very considerably changed since this Bill was first introduced into this House.
  What is the position in the House of Commons? We all remember the oft quoted statement of the Leader of the Welsh Liberal party in which he referred to the determined objection of a section of the Liberal party to this Bill, and to the lukewarmness of the whole of the Liberal party with regard to it. It is common knowledge that the supporters of the Government are very much divided on the question of Disendowment. We know that there are many who desire to see the Clauses with regard to Disendowment modified and made less drastic. We know that many Liberal Members from Wales are in deadly fear lest the Government may give way and weaken the Disendowment Clauses. We know that this Bill is not popular, and that it grows every day less popular, with the supporters of the Government in proportion as the day of a possible General Election cames closer and they will have once again to appeal to the suffrages of their constituents, and

  849
  they know that if they come before their constituents as out-and-out supporters of this Bill their seats will be in considerable jeopardy. The position in the House of Commons is weakening every day. I need hardly refer to the proof of what I say in the fact that this Bill most distinctly would not be before the House at the present moment if it had not been for the support of the Nationalist Members from Ireland, who, for other reasons, and not for interest in this question, have voted in support of it. I was interested a day or two ago, in looking up the Debates on this Bill, in reading a speech by the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil), who made a challenge in these words:—
  "If the hon. Member would resign his seat at South-West Bethnal Green and fight an election on the Welsh Church Still or Home Rule, or the two together. I do not think he would continue to be a Member of this Assembly."
  That challenge was not accepted. I know that the Under-Secretary for the Home Office stated last night that at the by-election at Bethnal Green no reference was made in the address of the present Member, who sits on this side of the House, to the question of the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church, but we know now, because it has been answered in this House this afternoon, that that question was made a prominent issue at the South-West Bethnal Green election. It was mentioned on the platform time after time—it was mentioned in the literature, and it was repeatedly referred to in the second address which was issued by the present Member. The Noble Lord's prophecy has been well fulfilled. The electors of that important constituency have shown that they do not desire to return as their Member the latest Member of His Majesty's Cabinet, who is still without a seat.
  One might carry that further. One might refer to other by-elections, and I do not suppose there is a single candidate on either side who will frankly say that the question of the Disestablishment of our Church did not have a great influence on the issue of these by-elections. I listened to a speech last night by the hon. Member (Mr. Parry). I remember going down to speak at Flint Boroughs, and I remember most distinctly what was happening at that by-election. We were prepared to make a prime issue of this question of the Disestablishment of our Church and the supporters of the Government were determined to blind that issue and to try to make the issue a question as to
  850
  whether we should have Tariff Reform or Free Trade. The result, in spite of their conefforts, and largely, I think, owing to the fact that we concentrated on this question, was a considerable reduction, at any rate, in the majority previously enjoyed. After all, as has been said over and over again, this is not only a question for Wales, but to my mind it is a question in which England is equally interested. Surely, if you sever the partnership between two individuals, each individual has a right to be consulted. We have an equal right to be consulted on this question with our brother members of the Church in Wales. They wish to abide in partnership with us, and we are determined to go on supporting them.
  I was rather amazed this afternoon at what was said by the Prime Minister. He said the case of dismemberment with regard to the Church in Wales was entirely analogous to the question affecting the Church in Ireland in 1869. To my mind, that is a most extraordinary statement. The cases were entirely different. In one case you have four dioceses belonging to the Province of Canterbury under the supreme control of the Archbishop of Canterbury. In the other, you have an entirely separate organisation under the control of the Primate of Ireland, the Archbishop of Armagh. No dismembertnent occurred there. You were not tearing away four dioceses from the rest of the province. You were disestablishing a whole province. If you came before us in what I think would be a much more straightforward and businesslike way and said, "We are not going to dismember your Church, which you object to so strongly, but we are going to Disestablish and Disendow the Province of Canterbury as a whole," then the cases would be parallel. Then you would be putting the question as a whole to the nation as a whole. It would be far more businesslike, and far more honest, if with all respect I may say so, and I have no doubt what the result would be. I noticed that a speech was made the other day by a supporter of the Government in which he ventured to say that there was no sustained enthusiasm for open this Bill—with which I entirely agree-though there was no antagonism to it. What is the case on the other side? All through the last two or three years by meetings, demonstrations, and petitions, ending up with the remarkable protests of Nonconformist feeling from Wales, we

  851
  have had proof that there is sustained, earnest, keen, and growing opposition from all parts of the country to this Bill—an opposition which is not confined to one party alone, but which embraces men of all different parties and all different political and religious beliefs.
  We were told some time ago by the Prime Minister that it would be impossible that a measure under the Parliament Act should become the law of the land if it was condemned by public opinion. What other proof do you want? You have petitions bearing 556,000 signatures from Wales, and something like 2,000,000 from England, presented to this House and examined, and yet no attention whatever is paid to them. You have demonstrations, and no attention is paid to them. What other course is open now to these Nonconformists in Wales who object to the Disendowment Clauses than the course they have taken of protesting to the Prime Minister himself, and asking to be heard by him in opposition to the Bill? I noticed that this afternoon the Prime Minister in his speech, referring to the Church, made some reference to Church management. He seemed to adumbrate that if the Church was Disestablished, her freedom would be greater. He said that now the Church has no authority, and that she is bound and fettered by regulations of centuries ago. I have heard that argument before, and to a certain extent I agree with it. What does this Bill do? Does it give greater freedom to the Church in Wales? To my mind, it restricts the freedom of the Church that will be created in Wales if it becomes law. The Church then will be less free and less autonomous than the Church at the present moment. You say that the bishops and the clergy of the Church are not to be members of Convocation. You tell them what they may not do. That is not giving them greater freedom. If you lay down regulations as to what the constitution of the Church is to be, and what the area in which the Church can operate is to be, you are not increasing freedom, but restricting it, and if in addition you say that the Church that is to be by law created in Wales may set up Ecclesiastical Courts, but that appeal from those Courts can only lie to the Provincial Courts of the Archbishop of Canterbury, with the consent of the King in Council, you are setting up in future the Prime Minister of the day as the
  852
  arbiter as to whether these appeals shall or shall not lie to these Provincial Courts. That is not increased freedom. To my mind, it is diminishing the autonomy of the Church.
  In conclusion, I should like to say a word in support of the reasons which, I believe, induce Nonconformists in increasing numbers not only in Wales, but also in England, to support our opposition to this Bill. It is quite true that on the question of Disestablishment most of those Nonconformists, or many of them, do not think as I think, but on the question of Disendowment there are undoubtedly an increasing number of earnest-minded men—men who, with all respect, if I may say so, put religion before politics—who are giving us their support. I noticed the other day that a leaflet was issued by the Liberation Society which was headed, "The Welsh Disestablishment Bill: Where the Money Goes." That leaflet attempted to show that under the Disendowment Clauses of this Bill many places would not suffer to the extent that many people believe they would suffer. For instance, it referred to the populous centres of Cardiff, Swansea, Newport, and the Rhondda Valley, and it gave the population of these places as 490,000. It said that in those places with that population only £1,200—it should have said per annum—would be taken away from the Church. Yes, but in that district there are forty-five parishes, 143 Churches and mission rooms, and 140 clergy. The total Endowment for these forty-five parishes amounts to £10,230 per annum, and for 140 clergy that is not an extravagant Endowment. If you are going to take away £1,200 a year from them, you cannot call it a small thing, as this pamphlet intended to suggest. I may add that there are no less than twenty-one village parishes in which the whole of the Endowment of the Church would be taken away, in which there is no Nonconformist minister at all, and in which there is no Nonconformist chapel at all.
  Under this Bill, if the Disendowment Clauses are carried out, there will be little opportunity for those who live in these parishes to have the benefit of the ministrations of religion. They object to this Bill because of its unfairness with regard to the Disendowment Clauses, because they realise that the voluntary system has broken down. They realise that in some of the poorest districts in this country and in Wales chapels have been

  853
  sold—I regret it, but such is the case—and Nonconformist activity has been hampered because funds are not forthcoming to maintain ministers, and to maintain services in those districts. They realise that, and as a consequence they build up their sustentation funds. Realising what inadequate means have meant to Nonconformists, and realising the handicap which they have entailed, surely it is rather unfair for hon. Members to support the Government in depriving the Church of England of those funds which it possesses, and so imposing upon her the same hardship and the same handicap as that which Nonconformists have suffered in the past. It is a fact on which we must congratulate ourselves, that during the last few years in Wales as in England, Nonconformists and members of the Church of England, and different religious bodies in this country, have begun to understand one another better. They are all working for a common cause, the cause of Christianity, and if you injure one you injure the whole force in support of Christianity and in support of religion in this country. We were understanding one another better. One hoped that we were on the right road towards that unity of Christianity which all of us would welcome. And I often wonder whether many Nonconformists do not think that the fact that in the last six or seven years membership of Nonconformist denominations has largely decreased, while membership of the Church has increased, as shown by the figures given in the Free Church Year Book issued not long ago, brings home to earnest-minded Nonconformists the doubt as to whether all this political controversy is not doing themselves a great deal of harm.
  9.0 P.M.
  Religious bodies were not meant for political controversy. They were meant to do their work in the cause of Christianity and the support of religion, and this political controversy, instead of promoting that union and better understanding which we all hope for, must only tend to put it back. I have tried to give some of the reasons which induce Nonconformists in increasing numbers to support our opposition to this Bill. They support it, I admit, not on the question of Disestablishment, but on the principle of Disendowment. I would like to conclude by reading a quotation from a Nonconformist minister, the Rev. W. A. Jones, a Welsh Congregationalist minister, who sums up from his point of
  854
  view in a way which I never heard better expressed the reasons for opposing Disendowment of the Church. Speaking at Liverpool, he is reported to have said:—
  "At one time I was a zealous advocate of Disendowment, but I have changed my opinion. The Church in Wales to-day is not what it was 200 years ago. It is not what it was fifty years ago. It has aroused itself am is doing excellent work. To be frank, I believe that it has made more progress during the last twenty years than any other religious body in Wales. In many a parish and town in the country it makes rapid progress, giving to us all an example of faithfulness and energy, in face of so much impiety and religious apostasy, it will be a mistake in my opinion to curtail the financial resources of the Church and to divert them to objects less serviceable to religion I am unable to agree with the argument that it would be an advantage to the Church to deprive it of its Endowment. There is not a single Nonconformist in Wales who would believe this in regard to his own denomination, and for the life of me I cannot help thinking that such an argument is hypocritical and dishonest."
  Mr. TOWYN JONES: He is not a Congregational minister. He is a Minister of the Free Church in Wales.
  Mr. CAMPION: To my mind that interruption is immaterial. He is a Free Churchman and he was a supporter of Disestablishment and Disendowment. He has altered his opinion, and he gives his opinion frankly and clearly in the quotation which I have just read. That quotation very well sums up to my mind the position taken up by these 103,000 odd Nonconformists who so honestly and straightforwardly come forward in the face of considerable opposition and raise their protest against this Bill.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has wandered over so very wide a field that he will forgive me if I do not propose to follow him into all the matters which he has brought forward. There is one statement, however, which I think will startle most hon. Members of this House—that is, that this question has not been adequately discussed. Why this afternoon, when I came into this House, I amused myself for an hour or so looking through what the Leader of the Opposition once called the unfathomable bog of "Hansard."
  Mr. CAMPION: I do not think that I said that. What I said was that there was no mandate for it in the country.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I am very glad to hear the hon. Member dissociate himself from that opinion, though I noticed his words, but I know how difficult it is for an hon. Member sometimes to express himself when on his feet. I was looking this afternoon through the pages of "Hansard"

  855
  of twenty years ago. It was this week in 1894 that this Bill, or, rather, another Bill less generous to the Church than this Bill, was introduced into this House. It was discussed at length, and in the following year was reintroduced, and no less than five days were given to the discussion on the Second Reading, and from that day to this there certainly has not been in Wales a year in which some such measure as this has not been discussed. In the twenty years which have elapsed since then many things have happened—Empires have been dissolved, dynasties have been overthrown, great wars have been waged, parties have come and parties have gone, new political and social issues have been raised in this country, and have challenged the attention of this House, but in this world of flux and change there is one thing that has remained constant and inflexible, and that is the determination of Wales to get this Bill put on the Statute Book.
  Why is it? Twenty years ago there were thirty-one out of the thirty-four Members from Wales all demanding this Bill. Today the same proportion of numbers demand this act of justice for our country. When you consider how unstable political opinion is in England, and even in Scotland, when you know how a war like the South African War will change the whole political current of thought for the time being, when you know how easy it is to lead and to deflect popular opinion, it is worthy of note that during the whole of those twenty years, in spite of war and rumours of war, in spite of Tariff Reform and great changes in our social and fiscal system, Wales has remained loyally faithful to the demand she put forward twenty or thirty years ago. I suggest to hon. Members opposite that that is a consideration well worthy of their attention. When I was looking through the Debates of twenty years ago I was rather staggered to find that exactly the same arguments were used then on those benches as have been used yesterday and to-day. The same appeal for more time for the Church was made. "Give us a little more time," said the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley, who has since wandered about from one seat to another in England, and whose action on this question made it impossible for him to become a Welsh Member. At the end of his eloquent speech in 1895 he said that if this House would only grant a little time to the Church, that she should redeem herself
  856
  in Wales, and would become truly and in reality the national Church, and that this ephemeral demand for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church would disappear. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was then a private Member sitting on those benches in those days, and he asked how long the hon. and gallant Gentleman required for this process to take place. The hon. and gallant Gentleman replied, "Very soon."
  Twenty years have gone by, and here we are to-day with the Church exactly in the same comparative position with regard to Wales, no stronger in comparison with Nonconformity than it was twenty years ago. I agree that as the population of Wales has increased, the membership of the Church of England in Wales has also-increased. But precisely the same thing is true of Nonconformists. If you compare the relative strength of the Church in Wales to-day with Nonconformity you will find no appreciable difference in the position from what it was twenty years ago. Then we have heard about the petition. I was quite startled to find that a gentleman (Mr. J. R. Davis)—who figured very prominently as one of the signatories and organisers of this petition—was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, as he then was, who vouched for him as a pious Nonconformist. All Nonconformists signing these petitions are called earnest and pious. I think it is a very invidious thing to inquire into the religious opinions of any man, and I am, therefore, not going to inquire very minutely into the question whether these men are entitled to call themselves Nonconformists or not, for, with great respect, that is not the point. The real point in regard to these petitions is this: Are the signatories to the petition Liberals or Conservatives? Are they Nonconformists who voted Liberal at the last election, and who are now alienated from the Government and from the Liberal party because of these Disendowment proposals? That is the real test. Mr. J. B. Davis, who was chairman of the Bangor Organising Committee, was twenty years ago in the foremost ranks of those Nonconformists who were opposing Disestablishment and Disendowment.
  Let me turn for a moment to South Wales, and here I confess we are under a great disadvantage, because we do not know the names of the people who are said to have signed the petition. We are told that several hundreds of Ministers

  857
  and office bearers in Nonconformist churches have signed this petition, and the hon. Member for Oswestry said he "would be quite willing that the House of Commons should investigate this petition. Let me tell him that the people who have got up that petition must oppose any such course. I will tell him why. I have been given a copy of the circular which was sent to, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen. It is headed in this way:—
  "A protest; as a Nonconformist minister in South Wales and Monmouthshire, I desire to express my conscientious opposition to the proposal,"
  And so on. Then it adds:
  "Each name will be kept absolutely undisclosed unless the signet gives his consent for it to be published."
  How are we to investigate a petition of this sort, when a pledge is given that the names are to be absolutely undisclosed? How is it to be presented to this House and investigated as petitions ought to be investigated? Who are those gentlemen? The promoter is a member of my own profession, and I am sure he would not object to my calling him a personal friend—Mr. G. N. W. Thomas, the son and grandson of a Nonconformist minister. It is also quite true that he is not a member of any Nonconformist body or any Church in Cardiff to-day. It is further true that he is a life long Conservative, and that he is now a member in the Tory interest of the Corporation of Cardiff. Although a Nonconformist, he is very ready to be considered an opponent of this Bill. Then we have Mr. Henry Radcliffe, who was last year elected a sidesman of the Church, and this year, I do not know from what motive, he refused to be re-elected a sidesman, and said that it was a mistake that he had been elected. Hon. Gentlemen may draw their own conclusions from that, and Mr. Henry Radcliffe could not be called, and has not been called for many years now, a member of the Liberal party. The hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs spoke of four gentlemen of the name of Cory, as though the four Corys belonged to the same family. Everybody knows that there are several Corys in Cardiff who have no kind of connection whatever. There is one bearing the great and respected name of Cory, Uncle to the Member for one of the Cornish Divisions, who, since 1886, he severed himself from the Liberal party, and he has been a Unionist, and a very strong Unionist, all through these years. The other gentleman of the name of Cory, mentioned by the hon. Member
  858
  for Denbigh Boroughs, was High Sheriff of Glamorgan a year or so ago, and is chairman of the Conservative Association. Sir John Gunn, who is also one of the names of the organisers of this Nonconformist protest, fought Cardiff in the Conservative interest some years ago. These names have been published. Let me tell hon. Gentlemen to guage the value of this petition by this fact, that the only individual whose name is published from my Constituency is a gentleman who ever since 1886 has been a keen Unionist, and one of the leading Tariff Reformers since 1903, and who this year is chairman of the Conservative Association. Or, even if you go further afield, I happen to come from a little rural parish where I pretty well know every man in the village. There are two names of men from that parish, and they have always fought against Liberalism, both in local and Parliamentary elections. I was not surprised to find the name of a cousin of mine. He has always been a Tory. You might as well say because the Leader of the Opposition is a Dissenter, in England at any rate, that because he is willing conscientiously to sign a petition against Disestablishment and Disendowment that that showed that the Presbyterians of Scotland are against this Bill, as to say that because the names of these gentlemen, who are very well known and respected—and I say nothing against them— who are Tories speak, vote, and sign a petition against Disestablishment and Disendowment, that therefore the Nonconformists of Wales are against the Bill. I have no time to deal with the matter any further now, though I should like to do so.
  I would ask the House to consider for a moment why it is that Wales shows this impregnable front against the Establishment of the Church of England in Wales. Why is it that Wales, in spite of all the changes that occur in our political system, goes on year after year, I might almost say generation after generation, demanding this act of justice. In order to find that out, I agree with the Attorney-General, you must go back to the history of Wales. I wish I had time to develop the theme, but I will only say this now: The hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs quoted something I wrote about the Reformation. I do say here, as I have always said, that the way in which the Church was partly Disestablished and partly Disendowed at the time of Henry VIII. wrought great

  859
  injury to the people of Wales. There was no part of the United Kingdom that was so greatly injured as Wales was by the Reformation, because there was no part of the United Kingdom where monasteries were so well endowed as in Wales. Wales undoubtedly, according to all contemporary evidence, was the most Catholic part of the United Kingdom at the time of the Reformation, and for a hundred years afterwards. For reasons which I need not enter into now, the Catholic Church left Wales derelict after the Reformation, and the Reformation Church as established by law had no rival, no competitor, in Wales for a hundred years. It was not that there were not great men in the Church, good men, who gave devoted service to Wales, for there was Bishop Morgan, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, who translated the Bible into inimitable Welsh, Archdeacon Prys, and a host of others whose names are familiar to the people of Wales, who did all they could to bring the Church into close sympathy and touch with the people of Wales. Yet at the end of a century, after they were in the field without rivals or competitors, what was the condition of things in Wales? I venture to say that no Welshman can read the history of his country without a feeling of shame and almost of indignation that such things should have been allowed. Welsh literature was dead, the Eisteddfod disappeared, culture was non existent, education there was none, religion there was none. One quarter of the churches in Wales, and there were no chapels, were shut up from the beginning of the year to the end of the year without any Christian service at all. One out of every fifteen of the ministers of the Church in Wales knew not how to read or to preach in Welsh.
  That was the condition of things after a hundred years of unrivalled work. Then what happened? Some great men arose in Wales. Who were they? They were men who were beneficed clergymen in the Established Church. The Rev. William Wroth, rector of Llanfaches; the Rev. William Erbury, Vicar of St. Mary's, his curate, and the Rev. Walter Cradock. They were the men who started to rouse Wales from the religious lethargy and paganism into which it had sunk. They wanted to remain inside the Church. What was their reward? Walter Cradock was brought before the Bishop of Llandaff,
  860
  who called him, this great man, the morning star of Welsh Nonconformity, not a man who was an inspired preacher, but told him he was a bold, ignorant young fellow, and he was inhibited from preaching. He had to go to North Wales to start a mission. Gradually the toils of the Ecclesiastical Court gathered round the other men. William Wroth and William Erbury were deprived of their benefices. William Wroth, in 1636, because he was deprived of working within the Church, an old man, having spent himself in the service of the Church, and, deprived of the opportunity of doing good in his own Church, set up the first independent chapel in his own parish. That movement, I agree, did not apply to the whole of Wales. It only affected Glamorgan, Monmouth, Carmarthen, and the Southern Counties to a small extent, but it did this much good, that it arrested the decay of religion in Wales, and made it possible to found chapels and schools in Wales. It revived the love of learning in Wales; it kept alive and purified the Welsh language; it made the Welsh language once more an instrument of culture and a means of salvation. After some fifty or sixty years the force of this movement, which is sometimes called the Puritan movement—inaccurately, in my belief, because it arose quite independently of the Puritan movement in England—was spent, and the Church had a chance of retrieving her position. We have heard a great deal of Griffith Jones, of Llandowror. It is true that he was a beneficed clergyman of the Church, but he was the son of an Independent deaeon. If you look at the history of the Methodist revival of the eighteenth century you will find that everyone of the Methodist leaders drew their fullest inspiration from the old Puritan movement which had died out. What had happened was this: As time went on the force of the movement was spent: the old Puritan movement got lost in the dry husks of theological controversy. Arianism and other "isms" seemed to crop up. The best and most zealous men amongst the Nonconformists themselves felt that they could not labour with any advantage within the old Dissenting movement, and they turned once more to the Church.
  This was a chance which no other institution, as far as I know, has ever had. Griffith Jones was the son of a Nonconformist deacon and became a beneficed clergyman. William Williams, of Pantycelyn, son of another Independent deacon,

  861
  received ordination. Then there was Howell Harries, of Trevecca, the first leader of the Methodist movement who applied in vain for Episcopal ordination, Daniel Rowlands, of Llangeitho, the greatest preacher Wales has ever produced, was in priest's orders, and remained so to the end of his days. For eighty years these men laboured within the Church. They did not become Dissenters out of cantankerousness, or because they had any doctrinal differences. Daniel Rowlands was to the end of his days a member of the Church. Williams, of Pantycelyn, says that he founded his faith on the Articles of the Church of England and the Catechism of Westminster. Thomas Charles, of Bala, was not only in priest's orders, but it was against his will that he was—not inhibited from preaching, it is true, but deprived of his curacy, and he failed to get another curacy in the whole of Wales. Why did this great movement of devoted souls within the Church become the beginning of a new era in Nonconformity? Because the Church would not have it. The Church thrust these men out. How did they do it? Thomas Charles, of Bala, the most revered name in the history of Welsh Nonconformity, has told the story. I would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to turn up the pamphlet printed in the year 1802, written by Thomas Charles. It is called "The Vindication of the Methodists of Wales." In this, he says, among other things, that the Methodists have been compelled to seek protection under the Toleration Act. They wished to cling to the Established Church and they do not consider themselves a separate body." Why? Because these Methodists, having built their chapels as mission rooms belonging to the Church, refused to look upon them as Nonconformist chapels. They said, "We are members of the Church of England. These chapels we have built as mission rooms in which we can worship, where we can exhort each other, and meet for prayer. We are members of the Church of England, and we will go to the parish church for the Sacrament. We will not take the Sacrament except at the hands of episcopally ordained clergy."
  What did the Church do? They took out summonses against these men for worshipping in meeting houses not licensed under the Toleration Act. £100 in fines were paid in one year only. Other men, exhortera and preachers, who took part in these religious services, were proceeded against because, being members of the
  862
  Church of England, as they thought, but being Dissenters, as the Church said, they were taking part in these religious exercises without a licence-under the Toleration Act. One man whose name is mentioned was imprisoned for six months for that offence alone. Thomas Charles in 1802 wrote his "Vindication" as a warning to the Church authorities. The warning fell on deaf ears. In 1811, for that and other reasons, the Methodists had to form a connection of their own. There is not a single Nonconformist sect or a single Dissenting denomination in Wales to-day that has not been driven out of the Church, not because of any doctrinal differences, but because these good men were men with souls on fire for the work of bringing salvation to their fellowmen. If that had happened in any other Church, say the Church of Rome, do you not think that the Church of Rome would have found some means of keeping these men within her fold? She would have formed an Order of Preaching Friars, or something of that sort, in order to keep these, the best men the Church ever had, within her borders. But the Church drove them out, and, with them, the best part of the Welsh people.
  I agree that the Church to-day is doing good work. No one disputes it. But, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) asks, "Is the Church in Wales doing her duty?" I say no. Her duty, according to her own idea, if she be a National Church, is to minister to the whole nation. It is for that reason that these Endowments are given to her. She is not doing accepted these national Endowments, well in the sense that she is ministering to her own flocks; but she is not doing the duty which she took upon herself when she-accepted these National Endowments. She is ministering to a small minority of the people among whom she dwells. She is given this chance to-day, as I believe, to reconcile herself with the people of Wales. She will never become the only National Church. She has lost that position. But I believe that if she accepts this opportunity, she may yet reconcile herself to the people of Wales and become a great power for good in Wales, breaking down those unhappy barriers which have been set up by circumstances between her and a great proportion of the people of Wales.
  But I am not concerned so much with that. I am here as a representative of

  863
  Wales. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite this earnest question: What answer will they give to Wales? Wales, after all, is the oldest partner of England. At a time when Scotland was still an independent Kingdom, fighting the arms of England at Solway Moss and Pinkie Cleugh; at a time when unhappy Ireland was in a welter of confusion and anarchy, Wales was asked by the Parliament to send representatives to sit at Westminster, and for 400 years we have at the invitation of England sent representatives here. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London said that we must not over emphasise the parochialism of our national spirit. When has Wales, except in this Bill, ever made any claim upon this Parliament? We have been here for 400 years, and this is the only big measure we have ever asked at the hands of this House of Commons. Why should you refuse us? Wales stands to-day at your Bar, at the Bar of this High Court of Parliament, a suppliant for justice. She comes to seek equity, and she comes with clean hands. When was it that Wales proved unfaithful, or treacherous, or disloyal? She comes at your invitation in a constitutional way. She comes armed with all those constitutional sanctions which you Englishmen, the creators and inventors of the system of representative Government have taught her are the sure passports to the Temple of Justice. Why should you deny Wales this measure of justice? You do not seek to impose the Anglican yoke upon Scotland. You did it once. You are ashamed of it to-day. "Few," said Burke, "are the friends of a departed tyranny." You tried it on Ireland, and for two generations Ireland has enjoyed religious equality.
  You do not proceed to set up this Anglican establishment in any of your great Dominions beyond the seas. You do not ask the pious Hindoos of Bengal to suffer your yoke, or the fanatical Mahomedans of the Soudan, or the heathen savages of Nigeria or Uganda! Surely if there is anything in the Establishment as a national recognition of religion, you want it more in those far-off countries where society is more loosely organised, and where Christianity is not indigenous to the soil as is the case with Wales. Wales, so far as outward observance is concerned, is one of the most religious of countries. You need fear nothing from that point of view for Wales. Why should
  864
  you insist on leaving this ignominy to Wales alone, who is your oldest partner, your most faithful ally, and the elder daughter of this House? Englishmen may be slow to move, but they have a sense of justice, upon which we Welsh people rest our claims. I look forward to the future with a calm, serene and confident eye. Time is on our side. This mediæval conception of the Church and her relation to the State is worn out by the attrition of time and circumstance. That is why I believe that this year of grace will see the redemption of the trembling hopes of my people.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I always listen with interest, though with a qualified pleasure, to the speeches of the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down. I confess that the pleasure is greater when he is engaged in chastising the backslidings of his own Government than when he is employed only in recommending his own view. No one, I think, can fail to have a certain feeling of sympathy with anyone who feels as strongly as the hon. Member evidently does, and who is capable of expressing his view so forcibly, though I must say I listened in vain in the hope of seeing some connection between the views—and Liberal views on many points which the hon. Member expressed—and the proposals which are contained in this Bill. What were the main grounds of his speech—that part, at all events, that I have had the pleasure of listening to? His first effort was to minimise the importance of the Nonconformist petition, in regard to which I may say a word or two later. The only remark which I would like to make now upon it is this: That the hon. Member seems to think that the Noncon conformist who is not an out-and-out Liberal is not entitled to give any expression to his views. Another view that perhaps may emerge from that point is this: If he is really right in thinking that there are 103,000 Nonconformists who have become converts to the party to which I belong, then I have a greater hope for the elections in Wales than I have had in the past. The next point of the hon. Member was to dwell upon the backslidings of the Church in the eighteenth century. I really do not see what connection that has with what you are now proposing to do with the Church. A great deal that the hon. Gentleman has said is true, but I think he will find that a great deal of it would be true in regard to many other Churches besides the Church in Wales. Anyone who studies the history of the Church

  865
  in Scotland in the eighteenth century will find there was very much the same lethargy and indifference, and the offences to which he referred certainly were not confined to Wales. But in any case what ground is there for depriving the Church, which is doing good work now, of funds which are necessary for that work because some Church did not fulfil its duties 100 years ago? The hon. Member says the Church is not doing its duty now. He gave a curious definition of what that duty is. He does not deny that the Church is doing everything it can. It is not doing its duty, he said, because everybody will not come within its fold. Surely of all arguments which have ever been adduced for taking money from any corporation, that is one of the worst that has ever been presented to this House!
  I confess I have a feeling, which I think must be shared by hon. Members in all parts of the House who take a certain pride and continuous interest in the House of Commons, whatever other result the "Parliament Act has had, it has certainly brought a new feature into our practice. There is a smaller attendance of the Members of the Government than used to be customary. In this Debate we have had a new phenomena. A Minister comes and makes a speech, as the Attorney-General did yesterday, listens for a short time to the speaker that follows him, and then disappears. As regards the Prime Minister, he did not appear at all yesterday. He came in to-day only to hear the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London. Apparently now he has done with the House of Commons. What is the meaning of it? It really means that everyone recognises that our Debates on this subject are unreal. It is not, as the Under-Secretary for the Home Department said yesterday, entirely due to the change brought about by the Parliament Act. It is due to this—and every Member in the House must be aware of it—that the fate of this Bill does not depend in the least on anything that can happen to it, or on any merits of this Bill, but it is contingent on the larger questions with which it is bound up, and the conditions under which business is now carried on. The Parliament Act has had another disadvantage. It has given us less opportunity than we used to have of discussion in Committee—the only kind of discussion which enables us to go into the details of a Bill. It has given, at least I think so, too large an opportunity for
  866
  Second Reading discussion—it has given a larger opportunity than I appreciate from that point of view. I agree therefore, both with the Prime Minister and with the Under-Secretary, that it is very difficult for anyone not merely to say anything new, but to find anything to say which he has not said already in connection with these Debates. Now I shall try, but I am not sure I shall succeed—for my experience is that the more time you take in preparing a speech the shorter it is—I shall try to endeavour to consider two points in connection with this Bill. I shall examine as briefly as I can the merits or the demerits of the Measure, and then I shall consider what, to me, under present conditions, is almost more important, and that is the way in which it is proposed to carry this Bill into law, if it ever is carried into law.
  This Bill proposes to do three things to the Church in Wales. It proposes to Disestablish it, to compel it by law to break the connection which has existed for so many centuries with the Church of England as a whole, and it proposes to deprive the Church of its Endowments. The Prime Minister told us this afternoon that Disestablishment was purely a question of expediency. I do not think that is a view which would be universally held, or perhaps generally adopted. At all events, I was brought up in the belief that nothing could be more heretical than that view, and there certainly is a large body of opinion in this country on both sides which does look upon the question of Disestablishment as a question of principle, as a question of right and wrong, as much as any question which can be discussed in this House. On the other hand, there is a large body of opinion which I think looks for equality, and if I have time later on I shall try to put before the House some of the reasons which, in my opinion, cause that. There is a large body of opinion which holds the view that religion is a question for the individual citizen, that it is something with which the State ought not to have anything to do. That is a view which was very strongly held at one time in this country. This is the view on which the plea for religious equality is based. It is a conviction which has been very strongly held, and is still held strongly, and which everyone must regard with respect, but it is a view which I am afraid has not much influence on those who form the motive power behind this particular Bill.

  867
  The hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, in a very interesting and ingenious interruption which he made this afternoon, told us that Disestablishment to him "was a social reform with money in it, and if I am not mistaken the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and who I have always regarded as not only the most strenuous but, if I may say so without offence to others, as the most effective fighter on this subject, has I think stated that Disestablishment without Disendowment was an academic question which was not worth considering. Well, if that is the case, then there is no question here of religious equality, and it is idle to keep constantly repeating, as hon. Gentlemen do, phrases which for them have no meaning, at all events no practical meaning. There is a body of opinion which holds the view today to which I referred, but there is also a large body of opinion which I think is not greatly diminished which holds the view that religion is essential, is one of the vital factors of national life, which ought to be recognised in some form by the State. That view is held and largely held, and I am of opinion that so far as one can judge it is a view which on the whole is understood by the mass of the people in this country. I think that is shown in another connection. Logically it seems to me that if you take the view that the State ought to have nothing to do with religion as religion, you must also take the view that education, in so far as it is controlled by the State, ought to be secular and free from religious teaching. Everybody knows that is not the view which is held by the great mass of the people in this country.
  If people believe, and I am one of them, that the national recognition of religion is good, both for religion and for the State, then whatever else may be in doubt this is certain, that if there is to be any national recognition of religion in Wales, the Church in Wales, not only from its past history, but from the fact that it is admittedly, whatever else is in doubt, the largest Christian denomination in Wales, is entitled to that recognition. That claim has been denied. It was denied yesterday by the Attorney-General, who adduced two arguments, one borrowed from his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and one his own invention, and I hardly know which of the two is the more fantastic. The borrowed argument was this, that the Church in Wales is alien
  868
  to the Welsh temperament. That seems very strange to me. The Anglican Church, with its liturgy, which for spiritual elevation, which for beauty and sublimity of expression is second only to the English Bible, has added to the joy and has consoled the sorrow of countless generations of Christians in this country, and more than that, it is not here alone, but wherever the English language is spoken that the Church still appeals with its old force to the Christian people in these countries. If it be true that such a Church can make no appeal to the Welsh temperament, I think that it is a condemnation not of the Church, but of the Welsh temperament. But, as a matter of fact, it is not true, and everybody knows that it is not true. Why is it that those who are, I was going to say bitterly hostile to the Church, but, at any rate, who are so strongly in favour of this Bill, have always refused to have a religious census in Wales. Is it out of pity for the Church? Is it through their fear of showing up the weakness of the Church that they refuse to allow that to be done? I think not, and I will prove it. At present, whatever it may have been in the past, the Church in Wales has no power to impose its administration on anyone who does not want it. It is a fact, and an admitted fact, that the Church is growing, and growing constantly in power and influence in Wales, and what is more, that it is the only denomination, I believe, which is actually increasing in membership, and the same cannot be said of other denominations. So much for its being alien to the Welsh temperament.
  I now come to the original intervention of the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General, who has just honoured us by coming into the House. He says the Church in Wales never could be the proper vehicle for the expression of Welsh religious sentiment, because it is only four dioceses of the Church of England. It cannot, according to that theory, obey the national spirit unless there is a separate Church. I fancy the right hon. Gentleman is aware that for many centuries the whole of Western Christendom was under one Church, and it was I remember at that time, as he will remember, that the battle of Bannockburn was fought, and I never found any Scotchman who would be prepared to deny that there was a strong national sentiment in Scotland, although the Church of England and Scotland were the same at that time. It is to

  869
  fantastic arguments of that kind that hon. Genleinen and right hon. Gentlemen are driven in order to defend "what they know is indefensible. Everybody knows that the real ground of hostility to the Church of England is not because it is not appealing to the Welsh people, but because it is growing strong, and is appealing with greater force to the people than is agreeable to those who are opposed to the Church. The avowed object of this Bill is to force the Church of England in Wales by law to break the connection which has existed for I do not know how many centuries with the Church of England. We are told by those who profess to have the good of the Church at heart that one of the effects of Disestablishment will be greater freedom. What is the form this greater freedom takes at the outset? It is to compel the Church in Wales to break its connection with the Church in England.
  10.0 P.M.
  Although there are many parts of this Bill more important, there is no part which seems to me more indefensible and more unjust. Suppose the attempt were made to prevent any of the Welsh Free Churches from having as close a communion as applies to similar denominations in England, is there any hon. Member of this House who would tolerate that for a moment? The Prime Minister this afternoon attempted to make out that what has been done in this Bill meant very little in the way of dismemberment. He was answered by the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), and all I need to say on this point is that the Bishop of Oxford, who is in favour of Disestablishment, and yet dislikes Disendowment, is utterly opposed to these proposals, because of their injustice to the Church of England, and because they will break the connection which exists. That is simply tyranny, and I do not believe for a moment that it is necessary. I believe there are Clauses in the Bill which might be removed which would allow this, and if this is not allowed I can see no reason for saying that severing this close connection will give greater strength to the Church in Wales, which is asserted by those who are trying to carry this Bill through. It is the Disendowment proposals of this Bill which are stamped with that mark of meanness to which my right hon. Friend refers, and which I think has shocked the conscience, not only of all Churchmen, but of a vast number of Nonconformists. Why have they done it? There is no necessary connection between
  870
  Disendowment and Disestablishment. That is a fact, and I believe even the Home Secretary has admitted that there have been many cases of Disestablishment without Disendowment. If, therefore, what you want is religious equality, why do you not leave to the Church the funds which it is using well, and which admittedly are being used for purposes which are to the advantage of Wales? Why do you propose to take these funds, and on what grounds? I am not going into the vexed question of the origin of tithes. I shall not do so, not only because I am not competent to adequately deal with them, but I do not think the question is relevant. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Welsh party was rather hard upon the Home Secretary, for he told us that bishops stepped in where lawyers feared to tread. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is not a bishop, but I was under the impression that he was a lawyer. I am not going into the origin of tithes, but I will put this question, if the right hon. Gentleman cares to answer it. The ground on which you say you take the tithes from the Church is that tithes are national property, that they were given improperly to the Church, and that the nation has a right to resume possession of them. If that is true, if that is the ground, then tithes which at the same time were given in the same way to private individuals are equally national property, and the Government has an equal right to resume them. Why do they take one and not the other? I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will give an answer to that, but I think I can give it. I have no doubt there are hon. Members supporting the right hon. Gentleman who would gladly seize them or any other form of property, although this has not yet commended itself as a hen-roost even to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and for this reason, that if you begin to interfere with the property of private individuals all security of property would be gone, and there would be a rising against the Government which they would find impossible to resist. I do not base the right of the Church on any historic ground. I shall take the claim which puts it at its lowest. I have heard right hon. Gentlemen say that this property was given to the Church by Act of Parliament, and they implied because Parliament had given it Parliament had a right to take it

  871
  away. Until recently, at least, a Parliamentary title was considered the best of all titles for property of this kind.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General, in another of those fantastic arguments to which he has reduced us, told us that when the Act of Uniformity was passed in 1662, there were practically no Dissenters in Wales. That is a curious commentary on the Anglican Church being hostile to the Welsh Disestablishment. But the right hon. Gentleman was reminded by my hon. Friend who introduced this Amendment that that Parliamentary title has been confirmed, and it was confirmed in the early days of the last century, in 1836, when, admittedly, there was Nonconformity in Wales, as there was in England. Under any other circumstances a Parliamentary title, dating even from 1836, would be good enough for any property in this country, and has by Act of Parliament been made three times stronger than is necessary in the case of every Free Church throughout the country. But, after all, the right of the Church to this property rests upon something stronger even than a Parliamentary title. It rests on prescription, which in every civilised country at every period of the world's history has been recognised as the best title which can be given to property of any kind. For more than two hundred and fifty years the Church has enjoyed undisputed right to that property, and I venture to say that if it were any other body, if it were a question of a school, a corporation, or a private individual, there is no body of opinion in this House which would for a moment tolerate the taking away of property which had been enjoyed for such a time. It has never been done in this; country. It has never been done in any civilised country. I admit that the Prime Minister this afternoon—and again this is another example of the way in which we repeat arguments which had been refuted over and over again—told us that the Irish Church was an analogy for what is being done now. There is not a word of truth in that. No one claims that the property of a trust of any kind is in the same position as the property of a private individual, but we do claim that the Parliament of this country has never taken away property from any trust, except on the ground that that property was not being properly used for the purposes for which the trust was founded. That was the sole ground on which the Irish Church was Disestablished.
  872
  The Prime Minister told us this afternoon, using a legal phrase which has become part of the vernacular in Scotland, that we were estopped from making the claim because the Conservative Government had used the funds they were taking away. What an absurdity! Certainly the Prime Minister was estopped, if ever anyone was, from using the analogy of the Irish Church as an argument in favour of this Bill. He told us that this was done by Mr. Gladstone, who was a devoted son of the Church. Yes, but at the time Mr. Gladstone carried the Bill, he used words which I have quoted before, and which I shall quote again as long as the Prime Minister uses this argument. Mr. Gladstone said:
  "We never could admit an establishment which we think in the main good and efficient for its purpose is to be endangered by the course which we may adopt in reference to an establishment which we look upon as inefficient and bad."
  It is quite true that twenty years after Mr. Gladstone did claim that there was some points of resemblance between the Welsh Church and the Irish Church. But that claim cannot be made by this Government because the Prime Minister over and over again has said that this establishment is not inefficient or bad, but is doing well the work entrusted to it. There is no doubt, if what is being done to this Church were being done to any other body, it would be admitted to be wrong, and the fact that it is being done from party motives and by the full use of the party machine makes it not less, but more, un-disguisedly robbery. I should like to go a step further. I hold that Parliament has absolutely no right to take these Endowments. But even if it had, and if there were some justification, I can imagine nothing more unwise than that these Endowments should be taken away? What is the object of taking them away? The hon. Gentleman who spoke last is very strong on this subject, but I think that, in his heart, he will admit that what has influenced the Welsh Members in this matter is not what use has been made of the money to be taken from the Church, but that their motive is, at all costs, to take, it from the Church. They decided to take it from the Church long before they decided on what they would spend it. They have changed the destination of it. I do not complain of the use to which the money is being put, but there is no one who will contend for a moment that funds for these services could not be got more easily in other ways than by taking them from the Church.

  873
  Why are they taking them from the Church? No one will deny that to deprive the Church in Wales of these funds is to weaken that Church. It will, therefore, injure religion. In what way will it benefit the community? I think most people will agree, whatever their religious views may be, or even if they have no religious views at all, that social work is best done by organisations which are controlled by people who have a higher object in view and who recognise that the men they are trying to improve have not only bodies to be clothed and fed, but souls to be saved. It is far easier to get money for secular purposes than for religious objects. Every Free Church knows that it is extremely difficult to get the funds necessary for the full work of the Church. Why, then take this money away? My Noble Friend who moved the rejection of this Bill in a speech which impressed me both by its sincerity and power, said persecution did harm to the persecutors, but not to the persecuted. I am sorry to say my reading of history does not bear that out. I think that in many cases, persecution has actually killed a religious sect which would otherwise have continued to exist. The hon. Member who thinks that under this Act, the spirit of the Church will not suffer takes an unduly sanguine view. If this Bill is carried through there are hundreds of parishes in Wales to-day which will be deprived of the whole of their Endowments. I do not doubt that when Disestablishment takes place, there will be a wave of enthusiasm amongst Churchmen, which "will cause large subscriptions to be given. I have no doubt that large annual sums can be collected, but I do not believe it will be possible to raise the total sum which is necessary to produce the interest of what the Church is to be deprived by this Act.
  Who is going to gain? My right hon. Friend the Member for the Strand Division (Mr. Long) yesterday gave an instance which will account for much of the feeling about this matter. He spoke of a parish in Wales where the clergyman of the Church of England ministers to a minority, and perhaps a small minority of the population, while the pastor of the Free Church is in a much worse position financially than he. That is probably true, but how are you going to improve the position of the Free Church by depriving the Established Church of her resources? Instead of improving it, you are
  874
  going to make it worse. In Wales and elsewhere, there is a growing desire to put ministers of Free Churches on a permanent basis. If you take away from them the example held up by the better conditions of the Church in Wales, instead of doing good, you will do harm to that motive, which is actuating the members of the Free Churches. I can see no ground on which the Disendowment proposals of this Bill can be defended?
  I should like very briefly to take the" other side of the question, and that is, the condition under which this Bill is being carried through. I do not think there is any Member of this House who disagrees with me in reality when I say that this Bill would actually have no chance of becoming law if it were not deprived, not of the right of appeal to the House of Lords, but of a right to appeal to the electors who send Members here. I do not think that is in doubt. The Prime Minister, in recommending the Parliament Act, said that no Bill should go through under it unless it had staple support in this House and the staple support of this country. Has this Bill complied with that condition? The right hon. Gentleman says it has. He is easily pleased. Consider first what happened in this House. Hon. Gentlemen will remember that the first act of the Government was to put off its Second Heading until the Nationalist Members had come back from Ireland. And what happened then has been the history from that day to this of the progress of this Bill. But for the support of the Nationalist Members it would have been dead long ago, and no one would have regretted it. On four occasions at least, and some of them were vital occasions, the Government were supported by a majority smaller than the number of Nationalist Members who voted with it. I know that some hon. Members—I think the hon. Member for Donegal was one—claimed that they were voting in accordance with their convictions. That may be true in the case of the hon. Member for Donegal, but it is making a very great demand on the credulity of this House to suggest that all the Nationalist Members would have taken that view if they had been free to vote on the merits of the Bill. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), in the words quoted earlier in this Debate, when he claimed, and justly claimed, that the fact that this Bill is alive is due to the Nationalist Members, did

  875
  not claim it on the ground of the convictions of the Nationalist Members; he claimed it on the ground of their "splendid discipline."
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I have over and over again stated that we knew what it was to have an alien Church of a minority in Ireland, and we were anxious to extend to another country the same principle we had established in Ireland.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman has over and over again stated, but I do know that he stated that the fact that this Bill was alive was due to the splendid discipline of the Nationalist party. I know this, that the Leader of the Nationalist party himself said in this House in my hearing:—
  "Your British politics do not concern us. Our votes will in this Parliament, as in past Parliaments, be directed by one sole consideration, by what we regard to be the interests of Ireland."
  There is no doubt about that: There is no doubt about this fact: that this Bill would have been dead to-day but for the votes of men who, in the words of the Irish Leader, have given their votes without any regard to the merits of the question. But there is more than that: on two occasions at least the Bill would have been dead if the number of Nationalists, even although they had all voted for it, had been the number to which they would have been entitled if the Home Rule Bill had been law. We know the principle of the Government. It is that that is the proportion in which they ought to interfere in British questions. We have this fact: that the last use the Government have made of the full number is to destroy a Church which they could not destroy if they depended only upon that proportion which they think is the right proportion. What about the stable opinion in the constituencies? How is that to be tested? It is a fact which I do not think anyone will deny that there has been a larger number of more enthusiastic meetings against this Bill throughout England than has ever taken place with regard to any political subject in this country. Let me give one example. The Bishop of St. David's addressed a large meeting in Peterborough. There were more than 2,000 people present. The local Liberals thought that was rather awful, and I am told that they invited the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmar then (Mr. Llewelyn Williams), whose ability as a speaker we all recognise, to
  876
  come down and supply the antidote. He may have had an enthusiastic audience, but I am told that it was less than 200, in reply to the demonstration. The same thing is even true of Wales. Let me refer to an indication of the opinion in Wales itself. There has, first of all, been a petition from the people of Wales against this Bill. It is easy to exaggerate the importance of it, but it is very easy to underestimate it also, and it is a fact that the protest against this Bill was signed by more than one-third of the population over fifteen years of age in the Principality of Wales. I question if it be possible on any other subject to get so large a proportion of the people to sign a petition, and in face of that it is absolutely idle to pretend that the proportion in which the Welsh Members came to this House represents anything like the feeling of the Welsh people in regard to this matter.
  Then we had only a few days ago a petition presented by the Nonconformists to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister objected to the form of it. When it suits him—although, as a matter of fact, no one who has ever filled his position has so completely destroyed the Constitution of this country—he is very fond of Constitutional precedents. He says that the petition ought to have been presented to the House of Commons. I think they had very good reasons for presenting it to him. They had tried the House of Commons without success, and it was he who gave the pledge that the Parliament Act would not be used unless there was stable opinion behind it. An attempt has been made to belittle this petition. The hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond), whose speech I did not hear, seemed to assume that those who got up that petition used the same methods with which he is himself familiar. But he is wrong. I am told that the utmost care was taken by those who were responsible for it that no pressure of any kind should be used in getting signatures. I do not say that there may not have been instances in which pressure was used—it is hardly possible to avoid it—but I do say this: that the whole influence of the Free Church Council was used to prevent petitions being signed. I say further, without any possibility of its being questioned, that the great majority of the Free Church pulpits in Wales used all their influence to prevent it being signed. When we realise how close is the connection in these, villages between the chapels and social life,

  877
  anyone will realise that it required unusual force and unusual determination to sign this petition in spite of the pressure which was brought to bear upon them to prevent them doing so.
  Here again, over 100,000 adherents o£ the Free Churches above twenty-one years of age signed. That means at least one-sixth, and probably more, of the total number of Nonconformists in Wales. Such a testimony has never been given before in any case which has been presented to this House. This all bears out what we all feel. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last said that time was on his side. Does he not realise that he is entirely wrong; that he is fighting now a quarrel which is dead and which has lost all the force that was once behind it, and that every year that passes makes it less likely rather than more likely that any vital force is behind it? I remember pointing out in this House the great change which had taken place in England and Scotland. I said then that although I was not acquainted with Wales I could not suppose that a current which was running so strong through the rest of the United Kingdom was less strong in Wales. I put it to any Welsh Member: Is it not true That any such expression against this Bill would have been impossible ten years ago in Wales, and that there is the clearest proof that, whatever they may think about Disestablishment, there is no love among religious Nonconformists for depriving the Christian Church of funds which it is using well in accordance with its trusts?
  I have only to say, in conclusion, that supposing hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite get their will, what will they achieve? They talk about getting rid of religious bitterness. I should welcome that, and I should be prepared, personally, to make great sacrifices to secure it. But what a way of getting rid of religious bitterness! To carry a Bill which in the eyes not only of every Churchman, but of every fair-minded Nonconformist, is intolerably unjust, is a strange way to get rid of religious bitterness. I have, myself, this conviction, that there is not a Member of the Cabinet, not one, who, if he were allowed, would not carry Disestablishment, while leaving to the Church the funds which it now enjoys. I do not believe there is one. The Prime Minister gave a clear indication of it this afternoon. I do not say he said it—that is impossible—but he gave an indication of it. When speaking of this
  878
  Nonconformist petition, he turned round and said:—
  "After all, it is nut against Disestablishment; it is only against Disendowment."
  We all understand. If what the Government and the Welsh Members want is to get rid of this bitterness between different religious bodies, let them not mar the claim for religious equality with a claim which can be based on no other ground than a desire to injure the Church of England by depriving it of funds which it is using well. If I am right in thinking this Bill is not supported by the people of this country, there must be an election soon, and the Prime Minister has himself told us that one of the beauties of the Parliament Act, this high watermark of Radical opportunist statesmanship, is that if one Parliament does what the nation does not approve of, the next Parliament will upset it. In this case there is no doubt about it. What will you have gained? You will only have added to religious bitterness for no object, and you will have done something else which is not out of keeping with your idea of representative government, and you will have done what you can to make it impossible that the will of the people shall be carried out. It will be in vain, for if a Unionist Government is returned to power I am sure that, whoever may be the Members of that Government, one of the first things that Government will do will be to restore to the Church in Wales the funds of which you have deprived her.
  Mr. McKENNA: The right hon. Gentleman directed the last part of his speech to an argument founded upon the Parliament Act. He urged that there was a growing expression of opinion from Wales adverse to this Bill, and that in accordance with the Prime Minister's speech in relation to the Parliament Act the Bill ought to be fundamentally reconsidered. The evidence which the right hon. Gentleman brought in support of his assertion was that a petition had been signed by upwards of a third of the adult population against the Bill, and that a further petition signed by upwards of a sixth of the Nonconformists in Wales had been directed against part of the Bill. There is a constitutional means of expressing opinion, and I quite readily admit that if no occasion had been given in any part of Wales for such an expression we might turn our attention to petitions and public meetings, but at the very time that this

  879
  great petition was being got up in Wales, and almost at the very time of the Nonconformist petition—a little before it—we had three by-elections in Wales, and three of my hon. Friends now sit on these benches representing the views of the Welsh people in favour of Disestablishment and Disendowment. [An HON. MEMBER: "By a reduced majority."] The majorities, I think, were still large enough to be tenfold greater than the whole of the majorities of the three Conservative Members who sit on that side of the House. When we have got this constitutional means of knowing what the opinion of Wales is, we are not going to be misled by arguments founded upon petitions, about which, whatever hon. Gentlemen opposite may say, we, who know by personal experience how these petitions in Wales are obtained, know them in the main to be valueless. I will tell the hon. Gentleman one thing more about these petitions, and that is that the way they are got up in the interest of the Church of England and the pressure which is brought to bear to get people to sign them is one of the strongest proofs that the Church of England in Wales is an alien Church, and that it ought not to be the Established Church in Wales. One of the proofs given by the right hon. Gentleman that there has been a change of opinion with regard to this Bill was founded on the allegation that on four material occasions in the course of its progress through the House the measure had only been saved by the Irish Nationalist Members of Parliament. I remember one of these occasions. It was early in the afternoon when a Division was taken. I think it was on a Friday, about three o'clock, when the majority in support of the Government's proposal numbered, I believe, only twenty-nine. It is quite true that upon that occasion some twenty-nine Irish Nationalist Members voted on the side of the Government. But a little later in the same afternoon, when the subject had been thoroughly discussed—
  Mr. HEWINS: You were telephoning all over London.
  Mr. McKENNA: I take it from the hon. Member's interruption that he considers it was a victory of telephonic messages, but I would point out that hon. Gentlemen belonging to the Opposition who were brought here at a quarter past three had not the patience to wait even until seven o'clock. [Interruption.]
  880
  I think it was seven o'clock on a Friday. It may have been half-past seven. [An HON. MEMBER: "On a Friday."] The hon. Gentleman has forgotten that the five o'clock rule was suspended, and, moreover, I have no doubt that he has forgotten the very important fact that late in the same afternoon the Government's majority was well over 100, giving proof positive that it was through no change of opinion, but through a mere accident that the Government's majority fell earlier in the day. If hon. Gentlemen opposite had some success, no one on this side need complain of the result of their attempt to organise a snap Division early in the afternoon, for it was defeated by a majority of twenty-nine. There is no single occasion on which, if all the representatives from Ireland had been absent from this House, we should have failed to carry any single important provision of the Bill during its progress. Let me turn to the argument which has been mentioned once more about dismemberment. A very interesting speech was made by the hon. Gentleman opposite on that point. He represented to us that we were breaking the unity of the Church of England by Disestablishing the Church in Wales, and that we were preventing the progress of one united Church which might take place if the English Church in Wales were allowed to attend Convocation. If what the hon. Member means is that the Disestablished English Church in Wales should be allowed to send its representatives to a Synod of the English Church, that Synod consisting, if you like, of exactly the same representatives as now attend Convocation, there would not be the slightest objection their doing so. What they may not do is this: The Disestablished Church in Wales may not send its representatives to the Convocation, which is the Fourth Estate of the Realm, to the Convocation, which is summoned under the King's Writ, which is liable to be prorogued by the Sovereign, which can do no business, not even discuss the affairs of the Church, except on the issue of that writ—a body which is, in truth, correctly called the Fourth Estate of the Realm.
  That body being a common law body with statutory authority, is not a body of which a Disestablished Church could properly be a part. But for all purposes of intercommunion or joint synodical action, the Disestablished Church in Wales may remain an integral part of the Established Church of England, and when the hon. Gentleman speaks

  881
  of a break in the union of the two Churches through Convocation, he is not appreciating the full force of what he is saying. What power has Convocation got? You cannot alter ritual, you cannot touch doctrine, you cannot reform any abuse, however admitted it may be, without coining to Parliament. The Noble Lord the Member for the University of Oxford introduced into this House a Bill which he described as a real Bill, containing thirty-nine Clauses, to make better provision for the organisation and discipline of the Church of England. He was unable to pass that Bill, though I believe that it had the support of the great majority of Convocation; and the Church of England in England has to submit, with the knowledge that its organisation needs reform and that there are abuses which ought to be abolished, to this situation, that it cannot effect reform and it cannot abolish abuses, because it cannot obtain the support of either party in Parliament to pass such a Bill as that of the Noble Lord. Now we propose to make the Church of England in Wales a free Church. We propose to give the Church of England in Wales complete freedom. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Hewins) made a very interesting reference to this point last night. He was describing what would be the effect of the Bill on the English Church in Wales, and he said:—
  "It may reject the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. It may go bodily over to Rome. It may become Unitarian. It may become Presbyterian. It may abolish or retain episcopalianism. It may turn the Prayer Book inside out. You are giving to this body, on whose future conduct you are putting no control and no guidance, and no anything, a lot of public money, I understand. Will the Home Secretary, when he comes to speak, kindly explain by what authority and by what right they take money which they say is national property, public money, and simply give it to an institution which is to have this absolute freedom to preach or teach anything in the world it likes?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Monday. 20th April, 1914, cols. 679–680.]
  In his description of the effect of this Bill the hon. Gentleman was absolutely correct. When this Bill is passed it would be perfectly free for the Church of England in Wales to adopt any body of doctrine it pleases. I do not suppose it will join the Roman Catholic Church, I do not suppose it will become a Unitarian body, but it will certainly be a Free Church, actually free to reform its ritual, to change its doctrine, and to get rid of abuses such as the Noble Lord desires to get rid of. When the hon. Member went on to ask me to explain by "what right and by what authority they take money which they say is national property, public money, and
  882
  simply give it to a community that is to have absolute freedom to preach or teach anything in the world it likes," I answer that it is because we give this freedom that we should not be justified in leaving to the Church public money. Those who say that in our action we have been prompted merely by the desire to rob the Church are not doing justice to themselves. I would ask hon. Gentlemen whether they agree with Welshmen or do not agree with them for one moment to try and put themselves in the place of Welshmen. A Welshman has got a patriotism of his own. He is patriotic to the United Kingdom, just as patriotic as Englishmen, Scotchmen, or Irishmen. He has also got the patriotism of a Welshman. As a Welshman he looks upon the Church of England in Wales as an alien Church. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] The majority—I am speaking only of the majority, not the friends of the Church. The hon. Member, who is a Welshman and an ardent Churchman, takes quite the opposite view. I am speaking of those whom I represent in this matter. They have a patriotism of their own, and as Welshmen they look upon the Church of England in Wales as an alien Church. History in this point of view is not irrelevant. They look upon the Church of England as an established political organisation, associated with all the worst memories of Welsh history. They consider that all their great national movements have been frustrated, hampered, and impeded by the Church. And they believe that the real organisation that has converted the Welsh Church with this engine of hostility to their national life has been the Establishment; they believe it has been the political connection with England. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I am not asking hon. Gentlemen to say that they are right or they are wrong; I am not asking them to agree with me; but I can assure them from my observation of Wales, which now covers a very long period, that what I state is strictly accurate as regards the views of the majority of Welshmen. But it is said, how will anyone be a penny the better off for this Bill. I would ask hon. Gentlemen to realise that a man may have been wounded in his feelings and his sentiments, and may feel the injury ten times more than if he had been robbed in his pocket.
  We may take an illustration from our own doors. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ulster!"] We may take an illustration from Ulster. If the Roman Catholic Church were the

  883
  Established Church in Belfast, not a man in Ulster would be a penny the worse. But what would the Protestants of Ulster think? Would they not feel themselves injured, would they not say that to the institution of the Roman Catholic Church as a National Church they would never submit? That is what Welshmen say of the Church of England. It is not robbery, and it is not a desire for robbery. [An HON MEMBER: "It is!"] I have expressed my own view, and I am sure hon. Gentlemen will forgive me because it is a serious charge to make. It is made lightly, but it is a serious charge to make, and I am trying to give my reasons. And although I recognise that you make the charge honestly, believing it to be true, I am trying to give reasons to prove to you that you are mistaken, and that the charge is not true. That is the reason why we ask for Disestablishment. I have quoted the hon. Member for Hereford, who puts to me the question, and asks me will I explain on what principle. I can justify giving national property to a Church which is freed from Parliamentary control, which is at liberty to teach anything it pleases, which might become a Unitarian body, and which might separate itself altogether from the body of Christian doctrine. We should not be justified in giving national property, to a Church under those conditions when we know that that property originally was handed to the Church for the use of the whole Christian community teaching a particular doctrine, and for eleemosynary and public purposes. We should not be justified in leaving national property to the Church on those terms. What have we taken? Have we gone one inch beyond the limits which are imposed upon us by the reasons I have given for taking any of the property at all? Have we touched one single farthing of the money now administered by the Church, except what in the truest sense of the term is national property? I make no apology for going once more over the figures of this Bill. There has been very remarkable misunderstanding with regard to the Disendowment Clauses of this Bill. Let me give the House an example. The hon. Member for North Hants, speaking at Ipswich a little over a year ago, in 1912, of the payment of, £400 per year to Members of Parliament, said:—
  "He had never asked for money and did not want it. He was ready to work for nothing. It meant £250,000
  884
  per year to Members of Parliament. Perhaps they did not know that the revenues of the Church in Wales amounted to £250,000, and the Government proposed to take that sum of money from the Church in Wales and to give it to men like himself. It meant taking money from needy ministers of the Gospel in Wales to give it to Members of Parliament, many of whom were millionaires. Was it right that Members of Parliament should he paid under those conditions?"
  I am quite sure that when the hon. Gentleman made that statement he believed it to be true. [Laughter.] The reference to Members of Parliament was probably rhetoric, but I think that when he said that we took the whole of the income of the Church, he believed that to be true. Therefore, I make no apology for giving the figures again. We have the figures accurately for the year 1906. In that year the total income of the Church of England in Wales from all sources other than fees, about which we have no records, was £560,000, with which the Church was enabled to do its work. Of that sum £300,000 was derived from voluntary subscriptions, and the remaining £260,000 from Endowments. I am dealing with our principle in treating the Endowments of the Church. The Endowments may be divided into three parts: modern benefactions, amounting to £19,000; grants by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty out of sources of other than Welsh origin amounting to £84,000; and £157,000, consisting of ancient property of the Church derived in the main from tithes. We leave to the Church the private benefactions, because they were given to the Church precisely as benefactions are given to Nonconformists. We restore to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty the £84,000 a year which they have given to the Church. [An HON. MEMBER: "Restore?"] We propose to hand it back. [An HON. MEMBER: "You have not taken it."] We offer to restore to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty the £84,000 a year which they have given to the Church out of sources of other than Welsh origin, and they authorise me in the Bill to restore these sums of money to the Church, partly at the time, and partly in consequence of Amendments in this House. The remaining £157,000, consisting mainly of tithes, is ultimately alienated from the Church, but the whole of the property is left subject to life interests. The life interests in the alienated property of the Church, according to the latest calculations which I have been able to get, are worth no less than £2,000,000, and if after Disestablishment the Church accept commutation, they will be able to commute the life

  885
  interests for a sum of £2,000,000, which, invested at 4 per cent., would bring in a further £80,000 a year. They will have, therefore, on this assumption, £19,000 for private benefactions, £84,000 for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty, and £80,000 for the commutation of life interests, making a total altogether from these sources of £183,000. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the governors of Queen Anne's Bounty further inform me that, so long as existing conditions continue, they hope to be able to augment out of surplus income their previous grants to the Church of England in Wales by a further sum of £31,000 or £33,000 a year—I am quoting the figures from memory. The final balancing shows that from all these combined sources the Church of England in Wales will have, after Disestablishment, an income of from £215,000 a year, as compared with £260,000 a year which she possesses now.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: No, no!
  Mr. McKENNA: She therefore will be in this position: That if from her subscribers and voluntary supporters she is able to increase her subscriptions from £300,000 to £345,000 a year, she will be in precisely the same position as now as regards income. She will have to meet life interests, but if she obtains an additional
  £45,000 a year from voluntary subscribers she will have the same total income—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—with which to meet her liabilities.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: £31,000 must be added on both sides. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
  Mr. McKENNA: I have no time further to trouble the House, as I intended to do, with figures relating to the present distribution of the property of the Church in Wales. I will say this to hon. Members who really in their hearts believe that the Church is spending this money well: In the diocese of Llandaff there are, I think, seventy-two parishes with less than fifty communicants. The amount spent upon each of those communicants per head is seven guineas.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: You cannot buy communicants at so much per head. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear." "Order!" and Interruption.]
  Mr. McKENNA: It is useless to attempt argument in face of that interruption.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 349; Noes, 265.

  Division No. 80.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Brace, William

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Brady, P. J.

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Adamson, William

  Brocklehurst, William B.

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

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Brunner, J. F. L.

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardiganshire)

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dawes, J. A.

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

  Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

  De Forest, Baron

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Delany, William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Alden, Percy

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

  Arnold, Sydney

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Dillon, John

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Doris, William

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Chappie, Dr. William Allen

  Duffy, William J.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Clough, William

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Barnes, George N.

  Clynes, John R.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Barton, William

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

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

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Cotton, William Francis

  Falconer, James

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Cowan, W. H.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Black, Arthur W.

  Crooks, William

  Ffrench, Peter

  Boland, John Pius

  Crumley, Patrick

  Field, William

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Cullinan, John

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Bowerntan, C. W.

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Maclean, Donald

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Geider, Sir William Alfred

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

  Rendall, Athelstan

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Richards, Thomas

  Gill, A. H.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Ginnell, L.

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Glanville, H. J.

  McGhee, Richard

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Goldstone, Frank

  M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford).

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Manfield, Harry

  Robinson, Sidney

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Gulland, John William

  Martin, J.

  Rowlands, James

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Hackett, J.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Hall, Frederick (Yorks, Normanton)

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

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

  Hancock, John George

  Middlebrook, William

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Molloy, Michael

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Molteno, Percy Alport

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Sheehy, David

  Harmsworth, Rt. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Shortt, Edward

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

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

  Mooney, John J.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)

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

  Morgan, George Hay

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morrell, Philip

  Snowden, Philip

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Morison, Hector

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Hayward, Evan

  Muidoon, John

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Needham, Christopher Thomas

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

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

  Neilson, Francis

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hewart, Gordon

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Thomas, J. H.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nolan, Joseph

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hinds, John

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Hodge, John

  Nuttall, Harry

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hogge, James Myles

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs, Ince)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Dowd, John

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Ogden, Fred

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

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

  Wardie, George J.

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Waring, Walter

  Johnson, W.

  O'Malley, William

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

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

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Shee, James John

  Watt, Henry A.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Webb, H.

  Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Jones, William S. Glyn (Stepney)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Joyce, Michael

  Parry, Thomas H.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Keating, Matthew

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P

  Kelly, Edward

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Kilbride, Denis

  Phillips, John (Longford, S)

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

  King, J.

  Pine, Duncan Vernon

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Pointer, Joseph

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Pratt, J. W.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs, N.)

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

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

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Leach, Charles

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Levy, Sir Maurice

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

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Logan, John William

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Radford, G. H.

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Lundon, Thomas

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Reddy, Michael

  Mr. Illingworth and Mr. W. Jones.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  888

  889

  NOES

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Falle, B. G.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Fell, Arthur

  Macmaster, Donald

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Malcolm, Ian

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Astor, Waldorf

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Baird, J. L.

  Fleming, Valentine

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Forster, Henry William

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gardner, Ernest

  Moore, William

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F (Ashburton)

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

  Barnston, H.

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Mount, William Arthur

  Barrie, H. T.

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

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

  Goldman, C. S.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Bathurst, C. (Wills, Wilton)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Newman, John R. P.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Nield, Herbert

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Grant, J. A.

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Greene, W. R.

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

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Gretton, John

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S. E.)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Blair, Reginald

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith.

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hall, Marshall (L'pool, E. Toxteth)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Boyton, James

  Hambro, Augustine Valdemar

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Bull, Sir William James

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

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

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

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Burgoyne, A. H.

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Quitter, Sir William Eley C.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Butcher, John George

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

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

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Campion, W. R.

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset. S.)

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cassel, Felix

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hills, John Waller

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Cator, John

  Hill-Wood, Samuel

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Cautley, H. S.

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Royds, Edmund

  Cave, George

  Hohler, G. F.

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

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

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Chambers, James

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Sandys, G. J.

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hunt, Rowland

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Hunter, Sir C. R.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Jackson, Sir John

  Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l., Walton)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

  Jessel, Capt. H. M.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Stanler, Beville

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Keswick, Henry

  Starkey, John R.

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Croft, Henry Page

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Swift, Rigby

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

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

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

  Dixon, C. H.

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Duncannon, Viscount

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

  Touche, George Alexander

  Du Pre, W. Baring

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)

  MacCaw, Win. J. MacGeagh

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  890

  891

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

  Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  Watson, Hon. W.

  Wilson, Maj. Sir M. (Bethnal Green, S. W.)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Winterton, Earl

  Younger, Sir George

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Wolmer, Viscount

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

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

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

  Edmund Talbet and Mr. Bridgeman.

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Wednesday).

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. JOHN WARD: There are one or two observations I wish to make with reference to this Bill, and I make no apology for doing so, considering the situation that presents itself, especially in one part of the country, relating to a subject which is dealt with in the Preamble of this Bill. The Preamble contains phrases which are taken from the Bill of Rights. The words are to the following effect:—
  "Whereas the raising or keeping of a standing Army within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in time of peace, unless it be with the consent of Parliament, is against law."
  I wish to draw attention to the fact that this Preamble—a provision enacted in former Army (Annual) Bills—is abrogated so far as one part of the United Kingdom is concerned.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman will not be entitled to discuss that on the Second Reading of the Bill. That is a matter of administration, and the proper time to discuss it is when discussing the Army Estimates.
  Mr. J. WARD: That is one of the most important parts of the subject with which I wish to deal this evening. [Laughter.] I can quite imagine the delight of hon. Gentlemen opposite to find that the discussion is out of order. Therefore, so far as that part of the case is concerned, I do not wish to proceed with my argument.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Hear, hear.
  Mr. J. WARD: The Noble Lord will see that it is impossible for me to do so. There is another phase of the subject to which I should like to call attention if it is possible to do so, and that is the necessity on this occasion of defining what it is they intend to do with the Army. I am not sure whether that also is a matter of administration, or whether we are entitled to discuss on the Second Reading of the Army (Annual) Bill for what reason we require an Army. I shall assume that we can discuss it until I am called to order.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that would not be in order either. The purpose of the Bill is to continue the Army Act of 1881. It is only an annual Act, and the only purpose of this Bill is to say that the Army Act of 1881 shall be continued for another year. The Army Act proposes military law in the Army, and that is the main point of this Bill. The Bill also contains certain Amendments of the Army Act of 1881. Those Amendments are set out in the Bill. If the hon. Member is not satisfied with those Amendments, or does not think them sufficient or proper, and wishes to introduce other Amendments, it will be open to him to suggest in Committee other Amendments of the Army Act of 1881, and they can be embodied in the Bill.
  Mr. J. WARD: Then am I to understand that according to your ruling it is impossible to discuss the Army on the Second Reading of the Army (Annual) Bill?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The general purposes and the policy which administers the general purposes of the Army could not be discussed on this Bill. That is a matter of administration which must be discussed upon a suitable Army Estimate. Whether it be the Army Council or any particular point which any hon. Member wishes to raise, it is a matter of administration. This simply continues to enact military law which governs the Army.
  Mr. J. WARD: Would I be entitled under these circumstances to discuss the question whether we ought to have military law at all?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Would not the hon. Gentleman be entitled to discuss the question whether this Act should apply to the troops under certain conditions: whether, for instance, our military law should apply to troops engaged in suppressing a riot or in dealing with a strike, or anything of that kind?
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member suggests that there should be an Army without discipline, of course, he would be entitled to move the rejection of the Bill, but the result of that would be that there would be an Army without any control or without any military law.
  Mr. J. WARD: Am I entitled to move the following Resolution to put myself in order, namely, "That the existence of an armed forced in Ulster, drilled, officered, equipped, and publicly defended by right hon. and hon. Members of His Majesty's Opposition, is contrary to civil and military
  894
  law, and this House declines to proceed with the Army (Annual) Bill until it has expressed by this Resolution its grave censure upon such of its Members as have been guilty of this act of treachery to the Crown."
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that would be relevant. It is a matter of administration. If any action has been taken which is contrary to the law, it is open to those who are in authority to take action.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Adjourned at Twenty-seven minutes after Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  Garristown and Delvin Drainage Board.
  Garristown and Delvin Drainage Board.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Population (Provinces, Ireland).
  Population (Provinces, Ireland).
  Printing Trade Dispute, Dublin.
  Printing Trade Dispute, Dublin.
BRITISH ARMY.
  MARRIED STRENGTH (REGULATIONS).
  MARRIED STRENGTH (REGULATIONS).
  RECRUITS (IRELAND).
  RECRUITS (IRELAND).
  Secondary School Examiners (Reports).
  Secondary School Examiners (Reports).
  Weights and Measures.
  Weights and Measures.
  Government Printing Contract (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Government Printing Contract (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Disused Telephone Poles.
  Disused Telephone Poles.
  Diphtheria, Upper Norwood.
  Diphtheria, Upper Norwood.
VISCOUNT CHARLEMONT.
Petition of James Edward Geale Caulfield, Viscount Charlemont, in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
BARONY OF DUDLEY.
The Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee for Privileges to be printed. (No. 56.)
REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND.
Writs and Returns electing the Lord Bellew a Representative Peer for Ireland in the room of the late Lord Ventry, deceased, with the certificate of the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland annexed thereto; Delivered (on oath), and certificate read.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD.
Petition of the Board under their Common Seal praying for leave to bring in a Bill to authorise the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board to extend the Prince's Landing Stage and to construct further works, and for other purposes; together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.

ST. GEORGE'S HOSPITAL BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on the 11th and 31st of March last discharged, and Bill committed.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for additional provision in the following Bill:

Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation.

The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

GREY SEALS (PROTECTION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
ALEXANDER SCOTT'S HOSPITAL AND THE NORTH OF SCOTLAND COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a (The Lord Emmott), and reported from the Committee. (No. 57.)
COMMONS REGULATION (GOSFORD GREEN) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. (No. 58.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL. (No. 59.)
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. (No. 60.)
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.
CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
  CHESTERFIELD CORPORATION BILL.

    CHISWICK URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
    FISHGUARD AND ROSSLARE RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS BILL.
    PRESTON CORPORATION BILL.
    RHYMNEY RAILWAY BILL.
    SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE MINES DRAINAGE BILL.
    STOURBRIDGE NAVIGATION BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

SOUTH METROPOLITAN CEMETERY COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
EAST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Message from the Commons that they concur in the Resolution of this House communicated to them on the 25th day of March last, that it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses.
POOLE HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
  POOLE, SANDBANKS AND WESTBOURNE RAILLESS TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]

    SWINDON CORPORATION (WILTS AND BERKS CANAL ABANDONMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
    PORTHCAWL URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
    WESTON-SUPER-MARE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL, [H.L.]
    LEEDS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    WIMBLEDON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord De Mauley be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Londesborough; read, and agreed to.

NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  HULL AND BARNSLEY RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]

    MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
    BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION BILL.
    WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Hamilton of Dalzell be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Charnwood; read, and agreed to.

GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  CHELMSFORD GAS BILL. [H.L.]

    LONGWOOD AND SLAITHWAITE GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    LIVERPOOL UNITED GASLIGHT COMPANY BILL, [H.L.]
    HIGHTOWN GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
    EDENBRIDGE AND DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection That the Lord Ravensworth be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Lonsdale; read, and agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACTS.
Regulations, dated 31st March, 1914, entitled the National Health Insurance (Subscriptions and Donations) Regulations (England), 1914: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed. (No. 61.)
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL. [H.L.]
Petition in favour of; of the District Committee of the Temperance Legislation League of Newport in the County of Mon-mouth; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
GREY SEALS (PROTECTION) BILL.
Read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 62.)
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL. [H.L.]
House to be in Committee on Tuesday next.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the insufficiency of agricultural wages in certain parts of the country. I shall not apologise to your Lordships for bringing this subject to your attention, because I believe that subjects of this kind and the grievances and difficulties connected with them are of far greater importance to the country, looked at in the long run, than the ordinary topics of polemical and controversial discussion in Parliament. Moreover, I conceive that there is no audience better fitted to consider the question of agricultural wages than the members of your Lordships' House. We have necessarily and almost universally a personal knowledge of the subject possessed, as I believe, by no other body of men in an equal degree. But, my Lords, although we have this private personal information on the subject, the public official information at our disposal is very deficient. There is, of course, the Report of the famous Land Inquiry instituted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but that is not official; it is not even impartial; it is an ex parte document commanding no confidence in public opinion, and not containing information on which we can rely or which I could submit confidently to your Lordships.
When I turn from that unofficial inquiry, I find that of official inquiries there is nothing later than the year 1907. In that year there was published the last of a series of statistical Blue-books issued on the authority of the Board of Trade, which is full of information; but that Blue-book, as your Lordships will observe, is already a few years old, and it is of the highest importance—nay, it is absolutely

943
required—that the information should be brought up to date. In view of this official ignorance on the matter there has been put forward on behalf of our political friends a demand that the Government should grant a proper official inquiry into the whole subject, and that claim I venture to repeat at this moment standing in this place. We consider that we have an absolute right to have a full official inquiry into the subject of agricultural wages and agricultural conditions, and the sooner the Government enter upon that inquiry the better we shall be pleased.
But although that is the state of things, yet we are in a position to say that in many cases in certain parts of England it is established that agricultural wages are too low, and I think the country will feel that where that fact is established a remedy ought to be provided. By all means let us have the inquiry which I venture to demand in order to establish how far the evil extends, and in what parts of England it prevails; but where it can be said that it is already ascertained that wages are too low, there we think that a remedy is at once called for. I say in "certain parts of England," for I am quite well aware that the evil is very often exaggerated in public discussion, notably by political friends of noble Lords opposite. There are many parts of England where agricultural wages, when all things are considered and when the allowances are taken into account, do not compare unfavourably with urban wages, and also the conditions are more favourable.
I was very much struck, in reading the Report of the secret Land Inquiry, by a statement made upon the authority of the late Mr. Wilson Fox, who was an investigator of the Board of Trade, as your Lordships are aware, of very great eminence—a statement of the success of countrymen in competition with townsmen where they come into contact one with the other. Mr. Wilson Fox shows that whereas in a great number of cases countrymen migrate into the towns, there the countryman beats the town dweller; he is the better man. That is a significant fact, because if it were true that the conditions of agriculture were very bad compared to the conditions of town life you would expect that precisely the contrary would occur—that where they were physically brought into competition
944
the countryman would have to yield to the townsman. But the fact is the other way. Mr. Fox took the cases of sixteen great corporations in this country employing 12,500 persons; of those, 37 per cent. had been born in the country and 22 per cent. of them were actually raised as farm labourers, which shows that over large parts of England at any rate the rural conditions do not compare unfavourably with the corresponding urban conditions. But although that deduction has to be made, for I am anxious not to overstate the case, it remains true that in certain parts of England—I am afraid in extensive parts of England—the scale of agricultural wages is too low.
I am anxious not to trouble your Lordships with anything in the nature of elaborate statistics, but in order to make good my point I will quote one or two extreme cases from this last Return—these are the only available figures we have, for the figures in the Land Inquiry Report are copied from this Return—of low agricultural wages. Let me say, by way of preface, that the cash wages are not the whole earnings. There are cash wages and allowances, sometimes cash allowances and sometimes allowances in kind. In Wiltshire the cash wages stood then at 13 s. on the average, and the total earnings at 16 s. In Suffolk they were—cash wages, 12 s. 5d.; total earnings, 15 s. 9d. In Norfolk the cash wages were 12 s. 7d—
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: No, never. In 1907 the cash wages were 13 s. a week at least, and then there were all the allowances as well.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am referring to the average cash wages. I will quote the allowances in a moment. I cannot, of course, compete with the noble Earl in his knowledge of the conditions obtaining in the county of Norfolk, but I am quoting the figures contained in this Blue-book. I live in the county of Hertford, and undoubtedly any average over the county of Hertford would be very deceptive, because the wages in the southern part of the county are very much higher than they are in the northern part. Any average, therefore, which I should quote of Hertford would be too low for the southern part, but per contra would be too high for the northern part; and I

945
dare say the noble Earl opposite will find that the same obtains in regard to the county of Norfolk. According to this Blue-book the average cash wage for the county of Norfolk was, as I have said, 12 s. 7d., and the total earnings were 15 s. 4d. In Oxfordshire, the lowest on the list, the cash wages stood then at 12 s. 11 d., and the total earnings at 14 s. 11 d. Those are very low figures. Take, for example, the total earnings in the highest paid of the four counties I have mentioned—namely, the county of Wiltshire. The total earnings there were 16 s. Well, that is a very low wage out of which to pay rent and maintain a wife and family. Take 2s. off for rent and there is left 2s. a day for the whole family; and if the family consists, as it might reasonably do, of six persons, that is equal to 4d. a day per person. Those figures represent the average, and though there are parts in which the wages are higher than the average there are also parts in which they are lower. I noticed, in a Return not so recent as this one but the only other official Return to which I had access, that in the county of Dorset the minimum was at least 1s. a week below the average, and in the county of Oxford it was 2s. below the average; so that supposing this rate still holds good you would have to deduct from the 15 s., which represents the total earnings in Oxfordshire, 2s. a week, making the total earnings only 13 s. Those are, as I say, very serious figures. And there must be added the fact—although I think this fact has been exaggerated in public discussions—that in recent years prices have risen to a certain extent, and therefore these wages, low as they are, are not so valuable as they used to be.
If that be the figure at which wages in these extreme cases stand, it is important to inquire whether the wages show any proper tendency to respond to any increase of prosperity in the industry. No doubt formerly when the agricultural industry was depressed—I am speaking of twenty years ago or more—there was something to be said, though not very much, I think, for wages on this very low scale; but since then the business of agriculture has taken a great turn for the better, and therefore it becomes important to consider whether wages have shared in that prosperity. I am afraid it must be admitted that they have responded
946
very slowly. I will not say that they have not responded at all. That would not be true. Those acquainted with the countryside know that wages are going up at this moment in most parts of England. But though that is broadly true, yet most of us know that it has taken a long time for the prosperity of the industry to affect wages. They ought to have gone up sooner than they have done and they are going up now much more slowly than they ought to.
What, then, ought we to desire? We ought to desire a rise in agricultural wages. A good deal is said in this wonderful document about the physical efficiency of the labourer, and in order to secure his physical efficiency I see that what is demanded is a minimum wage. I have always had a very great objection to the phrase "a minimum wage." I do not want a minimum wage for the agricultural labourer. I want a good and a reasonable wage. The word "minimum" is most deceptive. A true minimum wage is not what we should desire for the agricultural labourer. We want a good wage for good work. That is most important. I do not suggest that higher wages should be paid to agricultural labourers with no improvement in the work. Indeed, the truth really is, as I believe, that higher wages would make better work, and that in the vast majority of cases employers would not find that they lost by a reasonable rise in wages—of course, the rise must be reasonable—because the improvement in the quality of the work would be such as to more than repay the expenditure to which they would be put. That I believe to be the general experience in all industries, and I see no reason why agriculture in that respect should be different. Those are strong reasons why there should be a rise in agricultural wages. I am convinced that there must be such a rise, and, moreover, I am convinced that we cannot leave it entirely to the unaided process of economic laws to produce that rise.
There is an evident tendency in many agricultural districts to a shortage of agricultural labour. The labourer is no longer content to accept the wages and conditions which he formerly accepted. He consequently takes the remedy into his own hands and leaves the countryside, and in doing so he inflicts not only a great

947
injury upon agriculture but also, as I believe, a great injury to the future prosperity of the race to which he belongs. How, then, is it possible for us to use Parliamentary machinery of any kind in order to raise agricultural wages? After all, there is only one means by which the relations between employers and employed, in whatever industry, can be properly settled, and that is by some process of collective bargaining. But collective bargaining in agriculture is at the present moment almost non-existent. The reasons are obvious. Any one of your Lordships who is familiar with the subject will be able to give an explanation at once. The reason is that the agricultural industry is not organised. The employers are to some extent organised in the Chambers of Agriculture, but I do not believe that these bodies have any such common influence over their members that they are able to prescribe to any degree whatever the scale of wages or conditions which their members ought to give to those whom they employ. The labourers, of course, are not organised at all. The difficulties in the way of organising agricultural labour in trade unions are many. These men live not together like employees in urban industries. They are scattered; and perhaps we may say without offence that in consequence of the nature of their work they are not so alert as their brethren in urban industries. Therefore it is very difficult to see how any satisfactory collective bargaining can take place if we leave things absolutely alone.
On the top of what I have said there is great ignorance as to the facts. I do not believe that in an enormous number of cases the agricultural labourer knows how much he is paid. He knows the cash wage, but he hardly is able to realise the value of the allowances, and not at all what the allowances in kind amount to. Indeed, they are very difficult to calculate by those who are much better equipped educationally than the agricultural labourer himself. And if he does not know the facts, much less does he know what the farmer could afford to pay and yet make the business pay. Anybody who knows the agricultural labourer knows that it is absurd to imagine him thinking out a problem of that kind and arriving at a conclusion of the slightest value. Therefore in these circumstances anything like
948
satisfactory collective bargaining seems to be remote. No doubt there might be an agricultural trade union, and it might end in an agricultural struggle, but I think any such result would be most deplorable. I am convinced that an agricultural struggle by so ill-organised a body as the agricultural labourers, with the paucity of their equipment in the matter of knowledge of the facts and the possibilities of their industry, could end in nothing but disaster; and I am quite sure that in saying this I am speaking what is believed by every member of your Lordships' House.
But still, as I have said, there is no means of satisfactorily adjusting the relations between employers in any industry and those whom they employ except by some method of collective bargaining. The problem before us is whether we cannot have this collective bargaining without the process of elaborate trade union organisation first, and without all the, as I think, deplorable possibilities of an industrial struggle afterwards. What is necessary as between the agricultural employer and the agricultural labourer is that by some means or other they should be brought together in such a way that the two sides are upon equal terms, are able to deal with each other fairly, and that the result of their consideration should be subject to the sanction of public opinion and all the power which public opinion wields. That is what I mean by collective bargaining in this particular. It is quite well known to our experience, apart from actual industrial struggle. As your Lordships are aware, one of the methods by which industrial difficulties are already solved in this country and in other countries is by what is called the process of conciliation. That is a well-known procedure under the action of the Board of Trade in industrial disputes; and I suggest to your Lordships that in this case of the agricultural labourer, where wages ought to rise and have not risen, what we want is conciliation, not after an industrial struggle but before, and without the industrial struggle.
The conditions, I think, render this quite possible, because there is a tradition of good feeling in agricultural life. The various classes which go to make up agricultural society are on very good terms with one another; and may I say—

949
although, perhaps, it is not an observation which will be entirely accepted by noble Lords on the opposite side of the House—I believe that that good feeling is largely due to the landowner. The landowner is a solvent for many of the difficulties in agricultural society. He is on very good terms with his tenants; he is generally on very good terms with his labourers; and he is able to adjust any difficulties that may arise between them. There being this tradition of good feeling in agricultural society, and there being, in addition, the existence of the landowning class who act as conciliators now and are quite willing to act as conciliators in the future, we might easily conceive that a system should be brought into existence which would solve these great difficulties of agricultural wages without the necessity which exists in all other industries of a precedent industrial struggle. Then let us, if we can, enlist this good feeling. Let us get the two classes, the employers and the employed, to meet together. Let us get them to arrive at conclusions as to what agricultural wages ought to be, and let us rely upon the strong force of public opinion to carry them into effect.
Any such consultation must, of course, have official sanction. You cannot start these things on a purely voluntary basis. There must be some Act of Parliament, some action on the part of your Lordships' House and of the other House of Parliament, in order to bring them into being; but having brought them into being we might rely, as I believe, on the good feeling which exists among all members of agricultural society when they meet together upon equal terms and with full information as to the facts to arrive at a conclusion which would command universal public confidence and would be easily enforced by the strength of public opinion. I suggest to your Lordships that we ought to have some machinery of the kind I have hinted at which would establish, at any rate in those districts where wages are admittedly too low, an official standard of wages.
But a good many people desire to go a great deal further than that. I believe that the remedy which is favoured by His Majesty's Government and their friends is that old remedy of theirs—compulsion. They seem to think that no good is ever
950
done in the world except by compulsion. That is the universal specific which they prescribe. So far from believing that compulsion is good in this matter, I believe it would do nothing but harm. It was stated the other day, by no less a person than the Foreign Secretary, that compulsion was necessary to solve the land question. I do not know upon what experience or precedent he founded that view. I should have thought that all our experience was the other way. We have before us the example of Ireland. As long as we adopted the advice of noble Lords opposite and their friends in another place, compulsory systems were brought into being which made confusion worse confounded, and we reduced the condition of society in Ireland almost to absolute chaos; and the only way in which that has been remedied has been by the Unionist Party and by a voluntary system—namely, by voluntary land purchase. That is the real remedy. Let the parties interested come together; let them discuss their differences and their difficulties; let them arrive at a conclusion, and give that conclusion the sanction of the State. You will then have a real remedy. But so long as your only remedy is coercion and compulsion, depend upon it you will only make things go from bad to worse.
In agriculture it is clear that if you compel farmers to give a certain wage to labourers you will produce nothing but resentment which will last for years, and you will dislocate the industry. You will force new conditions upon it which will be bad for all parties and all classes. You will, perhaps, drive a large part of the area out of arable into grass, to the great loss of the agricultural labouring population; and you will very likely force farmers to adopt a totally different system under which they employ their labour, no longer by the week, no longer year in year out, but perhaps for a day or two when they are wanted, the men being discharged in the winter. Those are the kind of difficulties which you will produce if you come with your clumsy heavy-handed coercion and compulsion upon the top of the delicate arrangements which must subsist in such an industry as agriculture. You will not only do all these things by compulsion, but you will absolutely defeat your own ends. I put it to you that supposing you were called upon to decide what the standard of wages ought to be, and

951
you knew that whatever standard you fixed upon would be enforced compulsorily, would not you exercise the greatest caution not to go too far? Would not you most necessarily err on the side of not raising the wages beyond the point which the farmer might be willing to pay, if you could? Whereas, if it was a voluntary arrangement, you would say "Even if we do in particularly hard cases go too far, this is not going to be compulsorily enforced. The necessary elasticity will be given in the working out of the system, and no hardship will really be inflicted. All the difficulties will be got over by a little give and take on the one side or the other." So that under a compulsory system you would fix a lower standard of wages than under such a voluntary system such as I have suggested. Therefore I think that in every respect compulsion would be a mistake.
Let me call your Lordships' attention to the special difficulties which would beset a compulsory system in respect of the industry of agriculture. I suppose agricultural wages are in the main paid upon a time rate—so much per hour, so much per day, or so much per week. I will deal with the piece rate system in a moment. How are you going to enforce a compulsory rate of wages when you are dealing with a time rate? First of all, it is entirely unprecedented. The great precedent, which is the Sweating Act, is upon a piece rate basis. No doubt there is a time rate ideal standing behind it, but the actual rate enforced is a piece rate. Then how are you going to deal with second-rate labour—labour which is not wholly efficient? There is an enormous amount of that in agricultural society. Labourers who are old, labourers who are infirm, labourers who are not so efficient as their fellows from one cause or another—how are you going to deal with that second-rate labour upon a time basis? You cannot say to a farmer, You must give a certain rate of wages per hour, day, or week to a man whether he is more efficient or less efficient. It is manifestly impossible. Therefore the only result of enforcing a compulsory rate of wages upon a time rate basis would be to drive this second-rate labour out of employment altogether. Are your Lordships prepared to drive a mass of labourers of this kind out of employment altogether? Is the workhouse the only alternative which
952
your Lordships can suggest to the present lowness of their rate of wages? The case has only to be stated to show that it is wholly impracticable to apply compulsion to wages upon a time rate.
An enormous number of labourers are casually employed. Take the case of a less efficient casual labourer. How is he to be dealt with? I believe it is suggested that such labourers as these should go before some official and get leave to be employed at less than the standard rate of wages. That would be wholly impracticable in the case of casual labour. Whom is the labourer to go before? Are there to be officials in every parish throughout the country, and what jurisdiction are those officials to have? Then take the case of a labourer who has obtained leave to work at less than the rate of wages in Hertfordshire. Is that certificate of incompetence to be good in every other part of the country? And in that case what possibility is there of protecting the working of such a system from fraud of every description? I believe that a compulsory rate of wages on a time rate basis would be wholly impracticable.
Now let me turn to the piece rate basis, not that I think a very large amount of agricultural labour is paid for on the piece rate basis, but it is increasing, and a good thing too. How can a piece rate in agriculture be enforced compulsorily? I do not think that people who put such a plan forward really know the conditions of agricultural life at all. I am quite sure that a great many of the gentlemen who signed this Land Inquiry Report do not know from personal knowledge what the conditions of agricultural life are. A piece rate basis means that every different process of agriculture would have to have a different rate assigned to it. It may be said that that kind of difficulty has been faced in the Sweating Act, and has been overcome. That is true. But there are difficulties in agriculture of a wholly different character from the difficulties which present themselves in the making of shirts and paper boxes. The only element that differs in the latter case is the human element, but in agriculture there are other difficulties. There is the weather. Let me put a case. Supposing a farmer had a field which he had resolved to reap upon a piece rate basis. That is done in Hertfordshire. He would arrive at a certain piece rate which

953
he should pay to his labourers. I suppose he would have to have official sanction for that under a compulsory system. They would reap half the field, and in the night there would be a great storm of rain. The next day half the crop would be laid. In those circumstances, of course, the farmer would pay the labourers for the last half of the field a far higher rate than he would for the first half, because it would take them much longer to do the second half. The conditions vary from month to month, from week to week, and even from day to day. But there is not only variation which depends on the weather; there is variation which depends on the soil. A farmer may resolve to hoe a field; it may be a heavy clay field, and the piece rate may be a proper one. But a different rate would have to be applied in a field of another description in order that the same remuneration of labour should ensue. It would be impossible to assign a proper piece rate basis for every field in a county and for all kinds of weather.
I do not think anybody acquainted with the conditions of agriculture would say that it was possible to establish a compulsory rate of wages either on a time or a piece rate basis. Therefore you must have some other method. You should establish a standard of the amount which an able-bodied labourer ought to be able to earn in a day or a week and leave the parties to adjust the precise terms so as to arrive at that conclusion, and trust for your sanction to what we always trust to in England if we intend to make a good job of any matter—the influence of public opinion. I believe that to be the only possible method. Make the body which decides on the standard as official as possible; make it representative; above all things, make it local. What I most wish for is that it should deserve and obtain public confidence, and English society is so constructed that it will not obtain public confidence unless those who are affected by it know that the body which decides has local knowledge. If you have machinery of that kind, then you can work it. May I add that there is another reason why you must have the confidence of all parties. It is clear that in a certain number of cases the adjustment of wages under the influence of such a system as I have suggested must have a certain reaction on rent. I do not say in every case or in the vast majority of
954
cases, but in a certain number of cases it might certainly happen that the additional amount which the farmer would have to pay in wages would have to be adjusted in the rent. I say it would not happen in every case, partly because in the vast majority of cases the rents are lower than they ought to be economically, and partly because in the ordinary case the farmer would find that the better work which he got for the higher wages would prevent his being out of pocket in the result.
I have not troubled your Lordships with the actual machinery which would be necessary. That would be going into too great detail. We have local authorities in England in the shape of county councils whose machinery could be used for a purpose of this kind, no doubt with certain sanction from the central authority to see that no injustice was done. But, generally speaking, founded upon the confidence which the countryside reposes in its local authorities such machinery would, I am quite sure, be quite possible. I am well aware that in the remarks which I have ventured to address to your Lordships I have been exceedingly dull. I have not slandered anybody, not even a Duke. I have not tried to incite one class against another. I have not tried to increase the evils of social unrest. On the contrary, the whole object of the observations which I have ventured to make has been to suggest a scheme which should be entirely conciliatory in its conception and conciliatory in its operation. I earnestly believe that it is upon lines like those that a great deal of the difficulties, not merely in agricultural but in other industrial unrest, might be solved. It is capable of almost infinite development. It is in thorough keeping with the efforts which many of us are making to secure genuine co-operation between all interested in industries, whether as employers or employed, to work together for the success of their industry.
I have shown how deplorable industrial war would be in the case of agriculture, but it is most lamentable in other industries. Nobody can pretend to be satisfied with our present methods of settling industrial disputes. They seem to engender all sorts of suspicion and strife. What we want is to get all parties to act together, to share the hopes and the profits and the efforts of the industry. I believe I have stated the direction in which the solution

955
of a great deal of the industrial difficulties which we are witnessing at the present time may be arrived at. I have ventured in the sketch which I have made to your Lordships to propose it as a first step in the case of the industry of agriculture, the industry which presents particular difficulties and a particular problem; and I believe that if it could be applied in the way I have described to agriculture we should have solved the great difficulty of agricultural wages, and we should have shown that there is some method other than industrial struggle by which to arrive at a satisfactory solution and maintain the real interest of industrial peace. I earnestly hope that in the discussion which may ensue more light may be thrown upon the difficulties which present themselves and the methods by which they may be solved.
THE PARLIAMENTAEY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, may I say at once that we welcome the speech of the noble Marquess. We recognise in it an important contribution to this subject, which certainly does call for, and for our part we hope that it will get, a great deal of discussion before the time comes for legislation to be passed. I can assure the noble Marquess that we realise as fully as he does the great difficulties connected with this question, and the great complexity which any dealings with agriculture, the most complex industry perhaps in the world, are bound to have. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer put forward the proposals which he submitted, at a time long before he knew it would be possible to bring in legislation to carry them out, he did so in the hope, as he said himself at the time, that discussion would be aroused on the subject and the difficulties ventilated, in order that we might collect the vast information and experience which exist upon this particular subject before framing legislation. It is for that reason that we welcome this discussion, and we hope that it may be one of many similar discussions in the future. After all, farming is a difficult and delicate thing to deal with, and the experience of people who are in practical touch with agriculture is all important in discussing things of this sort.
The noble Marquess criticised the Report of the Land Inquiry Committee on lines which, if I may be permitted to say so,
956
are rather familiar. He directed his criticisms more towards the origin of the Report than the substance of it, and he complained that there has not been sufficient official information given upon this particular subject. But if he had studied the very interesting and instructive chapter on this question of wages—the first chapter in the Report, I think—he would have found, I will not say all the information which he requires, but he would have found all the information for which he has asked and all compiled from official sources. I do not think that any one of those tables of figures of which that chapter is full is not drawn straight from official sources of one kind or another. Though the origin of the Report has been very much criticised, I have noticed that so far—and the noble Marquess was no exception to the rule—nobody has yet been able to cavil at the figures which have been used in arriving at the conclusions come to.
There is no gainsaying the fact that the question of agricultural wages represents a most serious problem. As regards agriculture itself, it is the most serious question of all that we have to face. It is serious because of the very largeness of it. In twenty-three counties in England in 1907 the total earnings—the cash wages, augmented by other earnings and by the rent where the cottages are free—are under 18s. a week; in fifteen of those counties the total earnings are under 17 s. a week; in three of those counties under 16 s. a week; and in one county under 15 s. a week. As the noble Marquess pointed out, the fact that that is the average means that there are a large number of agricultural labourers who are getting lower wages. Out of the total number of ordinary labourers, 60 per cent. are earning less than 18s. That is, stated in its shortest and plainest form, the position with regard to agricultural wages in this country.
The direct results may be summarised under three heads. First, there is the question of depopulation. In the twenty years that elapsed between 1881 and 1901, whilst the total population of England and Wales increased by 25 per cent. the population of agricultural labourers decreased by 28 per cent. Of people who are classed as agriculturists, and who, though undoubtedly they may have contained a few farmers, were mostly agricultural labourers, the total number who emigrated from the United

957
Kingdom during 1913 was 33,815. You will see, therefore, that the drain is very big, and that is quite irrespective of the number of labourers who are leaving the country districts to go into the towns. It would be perfectly possible to say that as long as the farmers received a sufficient amount of labour, as long as there was no actual shortage, this decrease might not be due primarily to wages but to changed conditions. But you are then faced in almost all the low-wage districts with the possibility of a dearth of men in the prime of life. That is a complaint that is coming to a certain extent from all the low-wage districts. The labour on the farms is done either by the very old men or by very young boys, and the percentage of men who are in what might be called the prime of life is showing a tendency to decrease. That at any rate shows the extent to which this stream of emigration is telling upon the population of agricultural labourers. That is the first result of these low wages.
The second undoubtedly is the housing question. The shortage of cottages for labourers has been variously estimated as being between 100,000 and 120,000. That is not the actual shortage, but the number that would require to be built when those cottages which have been condemned as sanitarily unfit for human habitation have been evacuated. At the present moment these houses are not condemned for the simple reason that these people have no other roof to which to go. It is undoubtedly the case that the principal reason, almost the only reason, for the shortage of cottages is the fact that under the low wages that are paid in a great many parts of the country it is the custom not to charge an economic rent or a rent at which it is possible to build proper cottages. Then there is another extremely serious result of these low wages, and that is the undoubted underfeeding of a very large number of the labourers and their families in the low-wage districts. The average labourer's family, including himself and his wife, consists of seven. It is well within the mark to say that 50 per cent. of the ordinary married labourers in this country and their families are underfed, whether you take as your standard of feeding the workhouse standard, the prison standard, or the higher standard set up by
958
any doctor; and the signs of it are obvious to any one who examines the budget of these men or looks at many of the extremely accurate and instructive books written lately on the subject. It is rather a pathetic sign. You find, in families where they have not enough money to feed themselves properly, that the best food and almost all the meat has to be given to the man because he is the breadwinner and it is of the utmost importance that his strength should be kept up. You find a starved family and an underfed man as typical of what is going on in the homes of at least 50 per cent. of the married labourers of this country.
It has been held almost universally, but the speech of the noble Marquess is a sign that it is being held less universally than it was, that there are natural remedies at work which will improve this state of affairs. What are they? The noble Marquess referred to the natural rise which is taking place in wages at the present time. There has been a considerable rise in wages, but it has, as I think he himself stated, affected the country districts less than it has affected the towns. According to official figures, the actual rise in the wages of agricultural labourers has been 5 per cent. between the year 1900 and 1912; but there is one extremely important thing with regard to that, and it is that this 5 per cent. rise has not taken place in the low-wage districts, but in the high-wage districts, where the rise has been in a great many cases a good deal over 5 per cent. But in the low-wage districts, which require it the most, there has been no rise at all in many cases, and where there has been a rise it has been considerably under 5 per cent. And you have to take into consideration in connection with that the fact, again according to official figures, that whereas there has been the increase to which I have referred in the wages of agricultural labourers since 1900, the general cost of living, worked out on the budget of these men, has increased from 10 to 15 per cent.; and there is no doubt that two-thirds of the agricultural labourers of this country are worse off at the present day with regard to the purchasing power of their wages than they were in 1900. That is the position with regard to the natural increase of wages.

959
Then there is the other what you might call natural remedy—I call it natural as opposed to legal remedy, the enactment of legislation for this purpose—a movement from within the industry to improve the position of the workers, to which remedy the noble Marquess referred at some length in his speech. That may come in two ways—either from the men themselves working together to demand an increase, or from the landlords or the farmers granting it of their own free will. But it has been open to the landlords and tenant farmers all these years to give a rise of wages. It is true that since the Chancellor of the Exchequer first called attention to the insufficiency of agricultural wages a certain amount has been done voluntarily by employers; but to claim, as I think the noble Marquess did, that in that voluntary power on the part of landlords and tenant farmers to raise wages you have a solution of the difficulty seems to me—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I did not say that.
LORD LUCAS: What the noble Marquess said was that in that lay the solution. He did not back up his assertion with sufficient argument, but he seemed to think that there was some force at work which was going to make landlords and tenants do a thing which it has never occurred to them to do before and raise wages in all the low-paid districts; and so strong was this force that it was going to be unnecessary to deal with the matter legislatively.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What I suggested was that by means of legislation the parties should be brought together, should take counsel together, should arrive at a conclusion as to what the standard wage ought to be, should publish that, and should rely upon public opinion to enforce it.
LORD LUCAS: All I can say with regard to that is that if it is backed by legislation that is another point. If the noble Marquess has come to the conclusion that legislation is necessary—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes, I said so.
LORD LUCAS: If the noble Marquess is of opinion that legislation is definitely necessary before we can make headway in this matter then we welcome the noble Marquess to this view, and we hope that the fact that he has announced his faith will set the example to many others in his position, because I do not see that short of legislation there is any possible means of remedying the present state of affairs. I wish to refer for a moment to what is in itself an instance of the extremely unsatisfactory position of agricultural labourers at the present time. I informed Lord Lilford that I intended to call attention to what is going on upon his estate. I have no information with regard to this beyond what I have read in The Times and other newspapers. But if the report be true that a number of men on his estate have been given a fortnight's notice or the alternative of quitting an agricultural labourers' trade union then there is in that fact a clearer proof than anything that I can give that legislation is badly required for the assistance of men of this sort. The fact that neither their own trade union, nor the law, nor the Government, nor, I am very much afraid, public opinion is going to save the position of those men, seems to me to be the best justification for everything that has been said—and has been hotly attacked, as we know it has, in this House by noble Lords opposite—for everything that has been said by my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the speeches that he has made upon this subject.
I hold the view, like the noble Marquess opposite, that we have to rely upon an agency from without and not upon an agency from within for dealing with the wages of agricultural labourers and raising them to the level at which they ought to stand. I would like to give your Lordships what I believe to be the strongest economic argument for proving that a course of that kind—dealing with agricultural wages by means of legislation—is perfectly possible without injuriously affecting agriculture. As everybody knows, agricultural wages in this country vary enormously. It is the fact that they vary, not according to the nature of the land, whether it is good land or bad land, but owing to the entirely extraneous circumstance of whether or not there are outside trades competing in the labour market with agriculture in the particular

961
district. The wages of agriculture are governed by otter trades. Take counties like Northumberland, Durham, Derby, Lancashire, Glamorganshire, all high-wage counties. Not one of those counties is in any way pre-eminent as an agricultural county, but they are the counties in which there are a number of other industries, particularly coal-mining. Coal-mining is, above all industries, the one which competes most with agriculture. For this reason, and for this reason alone, agricultural wages have been raised in these counties; but you do not find as a result that agriculture there has had to cease or has suffered very seriously from it.
If you study the subject carefully—and this is borne out by Mr. A. D. Hall in his book entitled "A Pilgrimage of British Farming"—you are bound to come to the conclusion that agriculture is, if anything, more prosperous in the high-wage districts than it is in the low-wage districts. I could quote a number of cases to show that it is not in the counties which are the best for farming that the highest wages are paid. One of the best instances I can offer to your Lordships is Somersetshire. South Somersetshire probably contains some of the richest agricultural districts in the whole of England; North Somersetshire is much less fertile agriculturally, but it happens to have coal mines near. Consequently the wages of agricultural labourers are on an average from 4s. to 5s. higher in North Somersetshire than they are in South Somersetshire. Then take Warwickshire. Owing to the fact that you have other-industries in the large towns in the North of Warwickshire wages between North and South Warwickshire vary as much as 8s. in favour of the agricultural labourer in North Warwickshire. The most striking instance of all is that occurring in the district of Doncaster, which at the present moment is developing as a large new coal field. This new industry is competing tremendously with the farmers in the district and is drawing off their labourers and raising agricultural wages. What has happened? The farmers in the neighbourhood of Doncaster are adapting themselves to the present conditions.
Does not all that rather point to this? It does not much matter to the farmer, from the point of view of conducting his farm, whether it is the pressure of a neighbouring coalfield which raises the rates of
962
wages which he has to pay or whether the increase is the result of the action of a Government official or of some other form of machinery. His feelings about it sentimentally may differ, but from the business point of view it makes extremely little difference to him. That is why I put this forward to your Lordships as being in my mind far the strongest economic proof of the possibility of raising wages in the low-wage districts without at all necessarily injuriously affecting agriculture. What we want is to achieve in about half of this country what extraneous forces have already brought about in the other half; and I cannot better define the aim that we set before ourselves than to say, in the words of the Prime Minister, that the wage of the agricultural labourer should be such as to ensure a man of average industry and prudence reasonable conditions of living, among which should be included ability to pay a reasonable and economic rent for the house in which he lives. I agree with the noble Marquess that much depends upon the method in which the thing is done, but I think he a little over-rated the difficulties. He spoke about resort to a compulsory system as if that would be an unattempted precedent. But we have had considerable experience of compulsory legislation with regard to wages.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I said that a compulsory time rate system was unprecedented.
LORD LUCAS.: I do not know particularly about the time rate system, but all these difficulties have already been foreseen and dealt with. There is the coalminers' minimum wage. With regard to both time rate and piece rate the difficulties have been voluntarily overcome years and years ago by farmers. One of the things which strikes one most when one examines agriculture in various parts of the country is the different methods that exist for paying for work. In Lincolnshire almost everything is done on the piece rate, whereas in other parts of the country you will find time rates in existence. I have even come across the case of shepherding being done by piece rates and working extremely well. If you want to set up a system of time rates or piece rates, you have only to search agriculture and you will discover the thing in actual practice at the present moment; and where it was found to be a good system it could be taken as a working model. Then

963
with regard to the difficulty of old and infirm men, I would remind the noble Marquess that old and infirm men are already dealt with in the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act. It is provided in the first section of that Act that district boards shall lay down conditions as regards the district to which they apply with reference to the exclusion from the right to wages at the minimum rate of aged workmen and infirm workmen. I submit that what it has been possible to do in the case of coal miners it is not beyond the possibility of arranging for agricultural labourers.
As to the method which will be employed I say at once that I am not here to-night to announce any special method. We have not in mind any special method which we propose to employ, and that is why I think a discussion of this kind is so useful. Whether it will be done by Wages Boards or in the same way as it has been done in some of the Acts already on the Statute Book, or on the lines suggested in the Bill that was brought forward by members of the Unionist Party in the House of Commons last year—these are points which are being considered. The Government have often been blamed by the Party to which noble Lords opposite belong for what they call hasty legislation. We have been told over and over again that we bring in legislation without sufficient discussion beforehand. We have been urged when we bring in new legislation to let the matter be discussed and ventilated so that the opinion of the country may be obtained. That is precisely what we are doing in this case, and we welcome all opinions, criticisms, and, needless to say, all helpful suggestions on the matter.
But whilst we have a perfectly open mind at the present, moment as to the actual method under which we are going to do this, there are certain conditions which that method will have to fulfil. First, it will have to be a system that will be capable of taking into account the very varying conditions under which agriculture is carried on in different parts of the country especially as they affect the workers. Secondly, it will have to take into full account the position of the old men and the infirm men, of whom, as the noble Marquess has pointed out, there is a remarkably large number engaged in agriculture. Thirdly, a point which in
964
its way is just as important as the others, it should make the transition period as easy as possible for the people concerned; you will have to make arrangements which will tide the low-wage districts over the change, because it will be a big change, for instance, in a county like Oxfordshire.
As I have already said I believe the general effect, judging by comparing the high-rate and the low-rate districts, will be this. We are going to improve agriculture in this country; we are going to improve the productivity of the land and the work that is done. At the same time we have to face the possibility of a decrease in the number of men employed, for two reasons. One is this, that undoubtedly when you give a man who has been receiving too low a wage a higher wage he becomes a better man and can do more work in a day than a man who is underpaid. Consequently you will get the same amount of work performed by a smaller number of men, and there will also be the inevitable result that you will have a further employment of labour-saving machinery. It is very difficult to get an absolute comparison between the conditions in the high-wage counties and those in the low-wage counties, but as far as one can gauge it—and I have studied all the available figures on the subject—taking into allowance the fact that in the high-wage counties there is a larger proportion of pasture, I am still inclined to think that the proportion of men employed is on the whole smaller in the high-wage counties than in the low-wage counties. The result may be a possible decrease in the number of men employed. I do not say that it will; but it is at any rate one of the things we have to prepare ourselves for although it is possible it may never come off.
In that connection I think the way to grapple with this matter is to deal with the Government's land policy as a whole. Our other proposals—those not connected with wages—will tend to increase the amount of employment that the land now gives. No one who has had to help to administer the Small Holdings Act, as I have had to do since I have been at the Board of Agriculture, could fail to realise that small holdings are by no means a universal remedy. There are a great many parts of this country where small holdings will not do. But there are

965
in some parts of the country men who are farming 3,000, 4,000, or 5,000 acres which ought to be all small holdings. And one of the features of the policy of the Government will be to see that some of the best small holding land in this country is made to support an adequate number of small holders, that they get their full share of all land that is suitable for the purpose; and that is a thing which will largely increase the number of men on the land. There is a particularly successful scheme in operation in Chester, where the county council bought 3,200 acres and converted the land into a small holding colony. In this way they increased the number of people living on that land from 98 to 432. Those are remarkable and rather instructive figures, and I give this instance because I think this is one of the ways in which we shall have to deal with cases which may—I do not say will, but may—arise where an increase of wages may result in decreasing the number of ordinary labourers on the land. Another thing with which we have to deal is the question of part time employment—that is one of the things which may arise out of the payment of higher wages. That, again, can be met by a judicious policy of small holdings and allotments, common pasture, and things of that kind. There are instances of this working well in the country. Therefore in connection with this question of wages you want also to take the rest of the Government's land policy in the same connection. I do not think that any of these things can stand alone. At least they suffer by being dealt with singly and separately. They want dealing with as a comprehensive whole.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, it is because of the importance of this matter and because I differ to a great extent from what has been said by the noble Lord opposite and by the noble Marquess that I desire to say a few words with regard to this great and important problem of agricultural wages. I do not agree with the noble Lord opposite that extraneous effects produced by economic causes are similar to extraneous effects introduced by Government interference. I think those two things are essentially distinct; and I am going a little further in the one or two statistics which I shall place before your Lordships in expressing my view that even without going so far as the noble
966
Marquess has suggested we can find under ordinary economic conditions and ordinary free business life that which will be a solution of what we all admit at the present time is a great difficulty.
I agree with what the noble Lord opposite said at the conclusion of his speech. You cannot differentiate this question of wages from the general question of land reform or land development in this country. It is part of the whole. The view which was expressed by my own Chamber of Agriculture—a view which, I think, was expressed also by the noble Marquess—was that before we could seriously deal with a great question of this kind, certainly long before we could determine what is best to be done, we ought to have a general and an impartial inquiry by persons of special knowledge both of local circumstances and the general principles which apply to the agricultural industry in this country; and until we have these statistics—which in my opinion will be essentially distinct from what we find in the Report of the secret Inquiry—we have really not got the foundation on which we ought to seek to construct a new system, if we are going to improve matters as regards agricultural conditions in this country.
The noble Marquess referred to statistics in 1907. He is quite right in saying that they are the last official statistics published from the Board of Trade, but I have had the advantage of seeing later statistics, very carefully made out. They are not official, but I went to the Surveyors Institution to get the latest information in order to see what was the rise in wages between 1907 and the present time. Of course, it differs in different counties. I found those statistics in accord with the improvement which has taken place in my own county of Buckinghamshire. Between 1907 and the present time there has been a rise there of 2s. I am taking the average wages. If I take the wages that I happen to know have been paid, they would be considerably higher. In other words, in my own county between 1907 and the present time there has been a rise of 10 per cent. in wages. That has to be considered, and considered very carefully, when you are coming to the determination that you are bound to introduce legislative and outside interference against the ordinary play of economic force.

967
I should like to make one other remark with regard to wages. The agricultural rate of wages in this country is far higher than in any other European country. I am not comparing rates of wages in America and Canada because the conditions there are different. I will give an illustration from Belgium, because Belgium was referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He pointed out that in Belgium, whether taking numbers employed per acre or employed in percentage of the population, the numbers employed there were much larger than in this country. But he overlooked what I believe is an economic truth, that where you have the smaller number of agricultural labourers employed in proportion to the whole number of the population you get the best conditions and highest wages; and those are the conditions which exist in England at the present moment. I am quite aware that wages in certain counties are lower than they ought to be. But take Belgium. In Belgium the average wage is 1s. 7d. a day, and in most parts it is only 1s. 2d. a day. Is it not obvious, even with regard to the statistics given by the noble Marquess, that the agricultural labourer at the present time in this country is much better situated than in Belgium In the country of Europe where, I believe, the number of agricultural labourers is the highest in proportion to the population—Hungary—there the condition of the agricultural labourer is the worst,
I do not believe, supposing you get a 'decreased demand for labourers under conditions of the kind suggested by Lord Lucas, that you will make up the deficiency in employment by any such means as he foreshadowed. The agricultural labourer in my county dislikes above all things the small holding. On a small holding no agricultural labourer, in the proper sense of the word, is employed. I have done all I could to promote small holdings; so, I think, have my neighbours in Buckinghamshire; but they are unpopular with the agricultural labourer. What he wants is as large an amount of employment as possible, and it is the large farmer who gives employment. The small holder does not give employment; he does the work by himself, or with his family. Therefore do not let us make the mistake of supposing, what the noble Lord opposite seemed to suggest, that you can at the same time increase the number of labourers
968
employed and put up the wages which they are earning under present conditions.
After all, what is the economic basis of wages in the agricultural industry? They vary very much in different places because the efficiency of labour similarly varies. In the long run, however philanthropic or sentimental you may be, you cannot pay a man more in the way of wages than his labour produces. It is an absolute fallacy to suppose that by dealing with land you can increase the wages of the agricultural labourer. It is just what you cannot do. It is an economic truth that if we are to have a minimum wage, or a fixed wage, or a legislative wage, it cannot be more than the agricultural labourer produces under the least satisfactory conditions—that is to say, where he is working on land for which for economic reasons there is no rent at all. I do not want to protest unduly at this time, but I deprecate approaching this question without having in the first instance proper, true, and reliable statistics. I have heard again and again references to foreign countries, but they all of them fail when you come to look into the real truth. The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to Belgium and France with regard to the conditions of the agricultural labourer. It is not only lower wages, but in Belgium—I do not know whether the noble Lord has had the advantage of going there, which some of us have had—you will find that the housing conditions are infinitely worse than they are in this country. In a large number of cases the housing conditions there are the same as they were here 100 years ago—that is to say, the man, in addition to getting this extremely low wage, merely has a box in the cow-byre, or a box in the horse-byre, where he sleeps under no better conditions than the animals. This condition of affairs we would not tolerate in this country for a moment.
Whatever else has to be taken as the foundation of a policy in this great question we ought to congratulate ourselves on the fact that agriculture is better carried on and agricultural labour better paid in this country than in any other fairly comparable European country at the present moment. If you take the test of produce per man employed, which I think is a proper test, there is a far higher

969
produce per man employed in this country in agriculture than in any Continental country. That is a very important matter for consideration, because in the long run the amount of production by the agricultural labourer is the basis of his wages; and if you find, as you do, that in this country he produces more per man than in any other European country, that does not show that the conditions are unsatisfactory, but it shows on the whole that the conditions here are much more satisfactory than they are in any other country of Europe at the present moment.
Let me come to the question of the suggested remedy for one moment. In my opinion the real form of remedy is to be found in the growth of public opinion. I believe that the real form of remedy is being found at the present time. If you go through all the statistics—I have been through them all, and no doubt the noble Lord has them in a more official form—you will find that there has been an advance in agriculture since 1907 of a more marked kind and greater in proportion to the sums involved than in other industries over the same period of time. The noble Lord took the year 1900, and calculated up to the present moment. The calculations I took were from 1907, because up to 1907 you have the official figures and beyond that date you have no official figures at all.
LORD LUCAS: The official figures were given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade in an answer in the House of Commons. The general increase in agricultural wages since 1907 is three per cent.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What date was the answer given?
LORD LUCAS: You will find it in the Land Report. It is given there.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not, of course, doubt that in any sense, but I have seen the most carefully prepared statistics, not, as the noble Lord said, on the mere cash value but on total payments. The statistics that I have got, collected from every county, do not give the same results as those given by the noble Lord. But I do not wish to discuss that further at the present time. There are cases in the
970
northern counties, in Northumberland for instance, where the wages earned by the agricultural labourer and his family come to as much as £250 a year, and that in a county where the grass cultivation is growing and the arable cultivation is going back. It appears to me that, having regard to these economic considerations, we should get a solution. But I protest on behalf of farmers, agricultural labourers, and land owners against the introduction of a Government official, who knows nothing very often of the real conditions. That, to my mind, is the real way of creating friction and trouble.
I am not certain that I quite followed the suggestion of the noble Marquess. He dealt with two matters—the minimum wage matter and the Conciliation Board. Now, if by Conciliation Board he means nothing more than a friendly meeting of the parties interested, I have no fault to find with his suggestion. But if by Conciliation Board he really means a Wages Board, if he means introducing an outside authority in order to settle matters which ought to be settled between the farmer, the landowner, and the labourer—that is, the parties interested in the agricultural industry—then I cannot agree with the remedy he suggests. I think that a Wages Board introduced into the agricultural districts would be a source of friction and trouble, and would introduce uneconomic matters which could not fail in their ultimate result to affect the greatest of all industries in this country, the industry of agriculture. So far as the minimum wage is concerned, I would rather have that principle if any at all. This is a matter that I have discussed a good deal in my own agricultural society. I do not want a minimum wage, but I do not agree as to all the difficulties attached to the minimum wage. I think you can deal with the question of infirm people and old people, as the noble Lord said. Of course, they have to be dealt with. There could be no greater hardship than driving out a man from his cottage and village because he was not able to turn out the amount a younger man could. I do not think any one would agree with a principle of that kind.
I think it is possible to get something in the way of a more level rate of wage in the direction which the noble Lord indicated—a minimum wage—rather than by a Wages Board. But I am against both of those

971
principles. The agricultural industry in this country as between owner, labourer, and farmer has done wonderfully well up to the present time. There has been goodwill, a spirit of co-operation, and a spirit of helping one another. But we have suffered from another matter which to my mind is much more important. We have suffered in the country because the raw material of our industry—that is, our agricultural land—has been over-rated and over-taxed. In the case of my own farm—if I may be allowed to give that illustration—I calculated that the rates and taxes were more in the aggregate than a quarter of what was being paid for labour. If you consider what that means you will see why in some cases it is extraordinarily difficult to maintain the rate of wages at the present time. If you really want a remedy, it is not in the direction which I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer seeks—that is, putting further taxation and further burdens upon the land in this country. It is by diminishing those burdens, taking them off this great agricultural industry, so that the minimum wage, or whatever we ought to call it, may be as large as the efficiency of the labourer and the conditions of his labour can allow it to be. But I deprecate interference. I hope, on the other hand, that we shall go on as before with these undue burdens and undue taxes taken off our shoulders. This is a most important question, but we were asked to discuss it, which must be my excuse for speaking so long to your Lordships.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, I ask your Lordships' indulgence for a very short time, as many of the remarks I had intended to make have been made in a much better way by the noble Lord who has just sat down. I am sure, in the first place, that we are very grateful to the noble Marquess for raising this question, not only because of the intimate knowledge which he is able to bring to bear upon the subject, but because—and I am sure that noble Lords opposite, no matter how much they may differ from the noble Marquess upon other things, will agree with me in this—nobody is more sincere than he is in a desire to improve the conditions of the working classes generally. I confess that a condition precedent to a fair discussion on this important subject should be the laying aside of all partisan feeling and political animus. It is absolutely impossible to discuss the question of agriculture if you
972
introduce into it the element of politics. So strongly do I feel on that subject that during the autumn I undertook, possibly rather boldly, to address a series of non-political meetings on the agricultural question. I did so by invitation, and perhaps I may be allowed to tell noble Lords opposite that at two of those meetings the chair was taken by prominent members of the Liberal Party. What was the result of those discussions? The result was that I was able to carry very easily a resolution recommending an impartial and judicial inquiry into the whole agricultural question generally.
Now, my Lords, if there is a large number of the rank and file of both Parties willing to meet together and discuss these knotty problems, what is to prevent the leaders of the two great political Parties from meeting on the same terms to discuss a subject of such vital interest to the country and themselves as this question of agricultural wages? As the noble Lord who has just sat down said, and as Lord Lucas also said, this question is inseparable from the whole agricultural question generally. The moment you begin to touch one part of the agricultural question you will see how extremely difficult it is to deal with, because sooner or later you get up against the other interests which you must not cease to recognise. There is one thing which I think is not sufficiently recognised, and that is this. You can never compare the wages and conditions of the agricultural labourer with the wages and conditions of workers in the great industrial centres. First of all, the wages of the latter are very much higher; so is the cost of living, and so are the profits which their employers are making. What we really have to keep ourselves to is this question—Is the agricultural labourer receiving enough for the work which he does?
It is a platitude to say that there are three interests involved—the landlord, the farmer, and the labourer. It is not material to the case to discuss the landlord except in passing. I am sure the landlord in most cases receives very little more in the shape of rent than a moderate rate of interest on the capital which he has expended on the farm. Then we come to the farmer. During the past few years there is no doubt that the farmer has been having a very good time of it, and I am sure none

973
of us, at any rate nobody in your Lordships' House, grudges him the extremely good time which he has been having. He has passed through many bad years, and it is perfectly right that he should reap the harvest at last. At the same time, if any class has been benefited by the increase in agriculture it has not been the landlord. We are told that it has not been the labourer. Then it must be the farmer. We are not able to tell, through lack of statistics, what the farmer earns. Lord Lucas referred to the fact that we should be able to reduce our labour bill by labour-saving machinery, and in that way be able to pay the labourers retained on the land a higher rate of wages. I agree that that may be so. But nobody would deplore more than the noble Lord himself the reduction in the number of those employed on the land, because, after all, one of the most important assets to a nation is that it should have an agricultural class, large in numbers, happy, healthy, and prosperous. Perhaps I might be allowed to remark in passing, when the noble Lord talks of the low-wage districts and when he and others deplore the conditions of the working classes in the country districts to-day, that between 60 and 70 per cent. of the Metropolitan Police—who are some of the finest men in the world—come from the agricultural districts; that the finest men in the towns, and the finest recruits we get for the Army come from the agricultural districts. That is surely a strong argument against the suggestion as to the agricultural class being badly fed and badly housed.
The difficulty in dealing with the agricultural labourer is undoubtedly this, that he does not belong to a stereotyped class of worker, like the miners or the Lancashire cotton hands. You cannot lay down one rule of life for him in the same way as can be done for those employed in large industrial areas where conditions are very much the same. I have visited many of those industrial areas, and every time I come back from them I see the vast difference between the workers there and the workers in the agricultural districts. Not only this, but you will find a very divergent difference between the various classes of agricultural labourers and also in respect to the conditions under which they are employed. The noble Lord who has just sat down alluded to the varying conditions
974
in the different parts of the country. I have in my hand a little paper issued by the Rural League. I will not trouble the House with quotations from it, but it is worthy of the notice of the noble Lord opposite. It gives the varying conditions and the rates of wages for the different parts of England. I know the North of England a little as well as the South, and so far as I can see the higher wages which are given in the North of England are in many cases taken up by a higher rent and the higher cost of living generally. It is not strictly true, therefore, to say that where the wages are higher the condition of the labourer is more prosperous. It entirely depends upon the other conditions surrounding—
LORD LUCAS: Might I ask the noble Earl what he means by "the higher cost of living generally?"
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: There are districts where, though the wages are undoubtedly higher than in other districts, the cost of living is higher. Therefore the actual amount the labourers have in the more highly paid but more expensive districts is really not as much as is left to those who live in the lower paid districts.
LORD LUCAS: What part of his living costs more?
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: Food principally. The noble Lord knows that in the Report which was published the other day it is stated that the cost of living varies in various parts of the country and in some districts in close proximity. As a matter of fact, it varies probably more than either the noble Lord or I had any idea. Again, rent varies very much. Then we come to the important factor which was alluded to by the noble Lord who has just sat down—namely, the force of sentiment in the life of the agricultural worker, a force which I believe is almost absent from the men working in industrial centres. The older men are kept on out of kindness, and occupy cottages when the farmers and others would wish to have in those cottages the younger men who have just married and settled down and could put in many years work on the farms. Then we come to emigration, I am delighted to think that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, should so fully recognise the deplorable condition of the

975
country owing to the over-emigration which has taken place, and I am quite certain it is the duty of both sides of your Lordships' House to do all that is possible to reduce the number of those annually leaving our shores.
There is one point which I do not think has been made enough of—it was only mentioned cursorily—but which is the real trouble of the whole agricultural question, namely, that it has been exploited to the advantage of nearly every other trade and industry in this country. The agricultural trade has been relegated to the background of political activities until it has suddenly come to be dealt with by those who, generally speaking, are not competent to deal with it. The land as a property, the workers as a body of men, and the farmers as a class have been relegated to the background while other classes have received more than their fair share of attention in Parliament. Take education. One of the greatest causes for the depreciation of agriculture and the agricultural labourer has been our method of education. What place does practical agricultural education play in the curriculum of our schools, compared with other subjects most of which unfit the country child for after life? I venture to think that if some scheme were devised by His Majesty's Government whereby agriculture should form a larger and a more important part in the education of the child to-day you would find a greater efficiency in the labourer of to-morrow. Greater profits would accrue to the farmer, and thereby, I sincerely believe, the status and outlook of the agricultural labourer would be very materially raised.
What, then, is the sum total of the few remarks which I have ventured to make? There are many remedies suggested. One which I think the noble Lord opposite will recognise as a real remedy is an extended system of co-operation. In fact, I dare say Lord Lucas knows himself many of those who suggest that large estates should be run upon a co-operative basis, by which landlord, tenant, and labourer should share the profits pro rata. But there is one thing before we come to that happy Millennium—if indeed it be a Millennium. I am convinced that you will never arrive at a settlement of the agricultural question, whether it be land tenure, ownership, or the question of wages, until we have had a full public and impartial Inquiry into all
976
the points at issue. I know the objection to this. It will be said that you will have a Committee or Inquiry which will sit at long intervals, and which, at some date when its very existence has been almost forgotten, will make a Report. Because it is alleged that such has been the course in the past, is there any reason why the same course should be repeated?
In conclusion, my Lords, I would merely say this. Subjects of agricultural interest cannot be taken piecemeal. You cannot take labourers' wages or those other knotty and thorny points which are frequently debated on public platforms without considering them all together. And I am certain that public opinion is coming to recognise that more things could be settled by a statesmanlike decision between both Parties than by the warmth of partisan spirit upon a public platform. Therefore whatever steps His Majesty's Government may have in view, whatever steps they consider may make for the regeneration of agriculture, I venture to hope that they will consult those who may differ from them in politics; and I feel certain that those interested, whether they represent landlords, farmers, or labourers, will be only too glad to come forward and help in an impartial Inquiry into this subject.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, we have certainly no reason to complain of the tone and tenor of the speech made by the noble Lord on the Front Government Bench. We noticed with satisfaction that he frankly admitted the immense difficulty of the subject which we are discussing, and he let fall one or two observations which certainly suggested to my mind that His Majesty's Government intended to deal with the matter at any rate with a certain amount of caution. I think the noble Lord's Party loyalty carried him rather far when he went on to tell us that the speeches delivered in the country by the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been specially designed with the object of eliciting such proposals as were made by my noble friend. Those of Mr. Lloyd George's speeches which I have had an opportunity of reading seem to me calculated to produce precisely the opposite effect. But in this House we have fortunately to deal with the noble Lord and not with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we may tell him with absolute sincerity that we very much prefer his

977
style and methods to the more truculent style and methods of his distinguished colleague.
There is another matter upon which we may perhaps congratulate ourselves. I think this discussion has revealed the fact that there is at any rate a considerable amount of agreement between both sides of the House as to the existence of the grievance which my noble friend has unfolded to us this evening. There is no doubt a difference as to its extent. There is probably a difference as to the appropriate remedy. But that there is a grievance we on this Bench certainly do not for a moment deny. I think there is also a certain amount of agreement as to the causes which have led to what we recognise as the insufficiency of the agricultural wage in many parts of England. There are two or three causes which I think interact upon one another. There is, in the first place, this fact, upon which I think the noble Lord touched. It is admittedly the competition of the towns which sends up agricultural wages in some parts of England; but we all know that there are some areas so remote that they are not affected by that competition. Then, again, within those areas one cannot help noticing what I think one may perhaps describe as the immobility of agricultural labour. The old-fashioned villager—I say old fashioned, because I think there is a good deal of change coming over our village population—the old-fashioned villager does not know much about the world outside the limits of his own village, and he has a sort of hereditary habit of clinging to the place which has been his home, and probably the home of his forefathers before him.
Then comes the other and to my mind perhaps the most important cause of all, which is that whether the man stays in his own village or endeavours to move off to some other place he is met wherever he goes with the housing difficulty, the difficulty of obtaining a house to live in. I am glad the noble Lord put in the forefront of his argument the close connection between the housing question and the wages question. I would almost go as far as to say that if you could solve the housing question you would very nearly have solved the wages question. The noble Lord put it rather the other way. He said the shortage of houses is due to the lowness of the wages; but he altogether forgot
978
another factor which contributes to the shortage of houses. Has he failed to notice the effect of the Land Taxes upon housebuilding in this country? He said during the course of his speech that in the view of his colleagues there was a deficiency of 120,000 houses to be made up; but has he not been informed that the drop in the building of houses which took place in the years following the passage of the Finance Act of 1910 left a hiatus which I do not believe that the whole of the 120,000 cottages, if they were built to-morrow, would be sufficient to fill up?
I was reminded when I listened to the noble Lord of an extremely interesting Report which has been lately issued by the Board of Agriculture upon the question of migration from rural districts. The Report mentions the acuteness of the housing problem as one of the causes, and adds that the prevailing discontent which has led to this movement of the labour population is due, not so much to lowness of wages as to lack of outlook. That, I think, is a very important proposition, and one which the noble Lord perhaps rather left out of account. The Minister whom he represents in this House is certainly aware of the fact. He made a speech, I think in the month of December, in which he dealt—and dealt, I thought, in a very temperate spirit—with this question; and what he most insisted upon was the need of giving the agricultural labourer what he called "an alternative on the land." I gather that what Mr. Runciman meant by that was that the labourer should be given either an opportunity of emerging from the ranks of labour and becoming something more advanced in the rural hierarchy than a mere labourer, or that if he remained a labourer he should have the opportunity of supplementing his earnings by the produce of either a garden or an allotment of sufficient size. Mr. Runciman gave a remarkable estimate of the value of such an arrangement. He said he had been told that a garden of one-eighth of an acre was considered by people who knew what they were talking about as equivalent to something between 1s. and 2s. a week wages. He also said that out of the produce of one acre of land a man would be very nearly able to keep himself for a whole year. Well, those are very sanguine figures. I hope they are true, but they seem to me to be

979
quite on the sanguine side. At the same time the idea is a perfectly sound one, and I quite recognise with the Minister the immense importance of giving to the agricultural labourers in this country an opportunity either of becoming small farmers and perhaps afterwards large farmers, or at any rate of obtaining access to the land while they still remain in the category of labourers. That they should have an outlook of this sort is not less important than that they should be adequately paid.
I should like, if I may, to say one word here in regard to what I believe to be a rather common and a rather mischievous fallacy, which is that at present the labourer has no opportunity—no outlook, as they say—of this kind. May I, if the House will bear with me, mention the facts as I am familiar with them in the case of an estate with which I have long been connected. Upon that estate there are altogether 89 tenants. Of these only 24 are the sons or grandsons of farmers or belong to what I might call the farming class. No fewer than 31 are men who have begun life as labourers; 10 more are sons of labourers, 19 are artisans or ex-artisans. I mentioned these facts to a noble friend of mine—I will not give his name because he has not authorised me to give it—and he supplied me with the figures of his estate, a much larger concern than that to which I referred a moment ago. Upon his estate there are altogether 150 tenants. Of these only 54 belong to the hereditary farming class; 58 are ex-labourers; 12 are the sons of labourers; and 15 are artisans or ex-artisans. I do not know whether those two estates are exceptional, but if the facts as they present themselves in these two cases bear any correspondence with the facts generally throughout the country it does show that a good deal of nonsense is being talked about agricultural labour being what is called a mere blind-alley employment with no future in front of it and with no prospect of advancement in life.
But be that as it may, the wage problem certainly remains. Now what can we do to deal with that in those cases where wages are admittedly too low? We are always ready to invoke the State on these occasions. I am afraid I am somewhat old-fashioned in my views as to the practice of constantly appealing to the
980
assistance of the State. I have an idea that it does a great deal to deteriorate the moral fibre of the people of this country. But those are old-fashioned views. I rather think they are shared by my noble friend on the Back Bench, but I do not think they are shared by a great many people; and we have at any rate left far behind the days when it is sufficient to appeal to the soundness of the principle of non-intervention. But I do venture to say this, that when we propose to call in the intervention of the State we ought at any rate to make quite sure that the intervention of the State is necessary; we ought to make quite sure that it will be effectual; and we ought to make quite sure that on the balance the amount of good which it will do will exceed the amount of harm which it may do.
As to the need of State intervention in this case I think there are many reasons for proceeding cautiously. To begin with, it will not be disputed that the position of the agricultural labourer to-day is infinitely better than it has been in the past. The noble Lord who represents the Board of Agriculture drew a very gloomy picture of the case. He said that when we were suggesting that the farmer should increase his wages we were asking him to do something which he had never been known in history to have done. I would like the noble Lord to look up a remarkable speech made in the House of Commons by the then President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Buxton, who is now a member of this House. I notice, by the way, that these Liberal gentlemen of very moderate opinions have a tendency to disappear from the fighting line and to become Colonial Governors. But that is in passing. Well, Mr. Buxton compared the three last decades, and he laid it down with the utmost confidence that as compared with the condition of things twenty years ago there was an enormous improvement in the position of the agricultural labourer. Then he said, comparing it with ten years ago, that there was less improvement, and he dwelt upon the point which was taken by Lord Lucas—the effect upon the labourers' position of the rise of prices. But Mr. Buxton had this to say about it. He said that the increase in the cost of living was not very serious and was much exaggerated. I believe that that is the case if you come to analyse the figures and see what are the commodities in which the rise in price has

981
taken place. At any rate the late colleague of the noble Lord, Mr. Buxton, said with great confidence that there was a real material improvement in the general condition of the working classes. There is another authority that I might have cited. I mean the high authority of Mr. Little, whose Report made in the year 1907 the noble Lord has probably read. If he has not I advise Mm to read it. He will find a great deal of extremely sensible and sound material in its pages. At any rate I take it upon myself to say that the general position of the agricultural labourer at this moment, far from being as a general rule a desperate position, is an extremely hopeful one. There are, of course, we all know, cases where the man and the members of his family have bad health, or where the family is very large. You will find almost everywhere cases of that kind on the poverty line, or perhaps even on the wrong side of the poverty line; and I think it is the existence of those exceptional cases that has very often produced the impression that the amount of destitution amongst the labourers is greater than it really is. At any rate the tactical position of the labourer at this moment is, I should be inclined to say, stronger than it has ever been within the memory of the oldest man in this House.
Then when we invoke the aid of the State to solve this wages question do we sufficiently realise the stupendous difficulty of the task which we are going to impose upon the State? Let us consider for one moment what the transaction is which takes place when one man employs another. One man has labour to sell, the other desires to buy it; unless the buyer can get the quantity of labour and the kind of labour which he requires, and unless he can get it upon terms which will suit him, he will not buy the labour at all. You cannot get away from that. You may lay down by Act of Parliament what the standard rate of wages should be, but you cannot compel one man to employ another at that wage. If a Government authority is to step in and to make the bargain for the two parties and to make it on business lines and with any prospect of its being taken advantage of, the State must use for the basis of its calculation, first, the amount of work which the man can perform, and, secondly, the market value of that work to the employer. If you go wrong upon either of
982
those points one of two things will happen. The man will not be employed in spite of your rules, or you may bring the whole of the industry to a standstill by imposing upon it a burden which it cannot carry. It seems to me to follow, as my noble friend behind me has said, that in all these cases the bed-rock upon which you have to work is a piecework basis. The second thing that follows is that your standard wage must be a daily wage and not a weekly wage or a monthly wage or a yearly wage; because obviously the employer will only employ the man if there is work to be done and if the man is there to do it.
In some cases, as the noble Lord told us, the thing is now done and done with a certain amount of success. He said, You have your sweated industries where wages are fixed under Act of Parliament; why not do it for agriculture? Surely the noble Lord, who is a practical agriculturist, must know the fundamental difference between work on a farm and work in a mill or in a factory. In the case of the sweated industries there is this characteristic, that there is absolute uniformity in regard to the commodities which are produced and in regard to the conditions under which they are produced. People who have to make garments or toys or paper boxes have to produce one paper box which will be absolutely the same as another paper box, or one garment which will be absolutely the same as another garment. But when you get into the domain of agriculture you find yourself face to face with literally infinite variety—infinite variety as between man and man; infinite variety, not only as between farm and farm but as between field and field, as between acre and acre, and even as between week and week and day and day. I want the noble Marquess who is going to follow me to tell me how he and his friends propose to draw up a Statute and to create an authority capable of adjusting matters of this infinite variety to the never-ending irregularities which characterise the operations of agriculture. I venture to say that whether that tribunal is manned by angels from Heaven or by commissioners from Whitehall they will find the task one which they will be absolutely unable to perform to their own satisfaction or to any one else's.
Then let us for a moment assume that these difficulties have been overcome. Let

983
us suppose that we have got our Act of Parliament and our Wages Court. Is not there something to be said as to the effects which an arrangement of this kind is likely to produce upon the industry of agriculture and upon the persons who are concerned in it? The proposal is that there should be an ideal rate of wages based upon the amount necessary to support a man and his family—a family of certain size—under certain conditions laid down by the State, and evidently intended to be considerably superior to the conditions with which we are familiar. How would such an arrangement work in practise? In the first place, we gather from the noble Lord that it would only apply to efficient labourers; the inefficient or the less efficient men would not get the advantage of it. Very well. To begin with, that leaves out in the cold the whole of those hard cases to which I referred a moment ago. The most tragical cases of all probably would get little or no relief at all. But there is more in it than that. Is it not perfectly well known that in any industry a sudden and considerable rise of wages may have the effect, not only of dislocating the industry, but really of bringing it to a standstill? The noble Lord must be aware that there are a great many coal mines, for example, which are kept going, if not at a loss, at any rate with no profit simply in order that they may not be closed down. I have seen it said that a rise of ten per cent. in the wages of cotton operatives would close half the mills in Lancashire. That is a very serious outlook.
I know what the official answer to that suggestion is. I have heard it made from the Front Bench opposite. The answer is that the case of agriculture is quite different, because in the case of agriculture you have the landlord's rent to fall back upon. The noble Lord nods his head to that. I will come to that in a moment. But I hope he has not failed to observe that in the second volume of the Land Report which has just appeared we find the suggestion that there is to be a minimum wage established by the State for all low-paid earners. There is no landlord's rent to fall back upon in that case. I think if the noble Lord and his friends do not take care they will find that they will put such a handicap upon a good many British industries that very serious questions will be asked as to whether business can be carried on under
984
those conditions much longer in a country where free imports are permitted from other States in which conditions of the kind are not enforced. I grant that in the case of agriculture you can come down upon the landlord's rent. We are quite aware, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us so, that if there is not fairplay enough to go round the landlord is to be served last. The Lord Chancellor has left the Woolsack. I should have rather liked to ask his opinion as to the equity of that principle as a matter of distributive justice.
But let us see what would happen. The amount of deduction from the rent will, of course, depend entirely upon the proportion which the farmer's wages bill bears to the rent which he pays his landlord. There are some cases where the wages bill is comparatively small; there are others where it is very large indeed. In a case where the wages bill, let us say, is equal to the rent, the matter might not be so serious; but I understand that there are cases where the wages bill is two or three times the rent. Then what will happen? The answer is given in the Land Report. There is an admirable table in which are worked out the effects of charging the increase of wages upon the rent as affecting a list of selected farms. There are some farms where the result would not be so very considerable; but there is one farm I notice in which the charge upon the rent would be over 100 per cent.—that is to say, there would be not only no rent left but from some source or another there would be something more to be found. The idea is, I understand, that the burden shall be shared between landlord and tenant, and if there is to be a burden it is quite right that it should be shared; but long before we have got to that point you will have both parties combining to cut down the labour bill. That seems to me perfectly obvious. It is a law in agriculture that the higher the wages the smaller is the number of men employed upon the land. I think the noble Lord will not contradict me when I say that. Therefore the first thing will be to cut down the labour bill. That will mean, I am afraid, a "tuning up" of the men who are kept, the most efficient men, and the dismissal of all those who are less efficient. I do not see what else can happen. That is not an unmixed advantage to the labouring classes. What will the result be? It will be that more

985
land will be laid down to grass. I think the noble Lord admitted that himself. Now from the point of view of fox-hunters you cannot have too much grass, but from the point of view of the agriculturist I think we have too much already. In the decade 1901 to 1911, 1,000,000 acres were laid down to grass; in the year 1912, 277,000 acres were laid down to grass. I should be sorry to see that process continued indefinitely. I am inclined to think, on the contrary, that we ought to give all the encouragement we can to the agriculturists who believe that more wheat can be grown in this country and who are setting themselves to work to solve that problem. Anything like a hurried compulsory raising of wages to the kind of point contemplated in this Report would certainly put an end once and for all to any chance of improvement in that direction.
There is another by-product of a compulsory minimum wage fixed at a high point. I think it will have the effect of introducing a system of short hirings, with which in many parts of England we are not at present familiar. We are familiar with it in the North. The noble Lord probably knows what is meant by the bothy system in Scotland; the farmer hires his man for the season in the market and he lodges him in a building, which is described in Mr. Little's Report as a barrack, on the farm. I confess I very much prefer the old-fashioned cottage in which a man and his father, and grandfather before him very likely, have lived, with local ties in the shape of allotments and gardens. I think that is a better arrangement than this system of men who are hired in the market place, who are lodged in a barrack, and who are turned adrift when the farmer no longer has occasion for their services. I mention all these things because they seem to me the kind of possibilities which should be present to our minds when we are asked to commit ourselves to a new policy such as that which His Majesty's Government apparently favour.
I hope the noble Lord will not think that what I am saying is merely the grumbling of a hide-bound landlord. We all of us recognise that changes have to come, and we are ready to face them; but we do very earnestly plead that you will not rush us
986
without sufficient consideration into changes which may be disastrous to agriculture as an industry and which may bring untold suffering upon many of the humblest people who are connected with it. I do not, however, suggest that there is nothing to be done. On the contrary, I should like to see something done and I should like to see something done soon, and that is why I think my noble friend's proposal deserves consideration. But I agree with my noble friend Lord Malmesbury when he says that we want to know a good deal more about the facts before we plunge into these enterprises. Pray let me make it clear to your Lordships that I am not suggesting a Royal Commission which might sit for five years and produce two or three hundredweight of Blue-books. On the contrary, I deprecate anything like a dilatory investigation. But I do not see why you should not have at once local inquiries carried on simultaneously very much as you had local inquiries carried out in the year 1907. There are many questions about which we want to know more, and as to which we cannot, with all respect to the laborious efforts of the compilers of the Land Report, accept the evidence of that Report as being entirely beyond suspicion.
The kind of questions I have in my mind are these. We want to know in these low-paid districts a little more as to what the men are actually getting. We want to know a little more about payments in kind. There is a great, and I think natural, suspicion of payments in kind. They seem to savour of the truck system. But in some cases I believe payments in kind are not in fact objectionable. There is the same kind of suspicion of the tied-house system. I do not like the tied-house system, but in some cases a farmer will not take a farm unless you give him the cottages which are absolutely indispensable for him for his cow-men and others. Then there is the question of holidays and daily hours about which I know the men feel very strongly indeed; and I have an idea that the task of coming to their assistance in the matter of hours is a less difficult task than that of coming to their assistance in the matter of fixing a compulsory wage upon scientific principles.
Then, my Lords, I come to my noble friend's suggestion, which I was glad to notice the noble Lord opposite did not

987
receive unkindly. My noble friend made it quite clear, to me at any rate, that what he contemplated was legislation, but legislation under which there might be localised efforts to bring employers and employed together, to set up what might be regarded with the consent of all concerned as a reasonable wage between man and man, but without going the length of compelling the parties to adopt that wage. I am under the impression that an investigation of this kind would very often disclose a far from unreasonable spirit in those concerned. The labourers would, of course, welcome the chance of laying their case before a sympathetic tribunal. The farmers in some cases might be suspicious, but I think it is in evidence that a good many of them are deterred from helping their men because they do not like to break away from their brother farmers. At any rate, I think the farmers would meet such a proposal in a not unreasonable frame of mind. As for the landlords, I have already said that if there is a sacrifice to be made they are ready to bear their share of it, just as they have borne their share of even heavier sacrifices in past years.
As to the precise form which this machinery of conciliation might take, that is a matter for consideration and discussion. There are many ways that suggest themselves. You might have your Commissioners from Whitehall. I am inclined to think that upon the whole the Commissioner from Whitehall—the promoted private secretary—is regarded with a good deal of suspicion in the rural districts. You might have local Wages Boards. You might have committees appointed by the county councils. That seems to me to be worth considering, although I note the apparently incurable dislike which a Liberal Government has developed of all these popularly elected local authorities. But I hope that the noble Marquess will not tell us that all this will be no good unless you mix it up with compulsion. The Liberal love of coercion is something extraordinary. At any rate, even if we cannot move them from that affection, may we not ask them to try conciliation first? and then if it fails we can talk about something more drastic.
I should like to read to your Lordships one passage from the Report of the Industrial Council—Sir George Askwith's
988
Council—in the year 1913 upon conciliation. This is what is there said:—
"The extent to which some form of conciliatory machinery exists in connection with the various industries of this country is a marked feature of the industrial life of the community, and the success which has attended the operations of the various voluntary boards of conciliation and arbitration points to the desirability of the continued maintenance of this form of adjusting trade disputes. The basis of these conciliation boards and joint committees is mutual consent, and their value in the past has depended upon the loyal acceptance, on the part of the constituents on both sides, of the decisions arrived at in accordance with the procedure of the boards. This acceptance is purely voluntary, depending solely upon the sense of moral obligation. So far as has been shown by the evidence which we have heard, loyal acceptance of the decisions of the conciliation boards has been the rule in all the trades concerned, and it would appear inexpedient to attempt to substitute for these voluntary forms of machinery some alternative method based upon principles other than that of mutual consent."
Well, my Lords, if conciliation has answered and is answering us well in the case of other trades, why on earth should it be a failure in the case of agriculture? I must say I regard that as a very strong piece of evidence in support of my noble friend's proposal.
One more argument in favour of that proposal. You could try my noble friend's plan at once. There is no reason why you should not before the end of this session pass a short Bill which would set up local authorities of this kind. If you are going in for a larger scheme with compulsion behind it, how long do you think it will take you to frame your Statute, get it through both Houses of Parliament, and set it in operation? I can only renew an appeal which I have made before in this House, the appeal that we might deal with these agricultural questions in which we are all interested in a manner calculated to drag them out of the vortex of Party politics. We have not been much encouraged by the reception of overtures which we have made to you upon a previous occasion. Mr. Runciman, in the speech to which I have already referred, expressed a hope that His Majesty's Government might have the co-operation of leading landowners in the development of the schemes which he was explaining. I remember throwing out in this House the idea that we might combine to discuss, and if possible to deaf with, the housing problem. We got no encouragement. Our Bills which we pro-

989
duced were not only turned down but they were turned down with the not very courteous suggestion that they had been framed with the object of enriching the landlord class, as if any member of the landlord class, or of any other class had ever enriched himself by building cottages in the country.
My Lords, what have the Government achieved? Months have gone by. We might amongst us have got those 120,000 cottages built, or at any rate stood in a fair way of building them by this time. How many have been built? Not one. All the Government have got is the gap which I said at the beginning of my speech they have themselves created by their policy of unproductive land taxation. Noble Lords opposite snubbed us when we proposed co-operation in the matter of housing. At any rate, the noble Lord has not snubbed us this evening when we proposed that we should make an endeavour to deal with the wages question. I hope that means that a more charitable and forbearing spirit is developing in the minds of Ministers. Unless such a spirit does develop itself, I am afraid that the agricultural labourer will have to wait for a considerable time for the house which we all want to put over his head and for the better wage which we all want to put in his pocket.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I am sorry to rise at so late an hour. It is, I am afraid, often the fate of the Leaders on both sides of this House, like a much more distinguished person than either of us can claim to be, to be thinking of convincing when other Lords are thinking of dining. Fortunately, however, my noble friend behind me (Lord Lucas) has gone so fully into the various circumstances connected with this subject that all I need do is to deal, if I can, with some points which have been raised since my noble friend spoke. The first point of which much has been made is the alleged need for an inquiry of a more formal and different character from that which has taken place into this subject. We had to wait until the noble Marquess who has just sat down spoke before we knew precisely what kind of inquiry it was that noble Lords opposite desired to see instituted, because I was not quite
990
clear until then whether what was asked for was a purely statistical inquiry—whether it was that the figures in this somewhat abused book were not taken by noble Lords as being authentic, although as a matter of fact the great bulk of the figures there are founded upon an official basis; or whether the kind of inquiry that was demanded, as I rather gathered from the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, was a kind of social inquiry in fact which would cover the whole ground in relation to the agricultural labourers in this country. What the noble Marquess, I understand, desires is a kind of short and sharp inquiry which will by some means or other—although I do not know how it can be done to satisfy the noble Marquess without the obtaining of a great deal of evidence—satisfy him and his friends on. the precise figures of the earnings of labourers in different parts of the country and the conditions under which that money is earned.
I confess, in regard to the very interesting speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, who is not at present in the House, that I do not think it was possible to be greatly impressed by the comparisons which he made between the condition of agricultural labourers in this country and that of those in some parts of the Continent of Europe—parts of France and Belgium, and parts, I think, of Holland—in which the landlord and tenant system exists where farms are large and labourers are employed. It would be a long and difficult business to compare the exact reasons which may make the lot of the English agricultural labourer in some respects more enviable than that of the labourers in those countries; and even if his lot is so much more enviable it does not seem to me to entirely decide this particular question we are discussing any more than if we were to agree, as we might, that the lot of the Indian cultivator as a class is less comfortable in respect of housing and food, indeed in all respects, than that of the agricultural labourer in this country.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think my noble friend Lord Parmoor referred to Belgium because Belgium had been held up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the model we might justly imitate.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I had not forgotten that point. I think the noble Marquess will find that the comparison of the Chancellor of the Exchequer went further than the mere comparison between the condition of the agricultural labourer employed on the farm. It also had relation to his opportunities of obtaining further interest in the land of the kind which the noble Marquess, in the very important figures he gave us, told us, as I am glad is the case, is by no means always denied to the labourer in this country. Then the noble Marquess touched upon the question of housing which, as has been said, is so closely connected with this question of wages. It seemed to me that he was a little beside the mark in ascribing the want of cottages as to any extent due to, or accentuated by, the provisions of the Finance Act of 1910. The Land Taxes, whatever their burden may be—and when we are always told they produce nothing their impoverishing effect upon landlords cannot be very severe—in no ordinary case apply to the kind of land on which people are in the habit of putting up pairs of cottages for agricultural labourers. It can only be in a very few districts that Land Value Duty can be charged upon the sites of such cottages, and I confess I do not see the close connection between the two things which the noble Marquess assumed was the case.
Then as regards the possible remedies. The noble Marquess with great power, if he will permit me to say so, mentioned the particular difficulties and objections to the application of the principle of a minimum wage to the agricultural industry. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, did not altogether scout the idea of a minimum wage, in which he somewhat differed from the noble Marquess who introduced this subject. He dislikes the phrase "a minimum wage," but would like to see, as I understand, the wages in the poorly paid districts raised on the average.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I dislike the phrase "minimum wage" because I do not want to see labourers' earnings merely raised to a minimum wage. I want to see them raised to a reasonable wage.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I quite understand the noble Marquess's point of
992
view. Those who desire to see the introduction of the principle of a minimum wage would say that what is important is that no labourer should be obliged to work for a wage which is a starvation wage and falls even below the low average of some districts. Lord Lansdowne pointed out the difficulties of the application of the system to the particular industry, and he stated what was quite true—that as regards some trades, those trades to which the principle was first applied, the conditions are far simpler than those which exist in the case of agriculture. But in spite of the complicated conditions of agriculture—and, as we know, they are enormously complicated, because agriculture is almost the only industry that supplies some kind of work for every type of person, young and old, sound and crippled, of every possible variety—in spite of those difficulties you could hardly find greater complications than you do to the application of the principle to the coal mining industry. I happen to know something of the coal mining industry in three districts, which are all three different from each other in the complications which exist, and which, as recent events have shown to those who read the newspapers, can hardly be exaggerated. So the agricultural case is no more difficult than the mining case.
But, as my noble friend behind me stated, we have not attempted to formulate the precise plan under which some form of the fixing of a minimum wage could take place. I think it is safe to say that the vastly differing local considerations must be taken into account. There must be machinery for taking them into account when the tribunal, whatever it may be, by which the wage is to be fixed is to come into being. But Lord Salisbury and the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition both think that it is at any rate premature, and possibly in any case unwise, to attempt any form of compulsory statement of wages until conciliation has been tried in the first instance. I think we should all agree that if these arrangements can be come to without compulsion it would be infinitely preferable. Nobody, in spite of the noble Marquess having twitted us with our fondness of compulsion, enjoys introducing compulsion into an industrial business of this kind, although in some cases we may consider it to be necessary. The adoption of the principle of the Land Act of 1881 in Ireland for the fixing of rent is not one

993
which any of us thought was attractive in itself, but in the circumstances in Ireland as they then were we did not see how that form of compulsion could be avoided. And I may remind noble Lords opposite that it was the existence of that system of rent fixing by a public authority which made possible the adoption of the principle of land purchase which we have stuck to, as indeed we have, as the ultimate solution of the Irish land question. The point is therefore, Would you be able to effect your object, that of the general raising of low wages, without some compulsory machinery? The noble Marquess, I understand, favours compulsion to this extent, that he would have an Act of Parliament by which the different parties to the dispute, farmers and labourers, possibly also landowners, but I am not certain—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Landowners are employers like farmers.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Yes. That the different parties, with perhaps an impartial chairman, should be turned into a room and made to sit down, their heads so to speak rubbed together, with an injunction that they are to settle upon a fair wage for the particular district; and the noble Marquess confides in the prospect, which was also entertained by Lord Parmoor, that the pressure of public opinion would be sufficiently strong to compel the farmers, or employers of any kind, in that particular district to apply that wage in ordinary cases. Well, my Lords, it might happen in some cases, but I confess I greatly doubt whether in this particular industry public opinion could be brought to bear as a rule in the way in which both the noble Marquesses hope. It seems to me that they have given the answer themselves to their own question, for this reason. Both noble Marquesses dwelt on the immense complication and the endless differences between one kind of soil and another kind of soil; the capacity of one labourer and the capacity of another labourer; all those points which make it, as we all agree, difficult to fix a minimum wage. But will not the result of the recognition of those difficulties be simply this, that any farmer who for some reason or other prefers to go on paying a lower wage will have some admirable excuse to offer to public opinion, which is pressing
994
him, for paying rather less than the wage fixed by this loosely-organised tribunal as a kind of standard wage for the district? He will say, "It is all very well for Mr. So-and-So, whose farm is close to the village and is better land than mine, to pay his labourers, who, to take them altogether, are younger and stronger than mine, the wage which has been recommended. My land is poor; half my labourers are a rather inefficient lot of people; I shall therefore continue to pay the lower scale which I have been paying hitherto." I confess that my knowledge of the countryside does not lead me to believe that a man of that kind would be in any sense scouted, or in the mildest form boycotted, by his neighbours for his refusal to pay what the other farmers did.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: All his best labourers would leave him.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Well, would they? That is precisely what I doubt. He would not be the only objector in the district you may be sure. What would happen would be, I venture to think, that the effect of the naming of such a standard, unless it was a very low standard indeed, would be that it would only be paid by a few of the most prosperous, possibly the most generously-minded or freest-handed, farmers in the district, and that there would be various rates paid just as at present according to some extent to the character of the farmer, and to some extent also, no doubt, to the character of his farm. As a matter of fact, I fear that the introduction of this system would have but a very slight effect in bringing about the object we have at heart.
The real difficulty surely is this, and this, I think, is the answer to the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, when he quoted the words of Sir George Askwith on the question of conciliation and its advantages. Sir George Askwith was speaking of conciliation as opposed to an industrial conflict, conciliation as opposed to a strike. Well, ex hypothesi, we have all agreed that labourers cannot strike, and therefore they do not enter into a conciliatory talk of this kind on anything like even terms. They are subject to be locked out, not as a mass, but as individuals, but they cannot strike.

995
If they leave they have practically nowhere to go. You may be sure that they will not be employed in the immediate neighbourhood if they leave with a bad name. Therefore I am afraid that the initial conditions necessary for a conciliatory talk of this kind—namely, that the two parties should be on even terms and stand on the same solid ground—do not exist in that case; and if anything is to be done we shall find that it is necessary to have recourse to some form of compulsion, although at this moment I do not profess to tell the House what form we shall adopt.
But this I certainly can say, that I cordially welcome the statement of noble Lords opposite that we ought, in a matter of this kind, to consult different varieties of public opinion so far as we can. I think that we have shown, as my noble friend behind me has said, that we are desirous
996
in this matter to obtain all the best opinions we can. Although for the reasons I have stated I do not believe myself that the remedy which Lord Salisbury has brought forward to-night would prove to be an efficacious remedy—and it certainly is never wise to introduce a public remedy for an admitted evil unless you firmly believe that it would be to a certain extent efficacious—I am grateful to the noble Marquess for having brought it forward, and I fully admit that, like all seriously planned schemes for dealing with this intensely difficult subject, the condition of the agricultural labourer, whether as regards his wages, or his housing, or his employment, it demands careful and serious consideration, and that, I can assure the noble Marquess, it will receive.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.