Sitting of 18 May 1914

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Belfast Corporation Bill [Lords].
St. George's Hospital Bill [Lords].
Bristol Water Bill [Lords].
Reading Corporation Bill [Lords].
Hull and Barnsley Railway Bill [Lords].
North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [Lords].
Liverpool United Gaslight Company Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
Private Bills (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
Glasgow Corporation (Celluloid) Bill.
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 11) Bill.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill.
Gas and Water Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill.
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.
Port Talbot Railway and Docks Bill,
King's Consent signified; Bill read the third time, and passed.
South Suburban Gas Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Wesleyan and General Assurance Society Bill [Lords].
As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
Butterley Company Bill [Lords].
Read a second time, and committed.
London County Council (Money) Bill,
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Skegness Urban District Council Bill [Lords].
Read a second time, and committed.
Abertillery and District Water Board Bill [Lords] (by Order).
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read the third time."
The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the question, in order to add the words "be recommitted to the former Committee."
Mr. GOLDSTONE: I object.
The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The Motion is to recommit the Bill for further consideration to the former Committee, in view of certain facts which have arisen.
Mr. GOLDSTONE: I will object to the Third Reading.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived. Words added.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Bill recommitted to the former Committee.
Tramways Provisional Order Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Trade Boards Act Provisional Order Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
Land Drainage (Tillingham Valley) Provisional Order Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Land Drainage Act, 1861, in the matter of a proposed Drainage District in the parishes of Brede, Udimore, Beckley, Peasmarsh Rye, and Rye Foreign, in the county of Sussex." Presented by Mr. RUNCIMAN; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 257.]
Sea Fisheries (Emsworth) Provisional Order Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Sea Fisheries Act, 1868, relating to Oyster and Mussel Fisheries in Emsworth Channel." Presented by Mr. RUNCIMAN; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 258.]

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Mr. VAUGHAN-DAVIES: I beg to move, "That so much of Standing Order 91 as fixes Five as the quorum of the Select Committee on Standing Orders be read and suspended:
That, for the remainder of the Session, Three be the quorum of the Committee."
Mr. JAMES HOGGE: I wish to ask why this should be done in this case, and not in the case of other Committees which are unable to get a quorum? Why should not the Chairman of Ways and Means fix the quorum in those cases at such a figure as would enable us to get on with our business?
The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: The Chairman of Ways and Means has nothing to do with that.
Question put, and agreed to.

LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (EVICTION NOTICES).
Copy presented of Return of Eviction Notices filed during the quarter ended 31st March, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Copy presented of the Annual Report of the Commissioners of Education in Ireland for the year 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
Copy presented of Return of Advances made under the Irish Land Purchase Acts during the months of August, September, and October, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF NORTHUMBERLAND).
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the county of Northumberland and altering certain Polling Districts in the Tyneside and Wansbeck Parliamentary Divisions of the county [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT.
Copy presented of Report by the Board of Trade respecting the Mansfield Railway Bill, and the objects thereof [presented pursuant to Standing Order 1586]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.
TRADE REPORTS.
Copy presented of Index to Reports of His Majesty's Diplomatic and Consular Representatives Abroad on Trade and Subjects of General Interest (with Appendix), 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SIGHT TESTS.
Copy presented of Report on the Sight Tests used in the Mercantile Marine for the period 1st April to 31st December, 1913 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
FEE FUND (HOUSE OF LORDS).
Copy presented of Account of the Fee Fund of the House of Lords from 1st April, 1913, to the 31st March, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 13th May, 1914, made by the Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Deposit Contributors' Administration Expenses) Regulations, 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 233.]
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Wales) (Deposit Contributors, Payment on Death) Regulations, 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 234.]

POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL PARCEL POST).
Copy presented of the Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Amendment (No. 65) Warrant, 1914. Dated, 24th April, 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—
1. National Insurance Act, 1911 (Part II.), Account,—Account showing the nature and amount of the securities held by the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt at 31st March, 1914, as investments for moneys, forming part of the Unemployment Fund, paid over to them by the Board of Trade under Section 92 (3) of the National Insurance Act, 1911 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 235.]
2. Intermediate Education (Ireland),—Account of Receipts and Expenditure for 1913, with Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 236.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Albania.
  Mr. AUBREY HERBERTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give the House any information regarding the many thousands of refugees from the Kolonia district who are now arriving at Koritza; and whether any steps can be taken to relieve their sufferings?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): I have received reports to the effect that large numbers of refugees have left the Kolonia district, but I have no details on the subject. The British delegate on the International Commission of Control is now in Northern Epirus. I am not aware what funds remain to him out of the Grant made by His Majesty's Government for the relief of distress in Albania, but he will doubtless do what is possible to alleviate suffering.
  Sir J. D. REES: Has the Secretary of State received a memorial from the All-Indian Moslem Association on this subject?
  Mr. ACLAND: Not to my knowledge. I will inquire, and let the hon. Member know.

  Crimes on British Ships.
  Sir GODFREY BARINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there are any cases on record of foreign subjects having committed breaches of the law on ships flying the British flag being tried in the country to which they belong, or whether inter national law prescribes without any qualification that the offences shall be investigated in the country where the ship is registered; whether British Consuls have any latitude in deciding points which may arise in connection with the matter; and whether, to avoid the imprisonment at the expense of the British taxpayer of foreigners who have no connection what ever with this country, he will consider the possibility of making arrangements for offenders, when willing, to be tried in the country to which they belong?
  Mr. ACLAND: This is not a matter of international law or discretion, but of the municipal law of this country. A person who commits a crime on a British ship on the high seas does so within the jurisdiction of the British Courts, and must, under British law, be tried and punished accordingly. Any arrangement such as that suggested by the hon. Baronet would involve an alteration of the criminal law of this country, which would not, in my opinion, be likely to commend itself to this House.

  Seed-Testing Station.
  Mr. STANIERasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if any progress has been made for a national seed-testing station; and if Cambridge has been given the work?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The Board have recently made exhaustive inquiries into the condition of the seed trade in England and Wales and into the methods of seed-testing stations abroad. The question of establishing a seed-testing station in England is now being considered in the light of the information so obtained.

  Sugar Beet.
  Mr. STANIERasked where the sugar beet, amounting to 8,000 cwts., which was charged duty in 1873–4, as reported in the Inland Revenue Commissioners' Report [Cd. 4474] of 1885, was grown; and what was the duty charged?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The sugar beet in question appears to have Been grown in the neighbourhood of Lavenham, Suffolk. The duty from 1870 to May, 1873, was from 4s. to 6s. per cwt., and from 1873 to 1874 from 2s. to 3s. per cwt.

  Board of Agriculture (Employés).
  Sir GODFREY BARINGasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether there are any employés in his Department twenty-three years of age and on full time earning less than 22s. a week; and whether he proposes, on the lines of the Post Office, to raise their wages to that amount?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: There are nine men employed directly by the Board. Their case is under consideration.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the hon. Member for St. George' s-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners (1) whether any schemes have been approved for the payment of subsistence allowances and compensation for loss of remunerative time to members of insurance committees under Section 31 (1) of the National Insurance Act, 1913; whether the Commissioners propose to issue a circular to the insurance committees on the subject for their guidance in drawing up the schemes; and (2) whether any insurance committee has been waiting for six months to receive a reply to their inquiry as to the principles to be adopted in drafting their scheme for the payment of subsistence allowances and compensation for loss of remunerative time to members of insur-
    1558
    ance committees under Section 31 (1) of the National Insurance Act, 1913; whether the Insurance Commissioners have fixed any date from which the payment will be made retrospective; and whether a flat rate for compensation for loss of remunerative time would receive the sanction of the Commissioners?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): No schemes have as yet been approved, but in this connection I would refer to my reply of the 11th May to the hon. Member for Salisbury. A model scheme has, however, been prepared by the Commissioners, and is now being issued for the guidance of insurance committees in drafting their own schemes.

    CASUAL WORKMAN.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked whether Regulations with regard to the position of the casual workmen under the National Insurance Act are being drafted; and whether the views of approved societies largely affected have been asked for or have been received?
    Mr. W. BENN: A scheme under Section 19 of the National Insurance Act, 1913, is now in preparation for the Port of London. Nothing in the scheme now contemplated will affect in any way the arrangements of approved societies. A draft special Order will be published shortly, and my right hon. Friend will be glad to consider any suggestion from societies whose members are affected by it.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the scheme promised by Mr. Masterman at the by-election at Bethnal Green is yet ready for launching?
    Mr. W. BENN: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the scheme presents great difficulties.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is yet ready to be launched?
    Mr. BENN: No; but a special Order will be, as I say, published shortly.

    SANATORIUM TREATMENT.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, if his attention has been called to

    1559
    the case of Sidney Bryant, of Peckham, an insured contributor under the National Insurance Act, who has for some time been suffering from tuberculosis; if he has been examined by the medical officer of the insurance committee and certified as a case for sanatorium treatment; if so, what is the date when Bryant was examined; and whether sanatorium accommodation has yet been provided for him?
    Mr. W. BENN: The person referred to was examined by the medical adviser of the Insurance Committee on the 27th April and recommended for sanatorium benefit on his advice. Arrangements are being made for his entering an appropriate institution in the course of a few days, and in the meantime he has been receiving domiciliary treatment.
    Mr. F. HALL: Will he be having the treatment necessary for him during this week?
    Mr. W. BENN: Oh, yes, Sir, I hope so.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked why Form Medical 32 of the Insurance Commissioners was withdrawn; and whether, in view of the complaints consequent upon the inability of insured persons to obtain medical benefit owing to the difficulty of obtaining a medical card, the Commissioners will reissue Form Medical 32, making it obtainable from such persons' approved society only?
    Mr. W. BENN: The form referred to was part of the system which has now been superseded, and its adoption is incompatible with the present system. The form of application for a medical card which takes its place is obtainable at all post offices, and no difficulty should be experienced by insured persons in securing a medical card upon application.
    Mr. BATHURST: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is still unanimity amongst approved societies as to the advantages of this Medical Form 32, enabling members to get their medical treatment very much quicker than under the present system?
    Mr. W. BENN: No, Sir, I am not aware that approved societies desire to go back to the system that has been superseded.

    UNEMPLOYED INSURANCE.
    Mr. HEWINSasked the Prime Minister whether he can arrange for hon. Members interested in unemployment insurance as well as health insurance to be given an opportunity of taking part in the Committee stages of both amending Bills if they wish to do so?
    Colonel BURNasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet made any arrangement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer by which the Committee stages of the Health and Unemployment Insurance Amending Bills shall not be taken at the same time, so as to allow hon. Members who are interested in both sections an opportunity of discussing them?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet made any arrangement with the President of the Board of Trade so that the Committee stages of the Health and Unemployment Insurance Amending Bills may not be taken simultaneously upstairs?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): In answer to the three questions, my right hon. Friend hopes this may be found possible.

  Welsh Standard (Carnarvon Castle).
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, why the latter refused to allow a Welsh flag to be flown on Carnarvon Castle on St. David's Day when requested by the Carnarvon Town Council; whether the matter was referred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as constable of the castle; whether the reason for refusal was because the Carnarvon Town Council and the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to fly a flag which is not the standard of Wales; and whether in future a correct Welsh standard will be kept at all Welsh castles, maintained by the Office of Works, to be flown upon St. David's Day and the anniversary of the investiture of the Prince of Wales at Carnarvon?
  Mr. W. BENN: A request was made in February, 1913, by the town clerk of Carnarvon to fly the Welsh Dragon on Carnarvon Castle on St. David's Day. The First Commissioner does not think that the Dragon is the national flag of Wales. On these grounds he felt some hesitation in granting permission. The Chancellor

  1561
  of the Exchequer was abroad at the time of application and could not be consulted. The First Commissioner is taking the opinion of the Heralds College as to whether there is a Welsh national flag, and, if so, what is the correct heraldic design.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: If the hon Gentleman looks above Mr. Speaker's Chair, he will see a shield of the correct standard for Wales.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Ireland).
  Mr. FIELDasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that a number of persons interested in the animal industry of Great Britain have protested against the embargo imposed by local authorities against Irish live stock; and whether he can state the most recent arrangements regulating movement and quarantine, with the object of facilitating free trade in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. FFRENCHasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether that part of Ireland lying east of the Barrow is as free from foot-and-mouth disease as the counties north of the Boyne; and, if so, will he allow the same privileges to the people of both districts in the shipment of live stock to British markets?
  Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to announce any modification of the present restrictions on the importation of fat and store cattle from Ireland?
  Mr. O'DOHERTYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state whether he received a copy of a resolution from the Londonderry Chamber of Commerce; and whether he will take steps to relax the restrictions on the shipment of store cattle from the North of Ireland to the extent of reducing the four days' detention period in the lairages to ten hours as heretofore as, unless this is done, injury will be wrought to the interests of the trade both in Ireland and in Great Britain?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that objection has been raised to the action of the local authorities, and in view of the fact that there has been no extension of the area affected with foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland, I hope that they will now see their way to withdraw their regulations. With regard to the second
  1562
  part of the question, the Board have decided, after consultation with the Irish Department, to issue a new Order to-morrow, allowing animals from any port in the northern part of Ireland to be landed on and after Friday next at Ayr, Barrow-in-Furness, Fleetwood, Glasgow, Greenock, Heysham, Stranraer, and the Wallasey lairage at Birkenhead, subject to ten hours' detention at the landing-place, after which they will be released without further restriction; animals shipped from ports in the south-eastern part of Ireland, namely Dublin, Rosslare, Waterford, and Wexford, will also be admitted to the Woodside lairage at Birkenhead, Bristol (Avonmouth), Cardiff, Deptford, and Manchester for slaughter at the landing-place within ninety-six hours, and to Bristol (Cumberland Basin), Fishguard, Holyhead, and Silloth, subject to four days' quarantine at the port, after which they may be moved by licence to specified premises where they will be kept under observation for a further period of fourteen days unless slaughtered in the meantime.
  Mr. FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the local authorities to have the movement of live stock facilitated, so that the trade can be carried on?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is only the Scottish counties that have in force the restrictions to which the hon. Member refers. I am keeping them informed of the position in Ireland as we ascertain it day by day.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: May I ask whether this ten hours' detention applies to lambs? Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to allow lambs to proceed to their destination, to be slaughtered immediately on arrival from Ireland, without that detention at Holyhead or any other port?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think the hon. Member will recognise that the ten hours' detention is the same period as in the Regulations under which landing was conducted last year and this year when the outbreak occurred. It is that ten hours that will apply to all animals alike.
  Mr. DIXON: Will not the admission of this cattle into England make foreign countries less likely to open their ports for our pedigree cattle? As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, we are very anxious to have those ports open as soon as possible?
  Mr. RUIMCIMAN: The only relaxation of Regulations material to that point is in regard to the northern ports of Ireland, where, as far as anyone can ascertain, there have been no cases whatever of foot-and-mouth disease during the present year. The relaxation with regard to the south-east corner of Ireland is under very severe restrictions, and such foreign countries as wish to know about it are being fully informed. It is a matter of opinion, but I am told that it will not have any effect whatever on the export trade.
  Mr. HUGH BARRIE: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any protest to the local authorities in Scotland who continue their embargo against Irish cattle; and is not the action of these authorities a reflection on the officers of the right hon. Gentleman's own Department?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: It would be quite improper for me to protest against the action of the county authorities. They are charged with the duty of protecting their areas from disease, and all I can do is to make representations to them as to the position in England and Ireland, so that they may not take action on wrong grounds.
  Mr. FFRENCHasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether, in the case of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, he will consider the advisability of adopting the English method of dealing with the disease, namely, to draw a cordon at a radius of, say, fifteen miles around the place where the disease exists and allow the trade in livestock to pursue its normal course in unrestricted areas?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): Whenever the circumstances appear to warrant such a course, the Department are desirous of limiting its action in the manner suggested in this question. In dealing, however, with an oubreak of serious dimensions, it is only prudent, having regard to the extent to which interchange of stock normally occurs between different parts of Ireland, that the more ordinary safeguards should be reinforced by further precautions designed to protect the unaffected areas of the country.
  Mr. FIELD: May I ask why it is necessary to adopt much more stringent precautionary measures in Ireland than in similar circumstances in Great Britain?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The reason ought to be obvious. Ireland is a great agricultural country, and the precautionary measures necessary to be taken in England are very different to those necessary in Ireland in these circumstances.
  Mr. P. WHITEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture whether he will change the line which runs across Ireland from Oranmore to Mornington, county Meath, so that it will run via Kilmessan to Skerries, county Dublin, to enable people living in the neigh bourhood of Drogheda to ship their cattle at that port?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I regret that at the present moment it is not practicable to alter the boundary line as suggested.
  Mr. P. WHITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state when he is likely to alter it?
  Mr. RUSSELL: If things continue to go on as I am glad to say they are—with the exception of a very small area in one portion of the county Cork, there is no foot-and-mouth disease, and this line is kept up at the present time merely as a matter of precaution—I hope very soon to be able to remove it.
  Mr. P. WHITEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture whether it is by a prohibition of his Department that the Great Northern Railway Company will not accept bookings of cattle from the stations of Duleek or Beauparc, county Meath, for either the ports or markets of Dublin or the port of Drogheda; and, if so, will he state the reason for the order?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The stations of Duleek and Beauparc are on the northern side of the boundary line, but cattle from the district south of the line cannot be booked at these stations, which are only available for stock from the northern area.
  Mr. P. WHITErose to ask Question No 38.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has now exhausted his right.

  Elementary Education.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education (1) at what date the Board sanctioned fees being charged at the West Derby, Birch-field Road Council School, Liverpool;

  1565
  whether it was made a condition of approval that the amount received from fees should be taken in reduction of the fee grant; whether he will state what educational benefit, if any, was alleged by the local authority at the time the fees were sanctioned; whether the sanction of the Board has been reconsidered from time to time as provided by the Statute; whether he will again consider the sanction of fees in this school and discontinue such sanction unless now satisfied that the imposition of a fee is required according to the Statute; and, if he is satisfied that the fee is for the educational benefit of the district, whether he will state fully what that educational benefit is to-day; (2) at what date the Board sanctioned fees being charged at the West Derby, Lister Drive Council School, Liverpool; whether it was made a condition of approval that the amount received from fees should be taken in reduction of the fee grant; whether he will state what educational benefit, if any, was alleged by the local authority at the time the fees were sanctioned; whether the sanction of the Board has been reconsidered from time to time, as provided by the Statute; whether he will again consider the sanction of fees in this school, and discontinue such sanction unless now satisfied that the imposition of a fee is required according to the Statute; and, if he is satisfied that the fee is for the educational benefit of the district, whether he will state fully what that educational benefit is to-day; and (3) at what date the Board sanctioned fees being charged at the West Derby, Rathbone Council School, Liverpool; whether it was made a condition of approval that the amount received from fees should be taken in reduction of the fee grant; whether he will state what educational benefit, if any, was alleged by the local authority at the time the fees were sanctioned; whether the sanction of the Board has been reconsidered from time to time, as provided by the Statute; whether he will again consider the sanction of fees in this school and discontinue such sanction unless now satisfied that the imposition of a fee is required according to the Statute; and, if he is satisfied that the fee is for the educational benefit of the district, whether he will state fully what that educational benefit is to-day?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): Fees were sanctioned in the West Derby (Birch-field Road) Council School on the 15th
  1566
  January, 1901; in the Lister Drive Council School on the 5th March, 1908; in the Rathbone Council School on the 14th August, 1896. In none of these cases was it made a condition of approval that the amount received should be taken in reduction of fee grant. In each case the application was based on a change in the population of the district. The Statute does not appear to require a periodical reconsideration of the fees; it only enables such reconsideration to be made. It does not appear that in the case of these schools any occasion has arisen for reconsideration. I am informed by His Majesty's inspector that the Birchfield Road School is provided with rooms for practical work, including cookery and laundry rooms and a bath and gymnasium; and the Rathbone School is provided with rooms for practical work, an art room, a cookery room, and a bath; and that the standard of work in the Lister Drive School is high.
  Mr. KING: Would the right hon. Gentleman say definitely whether these educational facilities and advantages are really made the greater by charging fees, and is it not necessary, according to the Act, that the charging of fees should make the educational facilities the greater?
  Mr. PEASE: I think that the local authorities, if they do charge fees, may be expected to provide rather special facilities and equipment in their schools.
  Mr. KING: Are there not a great many authorities that provide all these additional facilities without charging fees?
  Mr. PEASE: Yes, there are.
  Mr. KING: Why, then, do not they do it all over?
  Sir J. D. REES: Is it necessary to make an apology for every fee collection? Is it not a proper proceeding?
  Mr. PEASE: I am not making any apologies.

  Assistant School Inspectors.
  Mr. KINGasked how many assistant school inspectors have been appointed since 4th August, 1913; how many have been appointed before and since that date; how many are now working at their duties of inspecting elementary schools; and whether it is intended to appoint at an early date any more elementary teachers as assistant school inspectors?
  Mr. PEASE: Twenty-one assistant inspectors have been appointed up to the present time. Of these fifteen were selected for appointment before 4th August, 1913, and six after that date. Twenty are now engaged in the inspection of elementary schools. I propose shortly to appoint some more persons with experience of teaching in elementary schools to be assistant inspectors, and I am sending the hon. Member a copy of an announcement, relating to seven vacancies, recently made in the Press on the subject.

  Merthyr Roman Catholic School.
  Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the President of the Board of Education (1) whether, with reference to the Merthyr Roman Catholic school case, he can state why the teacher was dismissed and what provision has been made for the instruction of the children while the school has been closed; and whether he can state why no inquiry has been held; and (2) whether seventeen Roman Catholic teachers have been dismissed against the will of the managers in the Merthyr Roman Catholic school case?
  Mr. BOLANDasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of all the circumstances of the case, he will direct an inquiry to be made concerning the Dowlais school dispute?
  Mr. PEASE: The local education authority informed the Board on the 16th April that, having regard to the diminished number of children in attendance at the school, they had requested the managers to give notice to any assistant teachers whose services were not required, and that as the managers refused to carry out this direction they had given certain assistant teachers at the school one month's notice of dismissal on 1st April. So far as I am aware, the school has not been closed, but I understand that a large number of children have been withdrawn from it. The Board have held no inquiry because no question up to now had arisen which would enable the Board to intervene under the provisions of the Education Act, 1902. I am now, however, informed by the correspondent of the managers that they intend to appeal to the Board against the action of the local education authority. On receipt of an appeal disclosing grounds which give the Board jurisdiction, I shall be prepared to hold a public inquiry.
  Lord N. CRICHTON-STUART: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that the
  1568
  assistant teachers who were dismissed were going to be replaced by teachers not of the same religious faith as the denomination of the school?
  Mr. PEASE: I have not heard what is the religious faith of the assistant teachers.
  Mr. BOLAND: When is the inquiry to which the right hon. Gentleman alludes to be held?
  Mr. PEASE: If an appeal comes from the managers at once I shall be prepared at once to appoint an officer of the Board to go down and hold an inquiry.

  Macclesfield Education Authority.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has seen the education estimates for the current year of the Macclesfield education authority; whether he is aware that £270 is therein estimated to be received as elementary school fees, of which £220 is to be returned to the managers of voluntary schools; and whether he will call for a report from his inspector upon the incidence and effect of these school pence?
  Mr. PEASE: I have not yet seen the estimates in question, but for the latest year for which I have particulars, the amounts received and returned to the managers were, approximately, as stated in the question. I am not aware that any occasion has arisen for the report suggested.
  Mr. KING: Is there any educational advantage gained by fees in this case, and any return in the reduction of rates?
  Mr. PEASE: I should like to have notice of that.

  Diseases of Animals Act.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture whether any person failing to give notice of disease with all practicable speed is guilty of an offence under a Sub-section of Section 52 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894; whether any person convicted of a second offence under the same Subsection within a period of twelve months is liable to imprisonment at the discretion of the Court; and, if so, whether he will take steps to have the law on the subject made as widely known as possible?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The answer to both questions is in the affirmative.
  Mr. P. WHITEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture whether he proposes to take advantage of Sub-section (7) of Section 20 of the Contagious Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, which enables him to withhold, either wholly or partially, compensation or other payment in respect of an animal slaughtered under the Act by their order where the owner has, in the judgment of the Board, been guilty of an offence against the Act, such as failing to give notice of disease with all practicable speed, and thereby commits an offence as denned by Sub-section (2), Section 52, of the same Act?
  Mr. RUSSELL: This question is being considered by the Law Officers of the Crown.

  American. Mildew.
  Mr. P. WHITEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture whether, if the public interest require the destruction of gooseberry bushes affected with American mildew, there is any and, if so, what machinery for compensating the owners for the loss of what in many cases is the sole means of livelihood of an industrious class; and, if at present there is no power to compensate, will he consider the introduction of a short Bill enabling compensation to be awarded for the loss of income?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The county council may grant compensation in such cases. The Department have no power to do so.
  Mr. P. WHITE: Can the Department state the value of the portions destroyed?
  Mr. RUSSELL: Yes, there are inspectors that perform that service.
  Mr. P. WHITEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture whether he is aware that complaints have been made that inspectors from his Department have visited gardens where American gooseberry mildew existed and, without undergoing any process of disinfection, proceeded to healthy gardens owned by other people; and whether such conduct is in accordance with the practice of the Department?
  Mr. RUSSELL: It is true that a few such complaints have been made, but on inquiry the Department were satisfied that all necessary precautions were taken by the inspectors.
  Mr. P. WHITEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture whether, by order of his Department, a number of gooseberry bushes were destroyed in county Meath because of the existence of what is known as American mildew; and will he say under what Section or Sub-section of what Act he claims the power to destroy on a wholesale scale the bushes which were the sole means of livelihood of a number of people without awarding any compensation whatever?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The answer to the first part of this question is in the affirmative. The procedure is under the Destructive Insects and Pests Acts, 1877 and 1907.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, by order of his Department, any and, if so, "what quantity of gooseberry bushes were destroyed because of the existence of American mildew; were the owners compensated; and, if so, out of what sources?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No gooseberry bushes have been destroyed by order of the Board since 1908. A few were destroyed in that year, but no compensation was paid.

  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.

    COUNTY COUNCIL SCHEMES.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the schemes of a charitable or eleemosynary character of local or general utility drawn up by Welsh county councils under the provisions of the Established Church (Wales) Bill require ratification by him or by the Local Government Board, or by both, before they can be put in operation?
    The SECRETARY Of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): Ratification is necessary by the Secretary of State, but not by the Local Government Board.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Does that imply a reflection on all future schemes or only upon charitable schemes?
    Mr. McKENNA: I should have notice of that question. I should not like to answer a point of law without notice.

    SUGGESTION STAGE.
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Prime Minister if, seeing that the Parliament Act, 1911, provides that the House of Commons may, if they think fit, suggest

    1571
    Amendments to Bills in the second or third Sessions, he will say by what means he has ascertained that the House of Commons does not think fit to consider or make suggestions for amending the Established Church (Wales) Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Government have no reason to doubt that they have the support of the majority of the House in the course which they have recommended.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the House had no opportunity, and does the Prime Minister think he is to be the sole arbiter of what the House does?
    Mr. KING: May I ask whether he is aware that last Session no Suggestions were put down at all to the Welsh Church Bill, and if the Welsh Church Bill could not be amended by Suggestions last year? is it likely that' it is any worse this year?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand that the subject was debated at some length last week, and I am not sure that there was not a Division upon it.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister said it would be out of order, and he spoke upon it, and before he spoke he said it was not strictly in order?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: At all events, I know there was some discussion upon the point last year.

    ECCLESIASTICAL ENDOWMENT SCHEMES.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked whether the Welsh county councils are required to make separate schemes for the application of the residue of the ecclesiastical endowments of each parish in Wales as the lives of existing incumbents terminate under the provisions of the Established Church (Wales) Bill; and whether the Welsh Com missioners have power to raise a loan in order that all the schemes may be brought into operation simultaneously?
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

    ANCIENT PAROCHIAL ENDOWMENTS
    Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked whether the Welsh county councils will make schemes under the Established Church (Wales) Bill for spending the ancient parochial endowments of the Church in those
    1572
    parishes where some part of the endowment is alienated from the Church, or whether parishes where the whole of the existing endowments, being subsequent to 1662, are transferred to the Representative Church Body participate in these schemes?
    Mr. McKENNA: There is nothing in the Bill to prevent any parish or parishes from participating in the benefits under schemes drawn up by county councils under the Act, but all such schemes will be subject to the provisions of Section 19 (2) and the approval of the Secretary of State before they come into operation.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Does that mean that money which comes from one parish may be spent in another parish?
    Mr. McKENNA: It can be spent in another parish under a separate scheme. The county councils will have regard to the interests of the parish from which the money is taken.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Not exclusive regard?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, not exclusive regard.

    CHAPTERS OF GLOUCESTER AND WESTMINSTER.
    Mr. HOAREasked if the Home Secretary will state what steps he has taken to fulfil the undertaking, given to the hon. Member for Chelsea on 28th January and 3rd February, 1913, to inquire into certain properties formerly owned by the chapters of Gloucester and Westminster and now annexed to Welsh benefices, and, in the event of his being satisfied that the properties are English in origin, to amend the Established Church (Wales) Bill so as to ensure their retention by the Representative Body?
    Mr. McKENNA: I suggested during the discussion of this question on the 28th January and 3rd February, 1913, that it might be necessary, if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chelsea was pressed, to reopen a number of other questions with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. In accordance with the undertaking I gave to the House, I discussed this and a number of other matters with the secretary to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and subsequently addressed a number of questions to the Commissioners. On their reply I came to the conclusion that to reopen the question might result in a very protracted inquiry, and I decided to allow the matter to remain where it was.
    Mr. HOARE: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman is going to take no steps to carry out the pledge as to readjusting these finances?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have carried out every pledge that I gave.
    Mr. HOARE: Does that mean that under the provisions of the Bill a certain part of admittedly English property will be appropriated by the State?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. That property is not admitted to be English property.

    COMMISSIONERS.
    Sir DAVID BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the Home Secretary a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely: Whether he is now in a position to give the names of the Commissioners whom it is proposed to appoint under the Established Church (Wales) Bill?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir:—
    The Right Hon. Sir Henry Primrose,
    Sir William Plender, and
    My hon. Friend, the Member for West Denbighshire (Sir J. H. Roberts).

    Black Prince's Diary.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the discovery of an alleged volume of the Black Prince's Diary; whether he proposes to secure it for the nation; and whether it has previously been in the possession of the nation?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir. I am informed by the Public Record Office that the document has certainly not been in the possession of the nation since the beginning of the nineteenth century, and that the question of securing it for the nation is receiving their attention.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    IMPORTATION OF ARMS.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether any lieutenants of counties, deputy lieutenants, justices of the peace, or others holding public rank or distinction were concerned in the recent gun-running exploits in Ulster; and, if so, whether they are to be allowed to retain those offices of public confidence?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): This matter is at present under consideration.
    Mr. J. HOGGE: Does that mean that some of these gentlemen are involved?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I apprehend it does.
    Mr. AMERYasked the Prime Minister whether indictments were drawn against any persons concerned in the re cent importation of arms into Ulster; if so, against what persons were these indictments drawn; and on what grounds were they not proceeded with?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The reply is in the negative.
    Mr. AMERYasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the nature of the other steps which are being taken in connection with the recent importation of arms into Ulster in lieu of the appropriate steps indicated by him on 27th April?
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if he will now state what steps have been taken in connection with the importation of arms and ammunition into Ulster to vindicate the authority of the law and to protect the officers and servants of the King and His Majesty's subjects?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not think it desirable to make any statement on the subject at present.
    Mr. F. HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be prepared to make a statement on this matter?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am replying on behalf of my right hon. Friend and I cannot answer that question.
    Mr. F. HALL: I will repeat my question on Wednesday.

    AMENDING BILL,
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether the Bill to amend the Government of Ireland Bill will be introduced into the House of Commons or the House of Lords; and whether he will state on what date such Bill will be introduced?
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Prime Minister when he proposes to introduce the amending Bill to the Government of Ireland Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right hon. Friend cannot yet make a statement on this subject.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will the amending Bill be introduced before the Third Reading of the Home Rule Bill is taken?
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House of Lords has never introduced a Reform Bill?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: When will the Prime Minister be able to make a statement on this subject?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid I cannot answer that question now.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGE: Are there any precedents for amending a Bill by a Bill?
    Mr. BUTCHER: Is there any precedent for bringing on the Third Reading of a Bill under the conditions that it is proposed to bring on the Third Reading of the Home Rule Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is under a new Act of Parliament, the Parliament Act.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of an amending Bill being brought forward to amend the terms of the Government of Ireland Bill, it is proposed to amend Clause 14 of that Bill, which seeks to enact that the cost of Irish services shall be provided for by the Irish Parliament, and that any charge for the benefit of the Local Taxation Account or any Grant out of moneys provided by the Imperial Parliament, so far as made for Irish services, shall cease; and, if not, in what way it is proposed to give a subvention of £630,000 to such Local Taxation Account in relief of rates?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As regards the first part of the question, I am not prepared to anticipate the terms of the amending Bill. For the rest, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Members for Windsor and North Meath on Tuesday last.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Is there going to be a financial amending Bill as well as the other amending Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think I can add anything to the answer I have given.

    FINANCE PROPOSALS.
    Mr. CASSEL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely: Whether he will let the House have copies of the Clauses of the Finance or Revenue Bill which deal with the Grants to Ireland referred to in his Budget Statement before the discussion of the Financial Resolution relating to the Government of Ireland Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the Finance Bill may be circulated to-morrow, but in case it may not be I may inform the hon. and learned Gentleman that the provisions in question will be of a simple character giving the Irish Government their share of the proposed new Grants and leaving it to them to deal with when the time arrives.

    MOVEMENT OF TROOPS.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer give the House any information respecting recent movements of troops in the vicinity of Belfast?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have made some inquiry, but have no information at all as to any movements.
    Mr. J. WARD: Of which Army?
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman has no official information of the movement of troops? Does he not know that they were of a very provocative character, and took place at a time when the Government are doing their best to bring about a peaceful settlement.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Government are not prepared to assent to the proposition that the movement of troops carrying rifles in Ireland is a provocative step.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Is it the case or not, as reported in the newspapers, that Craigavon was surrounded by troops?

    Tram Car and Motor Omnibus Accidents.
    Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is proposed to hold any inquiry into the causes of the two recent tramcar and motor omnibus accidents in London, in which a large number of persons were injured?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Burns): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. As regards the tramway accident that occurred on the Embankment at the corner of Blackfriars Bridge on the 11th instant, an inspecting officer of the Board of Trade visited the scene of the accident and also examined the car that caused the collision. I am now considering his report with a view of deciding whether a formal inquiry is necessary. I understand that the Home Office have no authority to hold formal inquiries into accidents to motor omnibuses, but the circumstances are investigated by the police with a view to ascertaining whether proceedings should be instituted against any of the persons concerned.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Do I understand that the Board of Trade have power to order an inquiry into a tramway accident, but that they have not power in the case of a motor bus accident other than by taking proceedings?
    Mr. BURNS: That is so.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    PERMANENT TRAINING CAMP (WICKLOW).
    Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked the Secretary of State for War whether a permanent training camp, which will be available next year, has been selected in Wicklow for the battalions of the Special Reserve that were hitherto trained at the Heath camp, Maryborough, Queen's County; whether it is intended sending-these battalions, as a temporary expedient, for training to Cork this year; if the sending of the battalions to Cork will involve an extra cost of £1,000; and whether, taking into consideration the extra cost involved and the fact that since last year's training a considerable sum has been spent on improving the range at the Heath camp, he will consider the desirability of abandoning the temporary expedient and retain the battalions on the Heath camp this year, especially in view
    1578
    of a permanent camp being established in Wicklow next year?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): The facts are substantially as stated by the hon. Member. The reasons for discontinuing Special Reserve trainings at Heath Camp, Maryborough, are the inadequacy of the range and training accommodation.
    Mr. P. MEEHAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any other reason for moving these troops from a part of Ireland with which they have been so long associated?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir; not that I am aware of. It is entirely owing to the inadequacy of the range and the accommodation.

    SUNDAY OBSERVANCE IN MAY.
    Colonel WILLIAMSasked if it is with the sanction or by the orders of the Army Council that the right observance of two Sundays in May is interfered with by those days being chosen for the beginning and the ending of the annual training of more than one regiment of Territorial Cavalry?
    Mr. TENNANT: The dates of the annual trainings of Territorial Force units are in most cases approved locally. Where movements to or from camp take place on Sundays it would be to suit the convenience of the men by interfering as little as possible with their civil employments and to meet difficulties as regards railway traffic.
    Colonel WILLIAMS: May I ask whether this discouragement of the due observance of those two Sundays in May has the sanction or approval of the War Office or the Army Council?
    Mr. TENNANT: As I stated in my answer, these movements are first approved in most cases locally and then by the War Office, and so the answer to the hon. Member's question would be in the affirmative.
    Earl WINTERTON: Is the hon. Member aware that the reason these movements take place on Sunday is generally to suit the convenience of the railway companies, who state that they cannot carry them on other days?
    Mr. TENNANT: That is what I stated in my answer.
    Colonel GREIG: Is it not also for the convenience of the units that are moved, and are not the commanding officers consulted in most cases?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, that is so.

    SPECIAL RESERVE.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENasked whether the new regulations for the probationary training of officers of the Special Reserve have yet been published; and whether he is aware that the delay in publishing them is increasing the difficulty of commanding officers in obtaining subaltern officers?
    Mr. TENNANT: The new regulations have not been issued yet, but they will, it is anticipated, be included in next month's Army Orders.
    Mr. AMERYasked whether it has been decided to abandon the annual training of the Special Reserve in Ulster this year; and, if so, whether he will state the reason for this decision?
    Mr. TENNANT: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part, therefore, does not arise.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Is the training of the North of Ireland and the South of Ireland Forces going to be held or abandoned this year?
    Mr. TENNANT: I must have notice of that question.

    REGULAR TROOPS (NUMBER IN UNITED KINGDOM).
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what is the total number of Regular troops at pre sent stationed in the United Kingdom; whether he will state what number of men it is estimated would be required to repel an invasion by a foreign army of 70,000 men; how long a period would be necessary to mobilise these; and if he will state what number of men would be required, in the light of the information now avail able, to subdue Ulster in the event of civil war being provoked in that province?
    Mr. TENNANT: The answer to the first part of the question is approximately 125,000. With regard to the second and third parts, it is not possible to deal with matters of this kind by question and answer in the House. I would, however,
    1580
    refer the hon. Member to the Debates on this subject in 1908. With regard to the last part, I am not prepared to reply to hypothetical questions.

  BUDGET PROPOSALS.

    EDUCATION GRANT.
    Mr. GEORGE THORNEasked the President of the Board of Education whether the new Grant to local education authorities will be paid in respect of parishes where the amount to be met by rates for elementary education exceeds the produce of a rate of 1s. 6d. in the £, even if the produce of the rate for elementary education of the local education authority in whose area a parish of the above description is situated is less than the produce of a rate of 1s. 6d. in the £?
    Mr. HIGHAM and Mr. LANE-FOXasked similar questions.
    Mr. PEASE: If the area as a whole is not necessitous (i.e., if the expenditure as a whole falling upon rates does not exceed the produce of an eighteenpence rate over the whole) then no Grant will be paid, even though the area contains parishes which are obliged through the operation of Section 18 of the Act of 1902 to raise rates exceeding eighteenpence.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some areas this will act very hardly upon the individual parish, and that the result in some cases will be that you will be paying these Grants to areas where the rates are lower and withholding them from parishes where the rates are higher?
    Mr. PEASE: I am not prepared to go into the question of the rating of parish by parish. I must look at the rating of the whole area of the local educational authorities. If there is a fault in connection with the high rating of particular parishes it is due to Section 18, Subsection (1), paragraphs (c) and (d) of the Act of 1902.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of these school buildings, which directly affect particular parishes, do not affect the whole area—that is not the same point?
    Mr. PEASE: I am afraid that comes under that particular Section of the Act to which I have referred.
    Mr. HOARE: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take any steps to amend that Sub-section of the Act of 1902?
    Mr. PEASE: I should like to amend it at once if the measure could be regarded as uncontroversial by the House.

    NECESSITOUS EDUCATIONAL AREA.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENasked the President of the Board of Education whether the county borough of Dudley is included among those authorities which will get relief this year as necessitous educational areas, although it has not had such relief in the past; and if he can state why it is proposed that such areas should only get 50 per cent. of the excess over 1s. 6d. elementary rate instead of 75 per cent. as originally arranged?
    Mr. PEASE: I must ask the hon. Member to await the issue of the regulations governing the distribution of these Grants. With regard to the second part of the question, the sum placed at my disposal by the Treasury is not sufficient to enable me to give a Grant of more than 50 per cent. of the expenditure in excess of a 1s. 6d. rate.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Is not the Grant of 75 per cent. in the case of the old areas, only 50 per cent. in the case of the new areas, and how is it fair to differentiate between the two especially in view of the fact that up to date the new areas have had nothing at all?
    Mr. PEASE: The hon. Member is misinformed. The original necessitous area Grant of the first year was a definite sum which did permit 75 per cent. being given, but in the last year or two, owing to its being of a fixed amount, the particular per cent. which a particular necessitous area receives is only approximately 50 per cent.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that the new areas will get the same treatment as the old?
    Mr. PEASE: I will endeavour to do my best to secure that.

    Street Traffic Accidents (Metropolis).
    Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state which of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Street Traffic Accidents have been carried out?
    Mr. McKENNA: As far as the Metropolitan Police are concerned, the Commissioner has taken active steps to secure the carrying out of those recommendations of the Committee affecting the safety of the public which can be dealt with under existing powers. He has been in constant communication with various borough councils as to the provision of new refuges, and fifty-eight new refuges have been put up during the present year. Additional police have been employed on traffic duty, and the question of stopping places for trams and omnibuses is now being dealt with as recommended in paragraphs 116 and 117 of the Committee's report. Tramway authorities and the managers of omnibus companies have also been approached with a view to learning whether they are willing to submit their running tables to inspection. By-laws as to slow-moving traffic and unsound vehicles have been made by the London County Council, and have come into force. As regards the other recommendations of the Committee, I must refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Prime Minister on the 20th April.
    Mr. KELLAWAYasked if he will say how many street traffic fatalities occurred in the streets of the Metropolitan Police area and the City of London during the month of April; and how many of these fatalities were caused by motor omnibuses and tramcars, respectively?
    Mr. McKENNA: Thirty-two persons are known to have been killed by vehicles within the Metropolitan Police area, ten of these by motor omnibuses and one by a tramcar. In the City of London one person was killed by a van.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to an accident to a horse in Kings-land Road on Wednesday, 6th May, when, owing to the time needed to summon the veterinary surgeon and the licensed slaughterer, the animal, with a broken leg, was kept in its misery for an hour and a half, although a well-known local resident offered to shoot it on the spot; and whether he can see his way so to alter or relax the police regulations as to enable the more expeditious slaughter of animals meeting with serious accidents in the streets?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have made inquiry as to this case. Immediate steps were taken to communicate with the owner, to summon forthwith a veterinary surgeon

    1583
    and to summon a horse slaughterer. These calls were sent simultaneously to avoid delay, and the animal was actually destroyed an hour and ten minutes after the accident happened. When such accidents occur, urgent steps are invariably taken by the police, and, generally speaking, the time that elapses is much less than in this case; but it would not be consistent with public safety that well-meaning but probably inexperienced persons should attempt to shoot animals in crowded streets.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is it not a fact that there is only one official licensed slaughterer for the whole of London, and if so are not such delays inevitable?
    Mr. McKENNA: I should like notice of that question.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Could not the right hon. Gentleman arrange that a "humane-killer" should be kept at every police station so that it might be readily available in such cases?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am unable to answer that question.
    Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the attention of his predecessors was constantly being called to the scandal caused by the present state of the law and that several cases were reported in which horses were kept an hour and an hour and a half before being slaughtered?
    Mr. McKENNA: Such facts and incidents may have been brought to the notice of my predecessors, but I can certainly say that I have never had any number of such incidents brought to my notice.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the nature of this humane horse-killer?
    Mr. McKENNA: Certainly.

    London County Council Tramways (Youths as Conductors).
    Mr. WINGasked if the Home Secretary has granted authority to the London County Council Tramway Committee to employ youths as assistant conductors; if such a change has been permitted in the interests of safety and the public welfare; and if he is aware that this change is regarded by the present conductors with grave concern?
    Mr. McKENNA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers which I gave to questions on this subject on the 28th of April and the 4th of May. The employment of assistant conductors, in addition to the existing staff, has been permitted in the interests of public safety, and, for reasons I have already given, cannot adversely affect the present conductors.

    Customs Officers and Watchers.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Secretary to the Treasury the maximum weekly pay which can be earned by established Customs officers and Customs watchers, respectively, under the new conditions of payment recently introduced; and what special allowances are made to the former class which are not granted to the watchers?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): The maximum of the new scale of pay, as fixed in 1912 under the amalgamation scheme, is £300 a year, equivalent to £5 15s. 4d. a week, for established Customs and Excise officers. In addition various allowances, ranging from £3 to £20 each, are payable, under the same scheme, to sections of these officers. The maximum of the scale of pay of the unestablished class of watchers is 24s. a week, in addition to which they receive good conduct pay, which amounts to 2s. a week, after ten years' service.
    Mr. F. HALL: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if it is not a fact that under the new Regulations overtime does not perhaps count for pay even although they work fourteen and sixteen hours a day, whereas previously to 1912 it counted after eight hours?
    Mr. MONTAGU: It does not include overtime, as I told the hon. Member. It is not recoverable.
    Mr. F. HALL: I have asked the hon Gentleman this question on several occasions and I cannot get a reply.
    Mr. MONTAGU: I have given the hon. Member all the reply I can.

    Housing Conditions (Newcastle-in-Emlyn).
    Mr. STANIERasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the condition of housing in the rural district of

    1585
    Newcastle-in-Emlyn, Carmarthenshire, more particularly at Alltywalis, as described in the last quarterly report of the county medical officer of health to the public health committee of the county council; and if he can give information as to what steps are being taken to remedy the conditions as set forth in that report?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): My attention has been drawn to the report of the county medical officer referred to in regard to the condition of housing at Alltywalis. The rural district council of Newcastle in Emlyn inform me that they have decided to issue notices requiring certain works to be carried out by the owners for improving the condition of the houses. I am communicating with the rural district council and the county council on the subject.

    Local Loans.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the continued diminution in the number of dwellings available for the working classes in urban areas, and in order to encourage local authorities to meet the demands for such dwellings, he can see his way to grant an extension of the time allowed for the repayment of loans taken up by local authorities to meet the cost of making and paving private streets from seven years to twenty years?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I cannot accept the statement in the question that the number of working class houses in urban areas is diminishing. Where local authorities are making streets in connection with the provision of houses by them the term usually allowed for repayment is twenty years. Where the cost of making up the streets is to be repaid by the frontagers a period of seven years has hitherto been usually allowed. But in future, if in any case it can be shown that a longer period is desirable on account of the financial position of the frontagers, or for other reasons, and that the local authority is willing to allow the frontagers a longer period, the Board will be prepared to consider an extension of the time for repayment of the loan.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not think that the time has now come when the regulations for the repayment of loans and the existing funds upon them should be made uniform throughout the country, and
    1586
    whether he would not agree to the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the whole question?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I should like an opportunity of considering the matter.

    Public Health (Milk and Cream) Regulations, 1912.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to a case, which came last month before the magistrates at the Nottingham Summons Court, in which proceedings were taken against the Farmers and Cleveland Dairy Company, Limited, for selling cream containing formalin as a preservative, contrary to the Public Health (Milk and Cream) Regulations, 1912, and in which the magistrates declined to convict the defendants on the technical ground that no penalty had been prescribed by law in the event of the contravention of such Regulations, but only for wilful refusal to obey them; and whether he proposes to take any and, if any, what action in the matter to prevent such Regulations proving abortive in future?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: My attention had not previously been drawn to this case. I am making inquiries with regard to it.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not realise that of all preservations of cream formaldehyde is the most innocuous to human health?

  POST OFFICE.

    GIRL PROBATION CLASS (HANLEY).
    Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Post master-General whether he has received the promised Report upon the girl probationer class at Hanley; and, if so, will he communicate its nature to the House?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): Two girl probationers are employed on collecting, distributing, and sorting telegraph forms and on duties of a similar character in the instrument room at Hanley. The scale of wages is 5s. by 1s. to 6s. a week for a duty of thirty-six hours. The work was previously performed by indoor boy messengers who were paid 8s. a week for a working week of fifty hours. One girl probationer is also employed in the district manager's office on minor work of checking and sorting trunk telephone fee tickets

    1587
    and assisting in the dispatch of trunk fee accounts. These minor duties were formerly distributed between the female clerical assistants, on scale ranging from 14s. a week to 24s. a week for a working week of forty-eight hours.

    WAGES.
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Postmaster-General whether the wages paid to adult night messengers in Belfast is only 24s. a week; that some of these public servants have from twenty to thirty years' service; that others have twenty years' service to look forward to without any increase on this wage; and that discontent exists amongst the adult night messengers at Belfast in consequence of their claim to an increase of wages having been passed over by the Holt Committee on the ground that they were a redundant class, although vacancies in this class are recruited from the postman class at wages of 37s. a week; and, if so, whether, in view of the hours worked by these messengers, the nature of their work, and the increased cost of living, he will take their case into consideration with a view to granting them a substantial increase in their present rate of wages?
    Captain NORTON: The Holt Committee specifically stated that they did not recommend any alteration in the pay of the class of adult night messengers, and my right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot undertake to reopen the question on behalf of the men employed at Belfast.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked the number of Post Office servants in the London postal area whose rate of wages fall beneath the 22s. minimum; what classes they belong to; and what proportion of the new Grant for raising wages to that standard will accrue to the London district?
    Captain NORTON: There are no male Post Office servants of twenty-three years of age or over in the London postal area whose wages are below the 22s. rate, except from time to time a few night telephonists, who receive 20s. a week during their short period of training, rising to 25s. a week on completion of the training, that is, usually, in about three weeks. The proportion of the new Grant (applicable to officers of twenty-three years of age or over) that will accrue to London is therefore inappreciable.

    DEPARTMENTAL INQUIRIES.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked how many Departmental Committees are at present sitting at the Post Office; and into what subjects are they inquiring?
    Captain NORTON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to his question on the 11th instant. There are at present over a dozen important Departmental Committees sitting and their inquiries cover a wide range, including such matters as the claims of the classes not represented before the Holt Committee—boy labour, telephone rates, high-speed telegraphy, units of work.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Is there any Committee of Inquiry sitting on the general organisation of the Post Office, or on questions of the general administration?
    Captain NORTON: I am not aware of any Committee inquiring into the whole subject.

    TELEPHONE SERVICE.
    Mr. EDWARD WOODasked the Postmaster-General if he will state when it is proposed to proceed with the telephone exchange at Yoxall, Burton-on-Trent, Staffordshire, in the Hanley area, contracts for which were entered upon by private subscribers on 16th May and 29th August of last year?
    Captain NORTON: Only three persons at Yoxall offered to hire exchange lines when a canvass was made last year, and I fear that this support is insufficient. The case is, however, being considered in conjunction with proposals for an Exchange at King's Bromley, and a decision will be given as soon as possible.
    Mr. EDWARD WOODasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the delay in proceeding with telephone extension at Hampsthwaite, near Harrogate, for which agreements have been signed; and when it may be expected that the work will be undertaken?
    Captain NORTON: I understand that the question refers to a proposed exchange at Birstwith, near Hampsthwaite, for which five persons have offered to hire exchange lines. It is doubtful whether this support is sufficient to justify the undertaking, but I hope to be able to give a decision shortly.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Postmaster-General when a reduction of telephone rates will be effected; and when a zone system will be introduced rendering telephones in Middlesex available for communication with London, for which purpose they chiefly exist, without the exaction of trunk rates for calls at distances hardly exceeding ten miles?
    Captain NORTON: My right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement in respect of the proposed modification of the telephone tariffs at an early date.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the Postmaster-General aware that meanwhile the telephones in Middlesex attached to the Watford area are practically useless?

    BOYKE COURT SYNDICATE.
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the advertisement of the Boyne Court Syndicate; whether he has any means of knowing how many letters are posted to this foreign address; and whether he is prepared to ask for legislative powers to enable him to intercept letters addressed to persons advertising gambling concerns?
    Captain NORTON: I have received several complaints respecting the advertisements issued by the Boyne Court Syndicate, but they have been sent in closed covers, and I have at present no power to interfere with the transmission of advertisements so sent. I am not in a position to state how many letters are posted addressed to this syndicate. As my right hon. Friend stated in his speech on the Post Office Estimates, he has under consideration the question of obtaining power to stop communications addressed to a business carried on abroad which, if carried on at home, would be illegal.

    CLERICAL CLASSES.
    Sir GILBERT PARKERasked the Postmaster-General (1) if it is his intention to amalgamate the whole of the clerical classes employed in the headquarters departments into one class; and (2) whether, in view of his decision not to enforce the additional hours of duty recommended by the Holt Committee in the case of many of the manipulative classes of the Post Office, while granting the improved scales of pay, it is proposed to treat the clerical classes in the same way?
    Captain NORTON: The case of the Post Office clerical classes is under general consideration with reference to the Report of the Holt Committee and the subsequent recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, and my right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make any announcement on the subject.

    Building Trade Dispute.
    Mr. WINGasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps have been taken by his Department to bring about a satisfactory settlement of the builders' strike, which has continued for sixteen weeks; and what is the present position and attitude of the Board of Trade towards the disputants?
    Mr. BURNS: The Chief Industrial Commissioner has been in communication with the parties to the dispute referred to by my hon. Friend, and it is well known that the good offices of the Board of Trade are at their disposal should they desire to avail themselves of them. I understand that at the present time meetings between representatives of the parties are in progress, and I hope that as a result a settlement may be arrived at.

    Railway Rates.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the railway companies which carry traffic from the ports to inland towns have raised their rates for foreign traffic as the result of the passing of the Railway Act, 1912, or whether, as when a general rise in rates took place in 1902–3, foreign traffic is being exempted from the burden of the increased charge?
    Mr. BURNS: I am not aware that export and import rates in general have been excepted from the increase of last July.

    Aeroplane Accidents.
    Mr. R. HARCOURT: May I ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, in the absence of the Prime Minister, a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether he can make any statement beyond what has appeared in the Press with regard to the fatal aeroplane accident on Friday?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. H. Baker): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is

    1591
    at Aldershot in attendance on His Majesty the King, has asked me to reply to this question. There is nothing at present to add to the reports which have already appeared. The machine in question was in proper order at the time of starting, and the pilot was fully competent in all respects. My right hon. Friend wishes me, in his absence, to give expression to his great regret at this further accident and to the sympathy which I know the House will feel with the relatives of those who lost their lives.
    Mr. R. HARCOURT: Will there be an inquiry?
    Mr. BAKER: Yes, Sir.

    Mexico.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: I beg, in accordance with private notice, to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information concerning the reported arrest and expulsion from the City of Mexico of Mr. Oliver Madox Hueffer, war correspondent of the "Daily Express"?
    Mr. ACLAND: I have received no information on the subject.

  ROAD BOARD (CLASSIFICATION OF ROADS).

    MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
    Mr. R. GWYNNEasked the Prime Minister whether the President of the Local Government Board has any authority or control over the Road Board?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would refer the hon. Member to the provisions of the Act of 1909, by which the Road Board was constituted.
    Mr. GWYNNE: May I ask whether the President of the Local Government Board has authority to require the Road Board to do certain acts on his behalf?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is a perfectly independent body.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Has anyone control over the Road Board?
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Is the effect of the reply that there is no one answerable to this House for this body?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the right hon. Gentleman will wait, there is another question to that effect later on which I am going to answer.
    Mr. GWYNNEasked the Prime Minister who is answerable at the present time to this House for the acts and work of the Road Board?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The powers of the Road Board are exercised with the approval of the Treasury, and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is prepared to deal with questions relating to the acts and work of the Board.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Are we to understand that the recent action of the Road Board requiring local authorities to start an expensive scheme for the classification of roads comes under the sanction of the Secretary to the Treasury?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the hon. Member must put that question down.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Is it not a fact that, whoever may answer, the House has no control over that body?
    Mr. GWYNNE: In consequence of the unsatisfactory answer to this question, I beg to give notice that at the end of questions I shall ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.
    Mr. R. GWYNNEasked the President of the Local Government Board under what Section and what Act highway authorities have power to incur unlimited costs in the preparation of the classification of all roads in their respective areas, including the supply of coloured maps and the taking of a census of traffic for sixteen hours per day from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. for seven consecutive days; and (2) whether his attention has been called to a circular issued by the Road Board, dated 30th April, at his direction, in which local highway authorities are requested to prepare and send in to the Road Board a detailed classification of all the roads in their respective areas and in which authorities making proposals for classification should send in preliminary particulars on or before 18th May; whether he is aware that many highway authorities meet only once a month, and therefore clerks and surveyors have been forced, on their own initiative and responsibility, to start an expensive scheme of classification without the elected representatives being consulted; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The circular referred to was issued by the Road Board, not at my direction, but with my concurrence and that of the Treasury. Highway authorities have not been asked to send any particulars by 18th of May, except a list of the points at which they propose to take a census of traffic. There does not appear to be any difficulty in the way of their officers obtaining such instructions as may be necessary before any material expense is incurred. The expenses which highway authorities may incur in preparing their proposals, which I do not anticipate will be considerable, are within their competence to meet in the performance of their administrative duties.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Road Board have written definitely, when asked by highway authorities what power they had to require this classification, that they had been doing it at the request of the President of the Local Government Board; and is he further aware that large sums have already been spent in many cases by the officials of local authorities in order to comply with the request of his circular?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, Sir. The Road Board has been considering for some time the question of the classification of roads for their own purposes, and they sent out a circular to the local authorities asking for particulars with regard to the traffic on their roads for the purpose of enabling the Road Board to fulfil its statutory functions, and at the same time they said, at my request, that they would be glad if the particulars could be submitted in such a form as would be useful for the purposes of the Grants proposed under the Budget.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last Thursday his Under-Secretary, in his absence, said in answer to my question, "It is for the local authorities to supply the particulars for which we have asked," and how can he reconcile that statement, and also the definite statement of the Road Board that this classification has been done at the request of the Local Government Board, with his statement today?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I think that the hon. Member is mistaken. I have not seen any correspondence of the Road
    1594
    Board, but I have seen the original circular, which was almost exactly in the terms I have described. My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was referring to the request I was making to the Road Board, that when they were obtaining these particulars they should obtain them in such a form that they would also be useful for the purposes of the Grants.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: Are not the local authorities glad to supply these particulars, which they hope will result in their obtaining money from the Exchequer?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have had no complaints from any local authorities or persons acting on behalf of local authorities, nor have the Road Board received any complaints on the subject.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local authorities have not yet had an opportunity of meeting and considering these things?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The officers have been asked to do nothing except to give a list of places where a census of traffic would be taken, if it were taken. It is not necessary for the local authorities to take a census unless they so desire.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: How can any local authority carry out the duty of counting the traffic at certain points from six in the morning till ten at night, as well as their ordinary duties, except at considerable extra cost?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The cost should be quite small, and it is incurred to enable the local authorities to get large increases of Grants from the Exchequer.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the action of the Local Government Board in endeavouring to place a heavy financial burden on local authorities by calling upon them, through the Road Board, immediately to start a scheme of classification of roads without having obtained the necessary Parliamentary authorities.
    The pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 11, until a Quarter-past Eight this evening.

MALL APPROACH IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 237.]
Bill, as amended in the Select Committee, recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House for Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 259.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. l) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
Chiswick Urban District Council Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to secure the better training of Midwives in Scotland, and to regulate their practice." [Midwives] (Scotland) Bill [Lords.]

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Thomas George Tickler, esquire, for the Borough of Great Grimsby.
BILL PRESENTED.
  TRUCK BILL.
  "To amend and extend the Truck Acts, 1831 to 1896." Presented b. Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 260.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL [MONEY].
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be necessary for payment of principal and interest of any money borrowed by the Welsh Commissioners in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to terminate the Establishment of the Church in Wales and Monmouthshire, and to make provision in respect of the temporalities thereof, and for other purposes in connection with the matters aforesaid."
  Resolution read a second time.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12th May, to put forthwith the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided: Ayes, 298; Noes, 204.

  Division No. 108.]

  AYES.

  [3.55 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Delany, William

  Adamson, William

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

  Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

  Alden, Percy

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dillon, John

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Donelan, Captain A.

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

  Cawley, Harold T. (Lanes., Heywood)

  Doris, William

  Arnold, Sydney

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Duffy, William J.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Clough, William

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Clynes, John R.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Barton, William

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Falconer, James

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Cotton, William Francis

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Field, William

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Crooks, William

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Crumley, Patrick

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cuilinan, John

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Boland, John Pius

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Gelder, Sir W. A.

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

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

  Gill, A. H.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardiganshire)

  Ginnell, L.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Glanville, Harold James

  M'Micklng, Major Gilbert

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Manfield, Harry

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford).

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Robinson, Sidney

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Martin, Joseph

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

  Meagher, Michael

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Rowlands, James

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

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

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Hackett, John

  Middlebrook, William

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Molloy, Michael

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

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

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Mooney, John J.

  Sheeny, David

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morgan, George Hay

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Hayward, Evan

  Morrell, Philip

  Shortt, Edward

  Hazleton, Richard

  Morison, Hector

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Muldoon, John

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leltrim, S.)

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

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Higham, John Sharp

  Neilson, Francis

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Hinds, John

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Hodge, John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Sutherland, John E.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Tennant, Harold John

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thomas, James H.

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Connor, T. p. (Liverpool)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Johnson, W.

  O'Dowd, John

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

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

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

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Malley, William

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton).

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wardle, George J.

  Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O'Shea, James John

  Waring, Walter

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Joyce, Michael

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Kelly, Edward

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Webb, H.

  Kenyan, Barnet

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

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

  King, Joseph

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

  Phillpps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Wilkie, Alexander

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

  Pratt, J. W.

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

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

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Lundon, Thomas

  Radford, George Heynes

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

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

  McGhee, Richard

  Reddy, Michael

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Maclean, Donald

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

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

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

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

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Rendall, Athelstan

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Illingworth and Mr. Guiland.

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Bird, Alfred

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Barnston, Harry

  Blair, Reginald

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Barrie, H. T.

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

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

  Boyton, James

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Bonn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Burgoyne, A. H.

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

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Banbnry, Sir Frederick George

  Bigland, Alfred

  Butcher, J. G.

  1626

  1627

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

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Campion, W. R.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Cassel, Felix

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

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Castlereagh, Viscount

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

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Cator, John

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Cautley, H. S.

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Cave, George

  Hohier, G. F.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Royds; Edmund

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

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

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hunter, Sir C. R.

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Sandys, G. J.

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Kerr-Smiley Peter Kerr

  Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kerry, Earl of

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Crichton-Stuart. Lord Ninian

  Keswick, Henry

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Croft, H. P.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Stanier, Beville

  Currie, George W.

  Kyffin-Taylor. G.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Dairymple, Viscount

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Starkey, John R.

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

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

  Staveley-Hill. Henry

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Dixon, C. H.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

  Swift, Rlgby

  Du Pre, W. Baring

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Eyres-Monsell. Bolton M.

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Down, North)

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

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

  Tickler, T. G.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

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

  Touche, George Alexander

  Fell, Arthur

  Lyttellon, Hon. J. C.

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Macmaster, Donald

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

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

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

  Watson, Hon. W.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Malcolm, Ian

  Weston, Colonel J. W.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  Gibbs, G. A.

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

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Newdegate, F. A.

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

  Grant, James Augustus

  Newman, John R. P.

  Winterton, Earl

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Wolmer, Viscount

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

  Nield, Herbert

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

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Haddock, George Bahr

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

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

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

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

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Younger Sir George

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord

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

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Edmund Talbot and Mr. Sanders.

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
Considered in Committee. The CFTAUIMAX (Mr. Whitley) proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the
12th May, to put the Question. "That the Chairman do report the Bill, without Amendment, to the House."
The Committee divided: Ayes. 298; Noes, 204.

Division No. 109.]

AYES.

[4.7 p.m.

Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

Booth, Frederick Handel

Acland, Francis Dyke

Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

Bowerman, Charles W.

Adamson, William

Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo. North)

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

Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Agnew, Sir George

Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Barton, William

Brunner, John F. L.

Alden, Percy

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Bryce, J. Annan

Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

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

Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

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

Bethell, Sir J. H.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Arnold, Sydney

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Byles, Sir William Pollard

Baker, Harold T, (Accrington)

Black, Arthur W

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

Boland, John Pius

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich.)

Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

Hudson, Walter

Parry, Thomas H.

Chancellor, Henry George

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Chapple, Dr. William Allen

Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

John, Edward Thomas

Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

Clancy, John Joseph

Johnson, W.

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

Clough, William

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

Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

Clynes, John R.

Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

Pratt, J. W.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

Cotton, William Francis

Joyce, Michael

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

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Kellaway, Frederick George

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

Crooks, William

Kelly, Edward

Primrose, Hon. Neil James

Crumley, Patrick

Kenyon, Barnet

Radford, George Heynes

Cullinan, John

Kilbride, Denis

Raffan, Peter Wilson

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

King, Joseph

Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

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

Lardner, James C. R.

Reddy, Michael

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardiganshire)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Dawes, James Arthur

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

Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

Delany, William

Levy, Sir Maurice

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

Rendall, Athelstan

Devlin, Joseph

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

Dewar, Sir J. A.

Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

Lundon, Thomas

Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

Dillon, John

Lyell, Charles Henry

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

Donelan, Captain A.

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Doris, William

Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

Duffy, William J.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Robinson, Sidney

Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

McGhee, Richard

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Maclean, Donald

Roche, Augustine (Louth)

Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid

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

Roe, Sir Thomas

Esmonds, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

Rowlands, James

Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

Macpherson, James Ian

Rowntree, Arnold

Essex, Sir Richard Walter

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Esslemont, George Birnie

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Falconer, James

M'Curdy, Charles Albert

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

Farrell, James Patrick

McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Ffreneh, Peter

M'Micking, Major Gilbert

Seaman, Thomas

Field, William

Manfield, Harry

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Fitzgibbon, John

Marks, Sir George Croydon

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

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Sheehy, David

France, Gerald Ashburner

Martin, Joseph

Sherwell, Arthur James

Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Shortt, Edward

Fielder, Sir W.

Meagher, Michael

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Ailsebrook

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

Gill, A. H.

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

Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

Ginnell, Laurence

Middlebrook, William

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Gladstone, W. G. C.

Millar, James Duncan

Soames, Arthur Wellesiey

Glanville, Harold James

Molloy, Michael

Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

Goldstone, Frank

Molteno, Percy Alport

Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

Sutherland, John E.

Greig, Colonel James William

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Griffith, Ellis Jones

Mooney, John J.

Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

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

Morgan, George Hay

Tennant, Harold John

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

Morrell, Philip

Thomas J. H.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

Morison, Hector

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Hackett, John

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Toulmin, Sir George

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Muldoon, John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hardie, J. Keir

Murphy, Martin J.

Verney, Sir Harry

Harmsworlh, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

Walters, Sir John Tudor

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

Neilson, Francis

Walton, Sir Joseph

Harvey, T. E. (Leeds. West)

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmoulh)

Nolan, Joseph

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

Havclock-Allan, Sir Henry

Norman, Sir Henry

Wardle, George J.

Haydon, John Patrick

Norton, Captain Cecil W.

Waring, Walter

Hayward, Evan

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

Hazleton, Richard

Nuttall, Harry

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Hemmerde, Edward George

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Webb, H.

Henry, Sir Charles

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

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

O'Doherty, Philip

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

Higham, John Sharp

O'Donnell, Thomas

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Hinds, John

O'Dowd, John

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

Hodge, John

O'Malley, William

Wiles, Thomas

Hogge, James Myles

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

Wilkie, Alexander

Holmes, Daniel Turner

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

Holt, Richard Durning

O'Shee, James John

Williams, John (Glamorgan)

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

O'Sullivan, Timothy

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

1630

1631

Williamson, Sir Archibald

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

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

Yeo, Alfred William

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Winfrey, Sir Richard

Young, William (Perthshire, East)

Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

Wing, Thomas Edward

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Amery, L. C. M. S.

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Nield, Herbert

Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

Foster, Philip Staveley

Norton-Griffiths, John

Anstruther-Gray, Major William

Gardner, Ernest

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

Archer-Shee, Major Martin

Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

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

Ashley, Wilfrid W.

Gibbs, G. A.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Astor, Waldorf

Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

Paget, Almeric Hugh

Baird, John Lawrence

Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Baldwin, Stanley

Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

Perkins, Walter Frank

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

Grant, James Augustus

Pole-Carew, Sir R.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Greene, Walter Raymond

Pollock, Ernest Murray

Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

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

Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

Barnston, Harry

Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Quilter, Sir W. E. C.

Barrie, H. T.

Haddock, George Bahr

Randles, Sir John S.

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

Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

Rees, Sir J. D.

Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

Hamersley, Alfred St. George

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

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

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Beresford, Lord Charles

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

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Rigland, Alfred

Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

Rothschild, Lionel de

Bird, Alfred

Harris, Henry Percy

Royds, Edmund

Blair, Reginald

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

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

Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

Helmsley, Viscount

Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

Boyton, James

Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

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

Sanders, Robert Arthur

Bridgeman, William Clive

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

Sanderson, Lancelot

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Sandys, John George

Burgoyne, A. H.

Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

Sassoon, Sir Philip

Burn, Colonel C. R.

Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Butcher, John George

Hope, Harry (Bute)

Sharman-Crawford, Colonel R. G.

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

Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

Smith, Harold (Warrington)

Campion, W. R.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Spear, Sir John Ward

Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

Hume-Williams. William Ellis

Stanier, Beville

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Hunt, Rowland

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

Cassel, Felix

Hunter, Sir C. R.

Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Ingleby, Holcombe

Starkey, John R.

Cator, John

Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

Staveley-Hill, Henry

Cautley, H. S.

Jessel, Captain H. M.

Stewart, Gershom

Cave, George

Joynson-Hicks, William

Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

Swift, Rigby

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

Kerry, Earl of

Sykes, Alan, John (Ches., Knutsford)

Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

Keswick, Henry

Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

Kinioch-Cooke. Sir Clement

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

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc's, E.)

Kyffin-Taylor, G.

Tickler, T G.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Touche, George Alexander

Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

Larmor, Sir J.

Tryon, Captain George Clement

Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

Tullibardine, Marquess of

Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

Lee, Arthur H.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Courthope, George. Loyd

Lewisham, Viscount

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

Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

Watson, Hon. W.

Craik, Sir Henry

Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

Weigall, Captain A. G.

Crichton-Stuart. Lord Ninian

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Weston, Colonel J. W.

Croft, H. P.

Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

Currie, George W.

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

Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

Dalrymple, Viscount

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

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

Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

Lyttelton, Hon. J. C.

Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

Denison-Pender, J. C.

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

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

Denniss, E. R. B.

Mackinder, H. J.

Winterton, Earl

Dixon, C. H.

Macmastcr, Donald

Wolmer, Viscount

Duncannon, Viscount

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

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

Du Pre, W. Baring

Magnus, Sir Philip

Wood, John (Stalybridge)

Eyres-Monsell. Bolton M.

Malcolm, Ian

Worthington Evans. L.

Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

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

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

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

Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

Falle, Bertram Godfray

Mount, William Arthur

Younger, Sir George

Fell, Arthur

Neville, Reginald J. N.

Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

Newdegate, F. A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

Newman, John R. P.

Edmund Talbot and Mr. Pike Pease.

Bill reported, without Amendment.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—[Mr. McKenna.]
Objection taken by several Members.
Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Hume-Williams.
Earl WINTERTON: May I ask how many objections in a case like this you

1633
would expect in order to postpone the Third Reading?
Mr. SPEAKER: The Rule does not provide for any particular number. The Rule is that the Third Reading can be taken immediately after the Committee stage with the general assent of the House. That means that a few solitary objections would not be sufficient. Of course, if the whole Opposition object to the Bill proceeding now, I should feel that I should not be at liberty to put the Question for the Third Reading. I gather that that is not so?
Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir; I only wished to ask the question on the point of Order.
Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
I confess that this seems a unique occasion in the history of Parliament, because it is the first time in which we approach the Third Reading of a Bill introduced for the third time under the Parliament Act. I confess that I feel, and I am sure that those who are associated with me also feel, that we approach the consideration of this Bill, under these circumstances, with feelings of considerable depression and irritation. I am quite sure that I shall carry with me the general assent of the whole House when I say that it is impossible to enter on this discussion on what is the final stage of this Bill in this House without looking back for a moment to its introduction, and remembering a voice, now for ever silent, which was raised in eloquent and passionate protest. If this House, so quick and so generous in its appreciation of an earnest and upright character, has felt its Debates the poorer and its work the harder by the loss of the late Mr. Alfred Lyttelton, hon. Members will realise what that loss has meant to us. Deprived in a few days—deprived for ever of the benefit of his counsel, of his brilliant leadership, and of his magic sympathy, there has not been a day during the course of these Debates when we have not remembered him and regretted the loss, and we find our only consolation in the fact that his memory is common property, and that there is no quarter of this House in which he is not held, and will always be held in affectionate remembrance. Apart from that, we approach the Third Reading of this Bill with, as I have said, feelings of depression and, to a great extent, of
1634
irritation. Hon Members opposite, doubtless, to some extent, share that feeling of irritation because, while desiring to see this Bill put on the Statute Book, they will regret the delay of the two years which have gone by since its first introduction. But they can also appreciate the fact that, if they regret the consequences of the delay to them, it is to us a painful and, to some extent, an irritating task to enter on what we feel must be a futile discussion. On whom does the blame lie? The blame, I submit to the House, lies with the Government, and the Government alone, because if they had fulfilled their oft-repeated pledge to reform the House of Lords and endow it with the powers which every other Second Chamber in the Constitutions of the World has, it is quite clear that this Bill would have gone to them in 1912, and would have been passed or referred to the electors of this country for their decision, and it is because we have at present a truncated Constitution that we have had this delay and oft-repeated discussion covering some points of the case.
Let me, in the short time I propose to occupy, examine the course of this Bill in the country and in the House of Commons. The justification, as we know, by the oft-quoted words of the Prime Minister for the delay that has occurred, is this:—
"It is to preclude the possibility of covertly and arbitrarily smuggling into law measures which are condemned by public opinion."
and its object is
"to ensure an ample opportunity for the reconsideration and revision of hasty and slovenly legislation."
Is there any Bill in the recollection of any man present in this House which has been so condemned as this measure has been by expressions of public opinion? There is not a county in England or Wales in which meetings have not been held. They have been attended by thousands of people. There have been monster demonstrations in the provinces, and miles of petitions have been sent to us against the Bill—one of them signed by 550,000 people. Distinguished ecclesiastics with the Liberal traditions of a lifetime behind them have preached and written against this Bill, while in favour of it, if public opinion is the test, the expression has been practically nil. Even in this House there has been shown little enthusiasm for the Bill. From whom has its support come? Of course, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary who introduced it has given it consistent support, and there is the right hon. Gentleman (Sir

1635
D. Brynmor Jones) who so ably leads the Welsh party, and who, I think, may be justly recognised as a supporter of this Bill. Then there is the hon. Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs (Mr. Gladstone), who has impartially distributed his criticism between those who oppose and those who support the Bill. There has also been the constant support of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond), who speaks with deep convictions in favour of Nonconformity—convictions inherited no doubt, but the possession of which do him the greatest credit. That practically is, I hold, all the support we have had in this House for the Bill, and, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Welsh party has put that question beyond doubt, because, in an interview which he granted to the "South Wales Daily News" on 26th December, 1912, he said:—
"Our friends in Wales hardly realise how critical the situation is, not from any lack of effort on the part of the Government or want of energy on the part of Welsh Liberals, but because of the determined objection of a section of the Liberal party and the luke-warmness of nearly the whole of them."
If public opinion is to count at all, I submit it never will find more concentrated and more emphatic expression than it has found in this case. But what does the Prime Minister mean? How is it to find expression? Does he really mean, as I fear, that it is of no avail and counts as nought, unless and until it is reflected by the votes of his supporters in this House? If that is the test, as long as the present party system exists no amount of public opinion is ever likely to have the least result upon the delay incident to the passage of Bills under the Parliament Act. What further expression of opinion does the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary want? Is he wanting the Bishop of St. David's to attack his portrait with a hatchet? Does he expect the Bishop of Llandaff to throw paper packets of flour at those who sit on the Treasury Bench? If public opinion is ever to find expression in this House, I submit that it must fall short of actual reflection in the votes of the supporters of the Government; otherwise it will never find expression at all. If that is the state of affairs in the country, let me pass to the consideration of the history of the Bill in this House. Let me add this one point. I do submit that it is a matter of common knowledge, even from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the enthusiasm, if there be any in Wales, for
1636
this Bill has not increased, but if anything has decreased. The right hon. Gentleman and I fought a battle upon this question of Disestablishment four years ago, and he is able to contemplate it with more complacency than I am, for he is justified in saying that as the result of the battle he was returned to Parliament and I was not. But this, I am sure, he will admit: that the enthusiasm for Disestablishment and Dis-endowment is no greater than it was twenty years ago. It is a stationary feeling, and a feeling which, even among those who advocate the Bill, has not grown to anything like the proportion to which the indignation of Churchmen has grown since the introduction of this Bill.
Turn now to the conditions which have marked the progress of these Bills through the House of Commons. It was introduced in April, 1912, and we were then allowed to follow the normal procedure of this House, which is to have a First and Second Reading and Committee and Report stages. The Committee stage took place on that occasion, and we have had none since then. If ever there was a Bill, in which a Committee stage was necessary in order to consider the numerous points, and in order to give Members who sat on all sides an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the multifarious points of this Bill, it is this Bill. But since the Committee stage in the first Session in which this Bill was introduced we have had no opportunity of discussing any of the details of the Bill. As an example of the hardship which it worked, take the seventh Clause of the Bill which defines the Endowments there are exempted as private benefactions, as those which came to the Church after 1662. For that subject we were given one day's Debate, on 17th December, 1912. The great question that arose upon that Clause, the question of tithes, what should be kept by the Church and what should be given up by the Church, was never discussed at all. We were never given the opportunity, and now the discussion in Committee is to us merely a matter of recollection. It is eighteen months since it took place, and from that day to this we have never been given an opportunity of bringing forward those great questions which are involved in the matter of tithes, and all that is involved in a proper discussion of Clause 7. What happened in 1912, when the discussion took place? A very distinguished leader of Nonconformist thought, the Rev, F. B. Meyer, wrote to

1637
the "Times" suggesting that the question what constitutes private benefactions should be referred to a panel of jurists. That followed a speech by the right hon. Gentleman at Pontypool, in which he used these words:—
"Let them show that any part of what they were claiming was originally a private gift, and they would be willing to consider it. They were not anxious to touch any benefit to which they could not show a national claim."
Following on that this distinguished gentleman suggested that this great question, which is wrapped in darkness, and which has been the subject of endless historical research in this House, should be referred to a panel of jurists to be nominated by Mr. Speaker in order to determine the question. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin moved an Amendment to that effect. Of course, it was lost. Consequently we have had no opportunity of discussing the subject. We did think, at any rate, that on the second and third passages of the Bill to the House if there was to be no Committee stage we should be given the stage denned in the Parliament Act as the Suggestion stage, a stage at which details of this Bill could be suggested to the House of Lords for alteration or amendment and insertion by the House of Lords. And I confess that I was astounded to hear from the Leader of the Government the other day, in answer to a question by the hon. Member for York upon this precise point, as to whether the House of Commons would have the right to determine whether a Suggestion stage was to take place, that the Suggestion stage was not a stage in the Bill at all. Let me read to the House the Clause of the Parliament Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 11, which says:—
"Provided that the House of Commons may, if they think fit, on the passage of such a Bill through the House in the second or third Sessions, suggest any further Amendments without inserting the Amendments in the Bill, and any such suggested Amendments shall be considered by the House of Lords, and, if agreed to by that House, shall be treated as Amendments made by the House of Lords and agreed to by the House of Commons."
The Suggestion stage is to begin here. The duty is denned by the Act and is placed upon the House of Commons to suggest these Amendments to the House of Lords, and if the House of Lords choose to entertain them and put them into the Bill they come back here as Amendments
1638
to which we have agreed. Why? Because they have been inserted and accepted here. How can you suggest Amendments to the House of Lords if we are not to be allowed to debate them? Surely if we are not allowed to discuss the Bill in its passage through the House under the Parliament Act we are robbed of the normal conditions of Parliamentary procedure. If we are not allowed to discuss the details of the Bill in Committee, at any rate, we ought to have the Suggestion stage which the Parliament Act itself provides.
Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: Can the hon. Member say that there is anything in Standing Order about Suggestions?' [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."]
Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: No, but I have quoted the Section of the Parliament Act, which in terms provides in the plainest English that the Suggestions are to originate in this House. Then is the Prime Minister to say that there is no Suggestion stage at all in this Bill? What does he mean? He appears to have forgotten the Preamble to the Bill. He seems also to have forgotten the remainder. Therefore, as far as the passage of this Bill through the House of Commons goes, we have been robbed of the opportunity of a discussion particularly applicable to this particular Bill. There is one more fact in connection with the passage of this Bill through the House of Commons which demands attention. That is, that if it had not been for the votes and support of those who sit behind me this Bill would have been defeated over and over again in the House of Commons. After all, doing every justice to the hon. Gentlemen who come here from Ireland, how can they be expected to treat as anything but an academic discussion quarrels between the Anglican and the Nonconformist Churches.
Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: They are Home Rulers.
Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Let me read to the hon. Member the words of the Leader of the party by whose votes you have been saved during the passage of this Bill:—
"Your English politics do not concern us. Our votes will in this Parliament as in past Parliaments In-directed by one sole consideration, by what we regard to be the interests of Ireland."
And that this Bill has been saved times without number by the support of the Irish Members is placed beyond doubt by the oft-quoted letter of the hon. Member for

1639
the Scotland Division of Liverpool, which he wrote to the Press on the 6th December, 1913:—
"Thus it is that when the Welsh Bill, which puts an end to one of the clearest cases of clerical ascendancy in the world, was before Parliament, it did not excite a ripple among the wonting classes, and if it had not, been for the adhesion and the spirited discipline and attendance of the Irish Members, it would not have passed through this House of Commons."
So what we come back to at the end of all these discussions is that at the bottom of this question, as at the bottom of almost every other question in this country at the present time, we find the Home Rule Bill, because, if you had not introduced the Home Rule Bill, you would not have purchased the support of the Irish Members who sit behind me. They would have adhered once more to their oft-declared faith, that they take no interest in British politics at all, and it would be a long day before you could tempt them over from Ireland to sit here and vote for you upon the question whether the Anglican or the Nonconformist Church should prevail in this matter. Under these circumstances, with the steady refusal of the Government to submit this question to the country, with our normal Parliamentary procedure mutilated, so that the Bill may escape adequate discussion, with the Suggestion stage, which the Parliament Bill itself provides and for which we had hoped, autocratically swept aside by the Government, with all expressions of public opinion absolutely ignored, is it to be wondered at that we approach the Third Reading of this Bill with feelings to some extent of despair, certainly feelings of sustained and concentrated indignation? I will pass to a short examination of the Bill, though I am sure that the House will feel that it is difficult upon the Third Reading of the Bill, within three weeks of the Second Reading, in the De-date on which some of our most brilliant speakers took part, to avoid repeating anything that was said on previous occasions. I trust that the House will remember that it is almost impossible to avoid doing so. Take, first, the question of Disestablishment and Disendowment. It is quite obvious that there has been no logical connection between them. This has been made clear times without number. The Home Secretary himself has said that there is no necessary connection between Establishment and Endowment. How can we say that there is any between the two, when we know that there are cases where there has been Disestablishment without
1640
Disendowment? And in the well-known, almost classical, phrase of the Under-Secretary of the Home Department, Disestablishment is a social programme, and no social programme is worth having, to us, without money.
So that you have this absolutely admitted by the Members of the Government—and, indeed, it scarcely needed admission—that there is no logical connection at all between Disestablishment and Disendowment. We tried to separate them. I myself moved when this Bill came before the House for the second time an Instruction that Disestablishment should be considered separately from Disendowment. I need scarcely say that we did not succeed. But at any rate we are not being allowed that discussion on the present occasion, for the Prime Minister in framing his Guillotine Resolution the other day quite frankly said that the fact that we have been allowed to have it at all was owing to an oversight, and he had taken care that we should not again have the opportunity. Even that remaining consolation is gone, and we come to this Third Reading without having had any opportunity of discussing the details of this Bill, and without having the opportunity now of bringing forward once more the patent fact that you ought in justice to consider Disestablishment entirely apart from Disendowment. What has emerged from the discussion upon the Disestablishment part of the Bill? The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said that it was a purely sentimental and social consideration. I have listened to the whole of the Debate on the subject; I even remember the able and moving speech of the late hon. Member for Ipswich, whose loss we all deplore; and, from the beginning to the end, I submit that there has not been one single argument brought forward to show that, if we Disestablish the Church, one individual or one corporation would be profited, or that one member of one congregation, Nonconformist or otherwise, would be bettered.
If that is so, at what a time do you bring forward this question of Disestablishment! Is it a wise time or an appropriate time? What does it mean? It really means a return to the doctrines of individualism, to the doctrines of the Liberationist school; it means the individual detached from the State, carrying on his individual worship. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, without acknowledging or denying any connection with or any control by the State. You do that at a

1641
time when increasingly the State is by common consent interfering at every turn in our national life, and interfering, too, by the wish of parties! It has control of national education, it is controlling the national health, and day by clay the State is becoming, by desire largely of the Liberal party, the father of the people, and is tying itself up, if I may use such a word, with private as well as public institutions. There was a very remarkable article in the "Westminster Gazette," on the 12th May, by that most eminent gentleman, whose authority will be recognised by hon. Members opposite, Principal Forsyth, and it contained these remarkable words:—
"White theories based, in the age of laissez faire and Manchesterism, either upon the secularity of The State, sectarian churches or individualist religion, are losing effect in the mental climate of a coming generation."
He also laid down in the same article the following:—
"Some of our views, therefore, about the Church and the Nation may require revision—not in principle, but in form. Some of them were formulated in an age when our present notions of society were not yet born, during the reign of an individualism, aggressive and metallic, whose clang is now fading into the past!"
It does seem to me in that condition, and, indeed, in the practical position of modern legislation and statesmanship, what you want is more recognition and not less recognition—above all, more comprehensive recognition. Is this a time to separate the Church from the State? I am one of those who think that a State Church is right. The Establishment—that is, the recognition of the Church by the State—compels no man; it leaves every man freedom of conscience, freedom of worship, and freedom of religion. But it has this advantage, that it does impose a necessity upon someone of providing in every parish and in every corner of our land for the spiritual necessities of the community. If I thought—and I may say there are those who think with me on this—that during those discussions there had emerged any real grievance, showing that any man was the worse for the Establishment, I for one would do what I could to remedy an injustice. But unless and until some Member opposite can point out to me that some individual, some corporation, or some Church, will be the worse for the continuation of the Establishment, then I say that the time is not now, and the opportunity and the circumstances have not arisen when it is wise that statesmen and the Legislature should interfere with what has existed for centuries, and with what harms nobody and benefits many. Let me
1642
turn to the question of Disendowment. A great deal has been said in this House during the interesting Debates we have had upon the subject. Historical research has been exhausted; we have ranged from ancient authors down to modern authors and exponents most learned; but stripped of all argument, stripped of all the discussion with which the subject has been surrounded, it is after all a very simple issue.
We are not dealing with the Church in the past but the Church of to-day, and you are proposing to take away now from the present existing Church £158,000 a year, to be devoted to objects altogether foreign to the purposes for which those Endowments were made. I am not going to take up time at this stage of the discussion by examining historical arguments as to the real origin of Endowments and of tithe. I want more, if I can, to bring this discussion up to date and to deal with existing facts. Let me deal with those Endowments which admittedly, whatever their object, have been enjoyed for 250 years. I put this to the House as an axiom of which it will admit the justice, that there are only two reasons for which you could take away Endowments from any institution which had enjoyed them for 250 years, namely, that the object of the Endowment has ceased to exist or that the funds are being so misused that it is legitimate to take them away. It does seem to me that these are the only reasons, in elementary justice, on which you can found any argument for taking away from existing institutions funds which they have so long enjoyed. One thing emerges from this discussion which is beyond controversy. It cannot be said that anybody, even the most violent partisan of this Bill, has attempted to say that the funds of the Church have not been properly employed. The Prime Minister himself in a speech which he delivered, and which was quoted in this House by the late Mr. Lyttelton on 23rd April, said:—
"During the last seventy years, at any rate in the Church of England in Wales, there has been opened a new chapter, a new, beneficent and fruitful chapter. She now by every means which an enlightened statesmanship and strong spiritual devotion to the best needs of Welsh people could dictate, is overtaking, or endeavouring to overtake, the errors of the past."
5.0 P.M
The clergy are earnest, self-sacrificing, persistent, and able; the Church is active; and the only real complaint is not that she is misspending her Endowments, but that her resources are already too small for her needs. I submit to hon. Members opposite that you would not treat a cats' home in

1643
the way in which you are treating this Church, unless you could show some strong reason, or some misuse of the funds, or unless you could show that the institution in whose favour the funds had been given had teased to exist. Not an hon. Member opposite would attempt to rob the most humble institution of its funds and treat it in the way in which you are treating the Church in Wales unless some such reason could be shown for doing so. Do not forget that in taking from the Church in Wales these Endowments you are going to deprive her of funds out of which churches have been built and parishes have been formed, and the development, often costly development, of religious action has been encouraged. You now propose to leave them without those funds. One hundred and ninety-three parishes will be left without a penny of those funds which they have enjoyed for 250 years, and which by common consent have been spent in the highest form of Christianity—not only in administration to the religious needs of the community, but often in relief of distress among the very poor. Close upon 100 parishes will be left with less than 5s. a week, and 561 curates will find their occupation gone and with no prospects of compensation coming to them. What eloquence could equal those figures. Four hundred and twenty-one churchyards will be taken from the Church, whilst Nonconformist graveyards are left untouched. Only the other day, in this House, I took part in a Debate which arose upon a Bill introduced by Nonconformists in this House, to enable them to compulsorily acquire the freehold of the sites upon which their chapels are built, and where their burial grounds are situated. I was proud, as a very humble Member of this House, who sits upon the Back Benches, to give my humble support to that Bill. I spoke in its favour, and did what I could to promote it, because I thought it was justice to Nonconformists in that matter. How can Gentlemen who have asked and obtained that right from the House of Commons to acquire their chapels and their graveyards support a Bill to deprive us of that large number of our graveyards upon which our sentiment rests, and which have many associations for us? [An HON MEMBER: "They are not yours but the parishes."] I want to deal in a few words with some of the reasons which have been given for this drastic
1644
scheme of tile Disendowment of the Church, because I do not think it would be respectful to hon. Members opposite to try and maintain objections to this Bill unless I dealt with some of the arguments brought forward in support of those schemes. First of all, we are told that because in 1811 certain members of the Church of England ceased to conform to the doctrines of the Anglican Church, and that they now represent a section, although it must be remarked, not a majority, that therefore the funds of the Church should be taken away and handed I over not to those dissenting bodies but to the county council. I should have thought that it was common sense that if you voluntarily leave a body which is endowed, and whose Endowments you have not contributed, and if you do so with your eyes open, you leave that property behind you and that it is not open to you to complain afterwards that you have been deprived of the advantages which you have voluntarily given up.
Beyond that, it is said there is a want of continuity, and it is said that those Endowments were orginally given to a Church which is not the Church of to-day. In that connection we heard a great deal about the fact that the Endowments were largely given to the Roman Catholic Church in order to enable prayers to be raised for the souls of the dead. If you think that those funds belong to the Roman Catholic Church, why do you not restore them? As a matter of fact, the continuity of the Church has been established beyond all question. We have the words of the Prime Minister himself on the subject, and it is quite obvious that if you give funds to a Church whose support you have enjoyed, and whose ministrations have been availed of by you, those funds ought not to be taken away, because the doctrines and the rights have been altered from time to time. How would the Nonconformists like a theory of that kind put into active operation. If it was there would scarcely be a Nonconformist body in the land which could keep its Endowments unless from time to time they were allowed to alter tenets and doctrines of their particular set. That argument, also, upon several other grounds, does not hold water. Let me give an example. Supposing I, or somebody much more capable, were to give a certain amount to a hospital largely engaged in research work on cancer, and suppose that in the course of time, and with the advance

1645
of science, a cure was found for that disease, would anybody stand up in this House to say that because that dread complaint had been cured that therefore the gift which had been made to this hospital should be taken away and handed over to the county council. Surely it is unarguable that because any details of the management or doctrines of an institution are changed, therefore you are to take away the funds which have been given to that institution, and devote them to purposes entirely foreign to the objects for which they were intended.
It has been said, too, that tithe is a tax. If it is a tax, why enforce it, and why not remit the tax. Of course, it is not a tax. Much historical research has been devoted to this question as to whether it is a tax, but it is poor consolation to those who pay the tithe to be told that it is a tax, and I suppose to have the implication that it is an unjust tax, and to be left to pay it for all future time, not to the Church, but to a central fund which is to be handed over to the county council. Lastly, there was that argument which I am glad to say has disappeared recently from our Debates, and that was that it would be good for the Church. I think it was the Home Secretary, in introducing this Bill, had the hardihood, and he must have required it, to submit to the House the argument that it would be in favour of the Church, and would do the Church good if you took away her property, because why—because it would teach her to effect so many economies that in time she would be much richer. I wonder, how would the Home Secretary feel if he were to be deprived of half his salary in order to teach him to effect economies which ultimately would be for his good, and I wonder if hon. Members generally would like to be told, "We will take away half your £400, and that will teach you to effect economies."
That doctrine was, I think, chiefly dear to the heart of the present Liberal Parliamentary candidate for Ipswich, who may explain its charms to that thrice happy electorate. The final argument, and the one on which I think there has been more emphasis than any other, is that it was legitimate to attack the Church in Wales because its services were not satisfactory to Celtic nature. I deny that in toto. Remember that the Church in Wales has its Celtic congregation—they are still in the majority, and they attend the services. Do you think that the Church of England is so retrogade, or so stupid that it does
1646
not trouble to attune itself to the ideals, desires, and aspirations of its congregation. The Church services are as beautiful as the meagre funds will allow. In every way in which it is possible, they encourage and find expression for the Celtic nationalist sentiment, and it is for that reason that they have progressed with them. It is idle for hon. Members to come down here and say that this Church, which as I pointed out more than once, still commands the majority of adherents in Wales, is entirely out of touch because it does not understand the Celtic nature of its own congregation. In conclusion, let me sweep away all historical considerations and get to root fact. You are going to take away from a poor and hard-working Church the meagre funds which she so sorely needs, and with which she is doing you no harm, but with which, on the contrary, you must admit, she is doing the work of Christ, and you are going to give it to the county councils, and divorce it altogether from purposes of religion. Why should you do this? What has this Church done to deserve it, or that you should desire to harm her so?
Not only is that so, and not only are you attacking the Church, but you are as well outraging her sentiments. You may say that sentiment does not count. I do not agree—sentiment rules the world. What are the primeval forces of nature, hate and revenge, but sentiments? What is loyalty but sentiment? Sentiment still rules the world, and is at the bottom of most things. In depriving the Church of its means, and robbing her of the churchyards, you are, I am afraid, purposely outraging the sentiments of a keenly Christian religion. You are doing this at a time when we all admit the increasing need of money for the manifold duty of spreading Christian truths. I have always thought that one of the most painful parts of the duty of a minister of religion is to be constantly begging. If he has had to do so in the past, I do not think his duties are likely to be easier in the future in that respect. This is a time when, as you know, every Christian sect is doing its utmost to get together sufficient funds, and I honour you for it, and admire your energy, and wish you every success, in order to be able to give to those who preach the gospel a living wage, just something on which they can live divorced from the care of finding that wage. Just at that time, when we are all trying to provide funds for that purpose, you come

1647
down and you attack, as I say, a sect which is working side by side with you, and which has done no harm, and which you admit is spending its funds properly in the service of Christianity. You are doing it also at a time when the danger of atheism is increasingly felt in the land. I do not know if hon. Members quite realise the danger, but there are schools in this Metropolis where little children are taught atheism, and there are even those who think, quite conscientiously, that religion should be divorced from the education of the young. Atheism, free thinking, is making tremendous strides, but it has this advantage—that in face of a common enemy all Christian sects are moving towards each other in kindly recognition and kindly toleration. It has had that advantage, that it has bound us together in battle against the common enemy, and now, when that movement is progressing, and when every day ideals are enlarged and toleration is greater, and true Christianity is spreading among every sect, you choose this time and do your best to cripple a Christian sect—let me put it no higher—which works by your side, and which you admit is doing common work to the common advantage of Christianity.
I would appeal, in conclusion, to Nonconformists who sit opposite, and I would ask them what good to Christianity will this Bill effect? Will it relieve the necessity of one human being in distress, will it solve doubts, or will it bring comfort to any doubting spirit? Why do you want to wound, as you are doing, those with whom you are working in a common cause? To Liberal Churchmen who sit on the other side of the House what shall I say? Do not let it be supposed that I would venture to dictate. Such a thing is foreign to my thoughts; I would not even suggest it. But I would make an appeal from Back Benches to Back Benches. I would ask Liberal Churchmen to come forward and help our Church when it is in danger—our Church, which we love, to which we owe so much. I would ask Liberal Churchmen who think that there is justice in the demands which we venture to put forward not to forget their party politics, but deliberately and consciously to set them aside for a higher and nobler object.
Mr. EDWARD WOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.
1648
I think that all who heard the speech of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hume-Williams) will agree that he has made a most forcible and an extremely comprehensive presentment of our case. For my part, I feel that in what he said at the outset he gave expression to what most of us feel more keenly at this time than almost anything else, and that is the grave complaint that we have in the whole method by which this matter has been treated by the Government, and the whole evolution of the political position as we now find it. I am one of those who are disposed to think that there is something more than accidental routine in the arrangement of business by which this Welsh Bill is given precedence over the Home Rule Bill. It would not be unnatural, from the point of view of hon. Members opposite, if they were unwilling, by the passage through this House of the Home Rule Bill for the third and last time, to deprive themselves of what for two or three years has been an all-powerful hostage in order to guarantee the support of hon. Members from Ireland. If that is true, it means that, when we are entering for the last time upon these discussions, you are afraid to do what you have never yet been able to do, namely, to put the Irish party in a position that they have never yet known—that of being able to vote upon the merits or demerits of this Bill without ulterior considerations. Is there any gainsaying the fact that of these two Bills, the Home Rule Bill and the Welsh Bill, the former commands the larger measure of assent on the benches opposite? It is based on the hope and belief—mistakenly, as we think—that you may be able in the future to realise an ideal by the grant of the proposed powers. The Welsh Bill, on the other hand, avowedly proceeds upon the supposed shortcomings of Churchmen in the past. There is accumulated evidence to show with what open dislike the Disendowment provisions are confessedly viewed by hon. Members opposite. Yet it is with regard to the Bill that avowedly commands the greater measure of assent that you are prepared to introduce concessions, even to the extent of an amending Bill. What does that mean? Surely only one thing—and it is not a thing which leads to respect for the House of Commons—that you are prepared to concede to force what you will not even begin to consider in the ease of claims that are not advanced with the accompaniment of force.
I do not wish, after what my hon. and learned Friend has said, to go into detail

1649
either as to the extent of your policy or as to the foundation upon which you support it. We judge it essentially from the point of view of principle, that has a direct and immediate application in many directions to the life of the Church and of the State, especially of the State. Therefore it is worth while, I think, even at this eleventh hour, to restate the reasons why we are so opposed to this Bill, and the considerations which make it impossible for us to enter into any bargain with you, or to come to any terms, either as to your policy or as to the degree to which you shall give effect to it. It is a Bill for Disestablishment. I suppose that there is no term in the English language that has been more responsible for confusion of thought than the term "Establishment." That confusion of thought, I believe, has been responsible for such demand as underlies this Bill. It is a very serious thing when words are the offspring of confused thought. It is far more serious when words themselves create confusion of thought, as I think has been the case here. Many hon. Members who have voted faithfully for Disestablishment would be very hard put to it to define what they mean by it. In no case do we need to guard ourselves more scrupulously against that most disastrous of all habits, trying to read the history of the twelfth and sixteenth centuries by the light of our notions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Even granting for the sake of argument that you can make out a case for the illogicality of the State's having any peculiar relationship with one religious denomination, wherein is that relationship unjust or inequitable to Nonconformists? If anybody suffers it is the Church, who suffers by the false interpretation current as to what is involved in that relationship. It is supposed, wrongly, as I think, to justify the subjection of the Church to the control of a House of Commons that is avowedly secular. But if that be true, the remedy for it is not this Bill, but to recognise the inherent liberty of the Church, and to grant her a larger measure thereof.
That there are grave differences between the Church and Nonconformist sects I should be the last to deny. There are differences of doctrine and of organisation, differences social and often political; but I challenge any hon. Member opposite to prove that any one of those differences either is caused by Establishment or would be cured by Disestablishment. Many people support this Bill in the expectation
1650
that it will be responsible for a fundamental alteration in the character of what I may call the essence of the Church. There could be no more profound delusion. There may be changes; but hon. Members may be assured that the life and the being of the Church are beyond the power of this or any other Parliament. Whether this Bill pass or fail, whether the Church be endowed or disendowed, whether she be confirmed in her property or deprived of it by politicians, the Church will remain the same in doctrine and in discipline, inspired' by the same ideals, and based on the same-principles as she has always been. Some hon. Members seem to think that this Bill is going to alter the character of the Church in some unknown direction. Let them not hug themselves with that delusion. I noticed in the "Times" on Saturday a somewhat remarkable letter from the Dean of Ripon. For the Dean of Ripon I have, on personal grounds, the greatest possible "respect, but he is a gentleman with whom on every matter of profound controversy I should probably disagree: therefore, his opinion will be likely to have with hon. Members opposite more weight than that of other ecclesiastical dignities. I was very much struck to see that the dean, after deploring the fact that the rules and discipline of the Church as they now exist have the effect of cutting the Christian nation at once into two hostile camps, concluded by saying:—
"I will only state that I have been a Liberal all my life, and a constant advocate of all measures which would place Nonconformists, among whom I have many friends, in a position in which Episcopalian and Non-episcopalian members of our Christian nation may unite in their common work. But it seems to me that the present Bill would increase the evils complained of instead of removing them."
By the testimony of one who has been an avowed supporter of the Liberal party all his life, and who holds views widely differing from those held by hon. Members on this side, both on ordinary politics and on church politics, your Bill is unhesitatingly condemned. Nor is the dean alone in that position. We on this side, both in and out of the House, have repeatedly pressed for an answer to the perfectly-plain question—In what respect does the relationship existing between the State and the Church of England in Wales penalise any single Nonconformist? We have repeatedly expressed our willingness to extend to Nonconformists, either in Wales or in England, any privileges that can be shown to be the result of that relationship. Therefore you cannot be

1651
surprised that, in the absence of any response to this request, we begin to be sceptical when you tell us that what inspires you is the desire to get rid of a paper illogicality, to promote unity, to further the Church's efficiency, and that for these objects it is necessary to deprive the Church of £158,000 a year. I very much doubt whether hon. Members on the other side of the House, who know Wales better than I do, and have more right to speak on the point, can do so, but so far as I have been able to inform myself, I doubt very much whether, from the most extreme Nonconformist view, it is possible to make out a case for the statement that it is the Establishment, so-called, that is a bar to religious unity in Wales to-day. Well-informed and competent observers have told me that one of the most noteworthy tendencies of Welsh Nonconformity to-day is what I might call "a disruptive centrifugal tendency," which I have been told—though I do not vouch for it—is responsible for one in every five of the chapels in the Principality. If that be approximately true, is it not ridiculous to make that claim as to the bar to unity? There are those who talk about unity! Unity is a very tender plant. Whether you are confronted with differences of one sort or another, the only atmosphere in which that plant of unity will grow is a great and rushing desire for it—a desire that will impel you always to view your differences by the light of unfailing charity.
Can hon. Members opposite suggest that this Bill, with those provisions to which my hon. and learned Friend drew particular attention, is likely to promote that spirit of unfailing charity by which alone you can promote the cause of unity? Then, with regard to Disendowment, let me repeat the question: Why do we on this side fight the battle at this time? It is not—let me again repeat—that we fight for money as such. We fight for the work that money enables us to do. What follows the robbery of £158,000 from the Church? It means that the officers of the Church in their various capacities have got to set to and rebuild the Endowments that you will wantonly destroy. Can anybody suppose—and I frankly admit it—that the direct spiritual work of the Church has not been hampered in the last three years by the fact that the Welsh bishops, clergy, and others have been compelled to divert
1652
their attention, even in some degree, even from direct spiritual work, in order to resist your proposals? A great many hon. Members on the other side deplore, as much as we can possibly deplore, the low-result when a religious organisation becomes immersed in other and more mundane considerations. Therefore, you will be doing the greatest possible disservice to any religious organisation when you increase the volume of mundane work to be discharged before you can get the spiritual work proper. What is the universal experience of Nonconformist sects themselves in this matter?
In 1902—I dare say this already has been quoted in the House—Lord Bryce, then a Member of this House, rested his main defence of the Welsh proposals of that date directly upon his opinion that the voluntary principle was generally preferable, and that it was the secret of the success which the Nonconformist sects have achieved. What is the case now? Every Nonconformist sect, I think I may say without exception, is appealing for endowment funds. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has lent the weight of his support to one of the greatest of those appeals. How, in the face of that, you can substantiate your plea that by Disendowment you are also making the Church more efficient is something which requires more ingenuity than I can lay claim to to understand. The fact is that what was years ago termed "free trade in religion" has hopelessly, finally, and irrecoverably broken down, and I venture to say that hon. Members on the opposite side of the House know that as well as we do here. I hope, though, that hon. Members will not think that because they have failed to achieve results that they perhaps wanted that their efforts will be barren. I have said something about the effect on the Church. My hon. and learned Friend said a good deal about the effect on the State. I would only add a word to what he said. He reminded us what has been the course of thought in the last generation or two on these matters: how we have moved from Erastianism to Liberationist theories, and how in turn Liberationist theories have been discarded in favour of the thought that now nearly all of us, either consciously or unconsciously, accept, namely, that religion and the religious instinct is the real underpinning foundation of society, and is the basis upon which society as a whole must always rest. If anyone doubts that; if anybody is disposed to doubt that religion is the most

1653
potent, single social force that we now know of, I would ask him what would have been the course of the world's history, more especially English history—with which we are more familiar—if you had taken out of that history the men who have influenced it, and who were inspired in the direction in which they influenced it by the touch of religion? How much philanthropy would you have had without that. If, therefore, that be true, and if it is to religion rather than to laws that you must look to effect your social reforms for you, what folly it is that during the very time you are trying to stimulate the public conscience to wake up to overdue social reform, when in every direction the force and the grip of materialism is becoming tighter, and when the most superficial acquaintance with the contemporary thought and literature of our day shows us that it is not only the outward expression but the very anchors of morality that are being challenged and dragged, what folly, I say, at that time to force a quarrel with the forces that ought to be your greatest ally in the battle.
Let hon. Members be under no delusion as to another matter. The results of your policy will not be confined within the four borders of this country. I doubt very much whether anybody who realises what Christianity has done in the past in the world's history, and what it has yet to do, can contemplate without dismay what will be the result of this policy when the news reaches many parts of the world where at this moment the battle of Christianity is being most keenly and stoutly contested. What will be said, for example, when the news reaches China that in the great Christian country of the West the people have seen fit to divert funds that have been for centuries devoted to religious purposes and devote them to purposes entirely unconnected with any religious administration? I express my opinion that when the news reaches China—and there are many other places like China—when it is passed from lip to lip against Christianity, that the evil effect is not likely to be diminished by your nice explanations in this House as to the exact historical growth and meaning of Establishment.
Mr. WILLIAM JONES (Lord of the Treasury): At the outset let me say how sympathetically I view most of the remarks of the Seconder of this Motion for the rejection when he touched upon the
1654
vital and essential power of religion in all social, intellectual, and other questions. I have in the course of my life spoken hundreds of times on Welsh Disestablishment, but I have never said a word about the religion of the Church in Wales. God forbid I should do so! Our quarrel is not with religion or with the Church. Our quarrel is with the Establishment. The Seconder of the Motion comes at once into touch with us when he says that throughout the world to-day Christianity is working against infidelity, atheism, and materialism, with a united front. But in all our Colonies—Crown Colonies as well—and in the whole of the United States of America, it is working without an establishment. It has freedom. It has, to use the term of the hon. Member, that sentiment to go to the people without the trammels of any State Establishment. Let me turn for a moment to some of the remarks of the Mover of the Motion. Let me join with him in the terms he used with regard to the late Mr. Alfred Lyttelton. Though I was opposed to him, we were always on terms of the most cordial personal friendship. The Mover of the Resolution has dealt with the whole question, not from the Welsh point of view, not from the inwardness of the national standpoint, but from the stand point of an Englishman, taking his cue mainly from what the Church of England is doing in England. There is no parallel between either the activity or the history of the two Churches. The hon. Member said something about the Parliament Act. He questioned some of the points of the Parliament Act in regard to this Bill. Let me quote to him the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the former Leader of the Opposition. On the Second Reading of this Bill, on 21st April, the right hon. Gentleman said:—
"The Parliament Act was originally an interim arrangement intended to allow Home Rule and the Welsh Church Bill to pass. That was the object with which it was brought in. That was the avowed object. The Act was an instrument intended to carry out these reforms."'
When was the Parliament Bill originally introduced? It was introduced into the House of Commons in May, 1910. It was introduced into the House of Lords in November, 1910. The last General Election took place in December, 1910. The hon. Gentleman touched upon the lack of meetings in favour of the Bill in Wales. He spoke of the lack of enthusiasm there as compared with the innumerable petitions and meetings against the Bill. I do not want to carry that matter too far, but

1655
examine the methods of obtaining signatures. I have letters innumerable which show that in some cases ministers of the Gospel whose names are on the petitions never saw the petitions. They were obtained, just the same as the votes of the Welsh voters were obtained before 1868; they were obtained by territorial magnates; they were obtained by Churchmen who were landlords; they were obtained by captains of industry; they were obtained in my Constituency by agents and by stewards. What did it all mean really? There were innumerable petitions, twice as many as you have against this Bill, presented against the Education Act of 1902; quite as many as you have against this Bill were presented against the Licensing Act. What did you do with our objections? You despised them. You despised them just as much as you did the Welsh majority that came from Wales. We do not despise petitions in Wales, but what they prove to us in Wales is what a thoroughly good and right thing the Ballot Act is. I want to give some quotations from bishops, and most of the quotations I intend to give are going to be from the words of bishops and Churchmen and very few from Nonconformists—none if I can help it. What did Bishop Jayne say on this question. There was a complaint in some cases that Churchmen were afraid to say what they thought against this Bill, but let us not forget that there are thousands of Churchmen in Wales who are good Liberals. We have seven or eight Liberal Churchmen Members for Wales, and we had from the beginning. Now what did Bishop Jayne say? He said:
"Let them (the friends of the Church) whisper their secret in the ballot boxes."
That is what the Welsh people have done since 1868. On this great question they have done more whispering, and they have at last used the ballot boxes and voted at the polls. We have found it a great argument that ought to be understood by the people of England. England has made constitutional government the basis of the Constitution. You have offered the world that principle and that doctrine, and it is going back on that principle if you have recourse to petitions and speeches and public meetings. Welsh people have whispered their secrets in the ballot boxes, with the result that the constitutional majority in Wales in the last eight General Elections has been overwhelmingly in favour of this Bill. Let me quote what the "Church Times" said, not a decade
1656
ago or twenty years ago, but on 24th November, 1911:—
"If Wales were a separate country, with a separate Legislature, then there would hardly be room for any discussion at all. Disestablishment would be effected straightaway by an overwhelming majority,"
Then we have other questions. The hon. Member who moved the rejection dealt with the churchyards—the parish churchyards—criticising the demands of the Nonconformists that they should have equal rights, and that all the parishioners should have equal rights. At the present moment there are no churchyards, but there are-parish churchyards. They belong to the parish, and let us not forget this fact—that in the vast majority of the rural agricultural districts of Wales the vast majority are Nonconformists, and their ancestors lie buried in these churchyards. If you keep the churchyards after Disestablishment, what will occur? Why, instead of being churchyards belonging to the parish, they become the churchyards of a sect, because after Disestablishment the Church will become a sect in Wales. I would like to call the attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite to this fact: You have always been telling us that our majority on this Bill was an Irish majority. As a Whip I take some account of the figures, and what do I see, that on all the essential Divisions, and during all the great Divisions on this Bill, in all the most important majorities on the Second and Third Reading every year, if you take the Irish Members from both sides—and that is fair, though hon. Members opposite would eliminate only the Nationalists, but we, for the sake of this argument, chose to eliminate the Ulster Orangemen as well—and if you do that you will find a British majority in all the great Divisions ranging from 22 to 47. The last majority was a clear British majority of 28 on Second Reading.
But we do not dwell upon British majorities only—we have the Act of Union still in force, and surely from the constitutional point of view, the Irish are just as much a part of this Assembly as anyone else, and we are proud to get their help. Then both hon. Members referred to sentiment. Did it ever occur to them why the sentiment of the Welsh people is against Anglicanism. In Scotland, the sentiment of the people is against Anglicanism, and the Scottish people became Presbyterians. Scotland remained Presbyterian. Scotland fought and triumphed over Anglicanism. Again, take the case of Ireland—Ireland is Catholic,

1657
not Anglican. In the Isle of Man, in Cornwall—all the Celtic peoples are against Anglicanism. The Isle of Man and Cornwall have become Wesleyans, and the Welsh have become Nonconformists. I am proud to join with the Noble Lord opposite in saying that this is a religious question, that there is a religious principle behind this matter. That is why the Liberal Members from Wales are here. They would not be here, not one of us, but for the birth of this great religious revival in Wales. The genius of this movement of the Free Churches is a religious movement. It began with the great birth of opinion, and with the birth of a nation, and with the birth of the nation came the great Nonconformist leaders, not a secession from the Church, but driven from the Church by force, many of them wishing, as Luther wished, to keep in touch with the Church of Rome, so that all these leaders who were in their heart of hearts, and it was only against their will they severed their connection, and then came the new birth during that great religious revival which we have in Wales to-day in all the force that makes for national life. The Welsh revival transformed the moral and intellectual life of the whole of our people. I should like all hon. Members to read something of the history of the old Church writers of the seventeenth century. The Church of England is Anglicanism. At one time in its career it had a real chance of taking hold upon the people of Wales. That was when the Welsh Tudors were on the throne, when they sent Welsh bishops, great scholars, Welsh statesmen from Wales, leaving Wales and the Welsh people in gross ignorance and darkness. You have only to read the reports of the lives of the Welsh Churchmen. What did some of the great bards and men of letters in the 18th century say of the Church, which was to take hold of the people? Why, that it was an Anglicising movement owing to the State connection. From that we have got a new life. We owe a great deal to Church scholars of the Bible and the New Testament, but we know infinitely more as Nonconformists of the religious views of districts from many works written by Churchmen themselves. Books, religious in character, were spread and distributed in thousands. Pamphlets, literature, journalism, intellectual activity, a wider outlook on life, the education of democracy in Wales, politics, all sprung from this great revival, and that is the reason why some hon. Members on the
1658
other side fail to see that we do not believe in Christianity through formulæs or sacerdotal Christianity. I am not condemning these from their point of view, but this Christianity of ours is Christianity based upon the New Testament, upon thought and life of all great preachers and great journalists; and periodical writers and educationists, who take their inspiration for politics and everything else from the Great Book. Let me, in that case, read what Dean Edwards said in the Church congress. Dean Edwards was never a Liberal, he was never a Disestablisher, but he was almost on the brink of becoming a Liberal, and almost on the verge of despair for the Church. What did he say?—
"For 150 years, every teacher whose name lives in the hearts of the Welsh people has been almost without, exception a Nonconformist. While the bishops were laying hands upon unfit men, the natural heaven-born teachers of Wales were influencing thousands in the chapel, and Cymmanfa. Of the clergy, those who were educated knew no Welsh, and those who knew Welsh were not educated. Those who had something to say could not, say it to the people, and those who could say it had nothing to say."
6.0 P.M.
These were Church dignitaries. He was one of the few Churchmen who helped Welsh Nonconformists in that great education movement. Listen to what Dean Edwards said in a letter to Mr. John Gee in reference to the educational matter of Endowments when we were just starting the great secondary education movement in Wales. He said:—
"I am, by the fortunes of war as a clergyman, almost compelled to be a Conservative. But I am, in these days, able to find some consolation in the belief that the Liberal representatives understand the popular aspirations of Wales and of the Welsh people, and will probably do something considerable for their realisation."
That is one of the things which Welsh Liberal Members, from Henry Richard down to Tom Ellis, have done. This is the last lap and the last chapter in the history of liberty of religion cast in this Debate, and this Bill will pass from heated arguments and controversies into the solemn realm of fact and reality. Since Dean Edwards' time the Church has shown increased activity, and a new spirit has shown itself, but still it shows no sign of becoming the organ of the religious faith and aspirations of the Welsh people. Listen to what Canon Hobhouse said at the Church Congress at Stoke in October, 1911:—
"The weakness of the Church seems to be more marked in purely rural districts, and where there is a predominance of Welsh-speaking people. The lack of Welsh-speaking clergy was one main cause of the origin of dissent, and this is reflected in the present state of

1659
the Church. We are left with the impression that the Church still feels more at home with the English-speaking population, and with the comfortable classes. In spite of herself she has not altogether shaken off a certain aloofness and stiffness of movement, but continues to be hampered by the results of past mistakes and by defects of system."
Then there came the Bangor protest in 1895, signed by the leading vicars of the Church and the Warden of the School of Divinity at Bangor. What did he say?
"At present our leaders in the Church are bewildered by the national awakening which we see on all sides in politics, in literature, in education. The whole stream of the national revival is flowing past us."
That is an admission from the ablest members of the Church itself, that the Church was taking to the backwater, leaving the main stream of culture and literature and social reform in the hands of the Nonconformists. The Church itself remains to-day in intimate touch with only one-tenth of the people, while they say the Nonconformists claim to be in touch with three times as many. Those are the figures of the Church Commission after going into the matter very carefully.
Lord HUGH CECIL: The figures were wrong.
Mr. W. JONES: Yes, there have been figures on both sides. In the figures pre pared by the Nonconformists a mistake of only 500 was found, whereas when the Church statistics were examined they found mistakes of thousands. The Noble Lord opposite only needs to read the report of Mr. J. H. Davis—
Lord HUGH CECIL: If the hon. Member will read the report of the archdeacon he will find just the opposite to that which ho has stated.
Mr. W. JONES: In St. Asaph's there was a revolt of the clergy, and the bishop there was alleged to be—
"pursuing without restraint a policy which sooner or later must be fatal to the position of the Church in Wales."
In spite of the activity and reform of the Church, 75 out of 206 of the beneficed clergy of the diocese of St. Asaph's signed a protest, and they told the bishop that a vast majority of them were, ready to sign, only they were afraid, and those who did sign were the men who had the richest benefices under the Bishop himself, and were not afraid of him. The Rector of Marchwiel, in declining an invitation to meet the Bishop of Wrexham, wrote:—
"The only kind of meeting you deserve at my hand is the national one of cuigelling with a wild ash stick."
1660
I can assure the House that it is infinitely stronger in Welsh.
HON. MEMBERS: Say it!
Mr. W. JONES: Pastwn onen wyllt.
Mr. HOARE: Will the hon. Gentleman give us the date of that?
Mr. W. JONES: 1900. Our nationality strove to meet materialism, scepticism, doubt, tuberculosis, and questions of that sort. Our Christianity has always been the ever-moving force of the national life. One of our greatest journalists, Dr. William Lees, who was a great preacher and a lecturer, wrote letters to the farmers of Wales, and that is one of the reasons why the fanners in Wales are Radicals and democrats to-day. They were taught politics through Christianity, and politics from that point of view was a practical application of the Christian ideals of New Testament teaching. That is why Churchmen, particularly Anglicans, failed to understand the requirements of the Welsh national life. We agree with what a great Scotsman, Dr. Caird, said in a sermon he preached, in which he said:
Religion is not a thing by itself apart. It is something which has to do with everything that we are and everything that we do."
That is the meaning of Christianity to Nonconformists in Wales. There are plenty of Nonconformists who are not perfect, just as there are Churchmen who are not perfect. In the Gallery of this House when I was a boy I met one of the most saintly laymen of Wales who was a Pressman writing his weekly letter for the papers. I afterwards met him at education and political meetings, or at lucid intervals after writing his letters—[Laughter]—yes, they were very lucid intervals for Wales, because he brought Christianity through journalism into education, and often have I seen him with a cough shaking him through and through advocating not merely freedom of religion, but the higher education of the poor in Wales. He was connected with Aberystwyth College, where he inspired young men to follow his example. Those were men who took their Christianity seriously, and made it four square with everything appertaining to Welsh life. That is why our nationality in Wales is what it is today. It has been said that these Endowments are to be devoted to secular purposes. Why do you say Endowments for secular purposes? We do not know those secular purposes. The Church itself has these Endowments as a trust for the people.

1661
That might be so when the Church in Wales was coterminous with the nation, but can anyone say now, even by using the highest figure with which the Noble Lord opposite can speculate, that it is coterminous with the nation to-day? We say that a substantial and essential part of those Endowments should be given not to Nonconformists, because they do not want them; Nonconformists get their Endowments by voluntary effort, and they have been doing work, not for Nonconformists only, but for the whole democracy of Wales. They have built colleges. Aberystwyth College was mainly built by Nonconformists. The first cheque for that college was one which came from a Nonconformist, the late Mr. David Davis, who gave a cheque for £5,000, and his grandson, who is now a Member of this House, endowed a college with one of the finest libraries in these islands. That is the spirit which has come from the great Nonconformists' ideals. We want these Endowments for a nation and not for Nonconformists. Why? Because a nation is greater than any sect. What did Archbishop Temple say, as quoted in the "Yorkshire Post":—
"It is a trust placed in our hands for the good of all, a trust given in the most sacred way for the general good of the country as a whole."
That is why we are for Disendowment, and the moment there is Disestablishment there will be hundreds and thousands of laymen and clergymen, particularly young clergymen of the new school, who are anxious to burst the fetters of formularism—join their contribution to the fuller life of Wales. I often wonder how it is as compared with England that the memories of some of these great clergymen are not enshrined in song. We have not, as far as I can remember, a single bishop or a dignitary of the Welsh Church whose name is on the tongue of the common people in song. Look at the parish priest in Ireland. One of their most beautiful songs is "Sogart Aroon," the Darling Priests, the priest who sympathises with the people. We have thousands of poems echoing and reechoing the glory of Welsh Nonconformist preachers. There is one of a bishop, a classic, which I know by heart. I learnt it as a boy. It was written by a Welsh clergyman, but it was not about a Welsh bishop. It was about the great missionary bishop and hymn writer, Bishop Heber. Even in Wales Bishop Heber is remembered in an old elegy. Now, let me turn attention to one or two features with regard to the present and the future. Even to-day, as before, the great preachers of Wales are
1662
Nonconformists. There was one great Church preacher, and the Nonconformists would have made him a bishop, but he was never made a bishop. That was Dean Howell. He was at St. David's Cathedral when they had Welsh services there. At the present moment there is not a single Welsh cathedral service in any one of the four dioceses. There are Celt Church services in Welsh, but not a single Catholic cathedral service. The moment Dean Howell was dead an English dean was appointed in his place, even in one of the "Welshiest" districts.
How can hon. Gentlemen opposite understand Wales unless they know something of the power of the great personalities of Wales? I have often heard it said that the unit of Church administration is the parish, and very often that we have scores, if not hundreds, of parishes without a resident minister which after Disestablishment and Disendowment will lose spiritual ministrations. Not at all. There is not a cottage or shepherd's cot but the inmates have the ministrations of spiritual Christianity given them day by day and Sunday by Sunday. It is more than Church people get, because very often the incumbents of the Church are fettered by certain regulations and dare not go beyond the diocese to preach. In Wales the great Nonconformist preachers, whether in South, Mid, or North Wales, go wherever they like, and they are very often in mountain districts, far from the sound of industry, where only the bleat of sheep can be heard, and there they preach to the poorest in the land. I myself remember going often with one of the great modern preachers of Wales. I have heard great preachers, both Anglican and Nonconformist, in London, but I have never heard a greater preacher than Dr. Thomas G. Edwards, head of Aberystwyth College. I heard him at Oxford preach to the dons and students, and the verdict, one after another of Churchmen and Nonconformists alike was that they had never heard a greater sermon. I had the pleasure of climbing mountains in Wales—I used to climb Plynhymon on a Sunday afternoon—to hear this man preach to a fold of six shepherds or of peasant farmers, and he preached to them with the same spiritual fervour and the same scholarliness of exposition as he exhibited at Oxford, only in simpler language. The Welsh cottagers have had the means for the last six years, and they have the means now, of hearing the great-

1663
est thinkers, the greatest ministers, and the greatest pastors.
Let me tell the House that it is from these cottages that nearly all our great scholars have sprung. If you glance over the list of the great scholars of Wales today you will find that the historians of our nation and the grammarians of our nation have been poor boys who have sprung from cottages. At one time we could not send our men to Oxford and Cambridge, and some of them used to walk all the way to Edinburgh and Glasgow, but to-day, thanks to the efforts of these people, we have got a university and three constituent colleges, 75 per cent. of the students of which are drawn from our secondary schools, whilst 90 per cent. of the students in our secondary schools are drawn from the elementary schools. See how catholic it is? I am not going to say it is next to Scotland. Scotland centuries ago had that which we had not, alongside with Presbyterianism and Free Kirkism. That is one of the reasons why Scotsmen have been such great administrators and statesmen for the Empire. National we are to the core, but we have been Empire builders, too. The Tudors are of Welsh blood. Who is the Lord Chief Justice of India to-day? A Welshman, one of the greatest servants sent there by the Crown. The late Chief Justice of Australia was a Welshman, and the teacher in the finest chair of moral philosophy in Scotland today is another Welshman, Sir Henry Jones. Most of these were country-born on the Uplands and lived among shepherds.
People in England cannot understand our arguments; save the argument that you, Mr. Speaker, will appreciate, the constitutional argument. I say it again, because I have hundreds and thousands of Church friends, and we respect each other's convictions. The Church is following Nonconformity now in the large towns of England. One must not forget that, wherever Welsh Nonconformists go, whether to London, Liverpool, Manchester or Birmingham, there they build themselves Free Churches and maintain them by voluntary offerings. I should like some hon. Gentlemen opposite to attend some of the Welsh services on a Sunday evening in London. I should like them to go to the Wesleyan Welsh Church in City Road, to the Calvinistic Methodist Church in Charing Cross Road, or to the Independents at King's Cross. We have in London alone
1664
thirty-two chapels. One denomination has twelve branches. The Church of England, when I came here, had only one Welsh Church. I am glad to pay tribute to it and to say that it has five to-day, so that it is following in the footsteps of Nonconformity when given the alternative. In the Liverpool and Manchester area we have seventy Welsh Nonconformist churches. In America and Canada there has been established a system of Welsh churches throughout the land, and the number of churches where Welsh services are held number over 420, but those of the Anglican faith are all held in the English tongue, and it is a remarkable fact that even Welsh Churchmen, when they go oversea, are known to become adherents of the Nonconformist Welsh Church. Go to the Argentine and in Patagonia there are twenty-four Welsh Nonconformist churches. President Roosevelt told me at the White House that the finest citizens in America were those who organised their religion—Scandinavians, Scotchmen, Welshmen. In Australia there are two Welsh Nonconformist churches, in New Zealand one, and in South Africa three. In Bristol there are two, in Birmingham two, in Newcastle one, and in Middlesbrough two.
If you go to some of the London churches you will find between 700 and 800 members and communicants, many of them assistants in drapers' shops. There was an appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) in one of the Debates on this Bill, and there was an appeal made today by the Mover of the Motion for the rejection. I, too, will make my appeal. What are we doing in Wales to-day to meet the needs of our religious and social life? It is the Nonconformist Churches which are preparing to meet the spiritual needs of the great masses of our people, and they do it by providing that the young ministers in all our denominational Churches shall take their Arts Degree at a Welsh university or go through a postgraduate course at Oxford or Cambridge. I will read what was said of this by Sir Harry Reichel, the principal of Bangor College, himself an Anglican and a Conservative, at the Church Congress at Manchester in 1908, when showing how Wales during the last quarter of a century had undergone "an educational reconstruction amounting almost to a revolution":—
"But Lampeter the oldest chief training for Church Ordnands is entrenched in a Royal Charter and defended by loyal affection of a large body of graduates who are not unnaturally inclined to resent any proposal

1665
for reconstruction as an imputation of inefficiency against their Alma mater.' 'The educational revolution which has transformed Wales has left the education of the Church clergy virtually untouched.' Referring to post graduate study in theology he states—'Assuming that all those who went, on to other colleges were graduates, the proportion would work out thus: (1) Taking post graduate theology for at least two years—Lampeter one in 22, Nonconformists all.'"
That is how we are training our ministers to fit them for our intellectual needs of the future. This great scholarly Churchman says:—
"When I first came to Wales, Lampeter turned out a better type of man than the best of the Nonconformist colleges. The positions are now reversed. The Nonconformist colleges have brought themselves into line with this movement. Lampeter stands where she did."
If you want to know who are our great historians, who are the great theologians, and who are the great writers of Wales, you will find they are nearly all scholars from our Nonconformist colleges. There is, however, a new movement among the young Churchmen. They, too, insist upon coming to our national colleges, and that is a great sign, a good augury for the future. The same thing has happened in the world of social reform in the great industrial centres of South Wales. Who have been working there for social reform? Who have been Christianising largely the gaolbirds of Somersetshire and Warwickshire, and crying to them, "Come, join our ranks." This is no laughing matter. A late chairman of the Somersetshire County Council told me that nearly all the men released from gaol in the counties of Somerset, Warwick, and Gloucester, are sent off to the Welsh collieries. I am not putting any claim for anyone, but there is work to be done here, work to be done by Christianity. It is being done by the forward Nonconformist movement. I have not heard of any forward Church movement in these industrial centres. I know there are missions, but they are not of the same extent as our forward movement at Newport, Merthyr, Tredegar, and like districts—nothing to the same extent. We are doing more. It may interest the House to know that one sect in Wales has a mission at Assam, and a great Indian statesman has said that this little Calvinistic Methodist Mission was one of the finest missions in India.
The hon. Member who moved the rejection of this Bill says that if this Bill passes there will be bitter conflict. No, there will not, and I will tell the House why there will be neither bitterness nor conflict. There will be temporary inconvenience and embarrassment, but not conflict or bitterness, because we have in Wales
1666
great forces to combat, and all our intellectual, moral, social, and industrial strength will be needed to help. All the best Christians will have to come together. We are doing our share in Wales, and to-day the best young Churchmen are eager to burst their fetters and join us, and when this great storm and stress of religious strife is over, then, apart from sect, apart from Anglicanism, apart from sectarianism, all these forces will flow together for the regeneration of Wales. That is what we hope from this Bill, and I venture to think we shall not hope in vain. There will be a merger of the Churches, and all these hundreds of thousands of laymen will participate in it. Hundreds of young clergymen who are nationalists to the core will then come out and make the Church more national than Anglican, more spiritual than Erastian, and more Christian than all.
Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: The hon. Gentleman who spoke last commended himself to the House in a way in which real farvour when thus manifested never fails. He has shown as regards his country, and some of the best things in it, an intimate knowledge in which I must sorrowfully confess there are few in this House can compete with him. He has claimed that the members and adherents of the Free Churches in Wales have done very much to advance all that is best in Welsh life, but I cannot help calling to mind the time when the Welsh University Act was passed, and I seem to remember something being then said about some things done and sums of money given even by Churchmen.
Mr. W. JONES: I said so.
Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: If that be part of history, it seems to me it is a poor return we are making to try and contend here to-day, when things have changed so little in Wales, that you can get no redress except by bringing in this particular Bill. The hon. Gentleman showed a great knowledge of Welsh history, and he spoke as if Wales had enjoyed some great deliverance from burdens unnamed and from political tyrannies beyond description when the ballot was brought into force. I am afraid I am old enough to remember the first General Election held under the Ballot Act, when a large Conservative majority was returned in the United Kingdom, and I believe it is true to say that Conservatism and that Churchmen improved their position in that General Election in

1667
Wales, as in the rest of the United Kingdom. That was the election of 1874. The hon. Gentleman has unfolded a record of his country, a record of which any country might be proud; but what we fail to see is why, on that ground, the property of the Church should be taken away, and its status altered, as we think, for the worse. I might detain the House long by the discussion of the old familiar grounds. But we can to-day discuss two points. Either we can discuss what we are doing, or we can discuss the circumstances in which we are doing it. It is open to us to discuss and criticise and condemn on its merits the Bill which we are asked to discuss. It is open to us, on the other hand, to protest against the unreality of these so-called deliberations of ours, and against the cynical opportunism, as we think it, of the decision which everyone knows in advance is going to be given.
I will address myself, first, to the circumstances in which we are discussing this Bill. The outstanding feature seems to be the note of triumph which we read in the Ministerial Press and in the utterances of outside speakers. References are made to our situation on this side of the House under the operation of the Parliament Act. Taunts are levelled against our political impotence to do as we did before—when our two-Chamber system was unchanged, and when we could stop Bills, or if we could not stop them, we could get them referred to the people of this country. I refer to these forms of exultation because they do at least recognise there is on this side of the House and amongst Churchmen all over the United Kingdom a feeling of strong and well-justified indignation and resentment at the proposals of this Bill. I can tell hon. Gentlemen that this indignation applies not only to the matter but also to the manner of this Bill. We condemn not only the fruitlessness and destructiveness of what is being done, but we condemn also the form under which, as we say, popular authority is being usurped. Whether caused by violence or by chicane in method or by wrongfulness in the thing itself, our resentment lives and lasts, and we say will remain, a sure mark of the failure of your legislation to achieve that consent and that contentment at which all statesmanship is supposed to aim. Of the circumstances in which we are met to read this Bill a Third time to-day, I will say this one thing more: All these forms
1668
of yours by which you are straining the principles of our Constitution are evidence chiefly of one thing—that is, of your haste to get this procedure applied before this House gets dissolved and sent to its constituents. That haste, we think, is begotten by an anxiety which you do well to feel, and that anxiety is the child of a doubt only too well founded—namely, whether the people would now, even by implication or inadvertence, grant you even so little as a technical and formal authority which, by this procedure, we say you are abusing.
I come, then, to the Bill itself. Here, again, I find the same signs that I found in the procedure. When you want to examine the case for a Bill you naturally go to the statement of the case in the language of its best advocates and, if possible, you go to those who attain the greatest cogency in the fewest words. There is one obvious source for that—that is, the speeches of the present Prime Minister. I take, for example, his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill in this House on 17th June, 1913. I consider that speech especially interesting because, although it was what might be called a second-year speech, in which the right hon. Gentleman might have availed himself of the stage in which we stood under the Parliament Act to say that the Bill was resjudicata and hardly worth arguing over again, instead of doing that he stated in his inimitable manner all the weighty things he could find to say for it. Why do I refer to that speech? I will explain that to the House by giving a short analysis of its contents, because it was the best exposition I have ever heard of the case for the Bill. The significant part of that speech was its omissions. There was a significant absence from that speech of any claim, let alone any attempt to prove, any concrete grievances or burdens existing on Nonconformists in Wales at this present day in which we are met. By concrete grievances I mean grievances which are not merely sentimental. I do not wish to underrate for one moment the value of sentiment, but when you are proposing the things you are proposing to do in this Bill, you are bound to address yourselves more to concrete grievances than to memories of things which happened in the past. When I talk of present grievances as well as concrete grievances I mean grievances operating among the people who now live in Wales.

1669
The Prime Minister upon that occasion—it is very significant—did not enlarge upon the real or fancied origins, attributes, or destinations of tithe. He knew a great deal better than to do that. He knew perfectly well that if this sort of claim were to be raised, it ought to have been raised in the forty-third year of Queen Elizabeth, when the first Poor Law passed, or in the year 1662, when matters were further reconsidered, or some equally distant date, and not now, when these claims are nearly 250 or 300 years out of time. Much of what he said had no concern with grievances either past or present. Nothing he said had relation to present or concrete grievances in Wales. He did deprecate all exaggerated or embittered language. He spoke of the size of the majorities of this House by which the stages of this Bill had been affirmed; he combated the expediency of a Referendum; he discussed the claims of Roman Catholics to the secularised funds.
Most people would have thought that to say the Roman Catholics had no claim to these funds would not be exactly to prove that county councils have a claim to them. He explained his own speeches of previous years on the continuity of the Church, and for the life of me I did not know whether we were to infer that continuity or non-continuity is to be taken as being the grievance of Nonconformists in Wales at the present day. He discussed the dismemberment of the Province of Canterbury and its Convocation. He discussed the prospects of the re-union in Protestantism in Wales after Disestablishment, and he justifies the appropriation of its funds to secular uses. That was not showing any present grievance in Wales; that was merely advancing arguments which seemed to me to partake of the character of saying that your remedy will not do harm to others. We have still to learn that because your remedy will not do harm to others you have proved that it will do good to your patient. Hon. Members will say that the Prime Minister must then have gone on to describe as a grievance the present state of things in Wales. Not so! The rest of his speech consisted entirely of a complaint against us Unionists of what he called our lack of imagination. You do not require imagination to see present wrongs. The Prime Minister dwelt on the relevancy of what had gone on in the centuries of the past and of the memories inherited by Welshmen from their fathers. He said:
"You cannot ignore these things."
1670
He said the Church had lost a golden opportunity, and that certain opportunities could not be recovered. Here I come to the passage which contains the animus of the whole. He said:—
"How important it is in these matters to have regard not merely to the material and financial, or even the ecclesiastical conditions of the existing moment "—
the Prime Minister did well to avoid the existing moment—and he wound up by an eloquent reference to—
"The garnered memories, the stored-up traditions, prepossessions, prejudices it you like, antipathies if you like, of the people with whom yon are dealing'."
I will admit one thing, that so far as you can base practical schemes of legislation upon the memories of past things alone, it could not have been more skilfully or eloquently done. One fact remains, and that all through the skill and all through the eloquence, that is the absence of any tangible injustice that can be pointed at to-day as operating upon persons now living. So that the main plea for your Bill rests upon that which must be daily losing force as time goes on. Memory cannot for ever go on nursing the grudges of which the causes are for ever receding into an ever dimmer and ever less relevant past. To suppose that it can, the supposition involved is that we should have to believe that because a hundred years ago Churchmen in Wales were irreligious or indifferent, or contemptuous and intolerant towards their humbler neighbours, therefore, Welshmen to-day and of days to come will, if this Bill does not pass, for ever seek to inflict humiliation and loss upon Churchmen of to-day, who are Welshmen like themselves, but who are neither irreligious, contemptuous nor intolerant; whose lives are, on the contrary, as saintly as their own, whose parish work reaches teeming populations quite as necessitous as their own, and whose prayers, though they be liturgical and not extemporised, are surely as sincere as their own. This I refuse to believe. I believe better of Welshmen than their representatives in this House appear to do.
What are the ethics of this matter, let alone the absence of any present grievance? Even if this memory is going to be permanent, surely every day that goes by would make it less worthy of admiration and more and more a thing to be ashamed of. Nor will popularity and the democratic principle make it any better. You cannot say, in these days, that democracy can do no wrong. Not even a responsible Government can change wrong into right. Popularity and a democratic principle, no

1671
doubt, could have been invoked to justify all manner of things. They could have been invoked to justify the vindictive excesses of the Scottish Covenanters in the 1650's, and they could have been invoked to justify the violence of the Dutch-Orange mob which executed lynch law in 1672 on the brothers De Witt. For my own part, I refuse to believe that the Welsh democracy would desire to perpetuate such a wrong as would be the keeping alive of these uncharitable memories, and the putting them into action by retributive injustice such as this Bill will work. May we not take a more hopeful view? I am glad to think that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, in a part of his speech, did take a more hopeful view of what might be possible in Wales. Here I come to a part of my speech in which I have to take special care to say that I represent no bench and no party, and no Church and no party in any Church. I wish to say, personally, that I take a more hopeful view, and look forward to the possibility of unity in Wales, without Disestablishment, on the lines of the recognition by each disputant of his own shortcomings and his adversary's good points. In an earlier stage of these Debates it was said by the Attorney-General that the Church services repelled the Celtic temperament by what he called their "frigidity." To him and to the Celtic temperament the sermon which is preached is somewhat amateurish, and the prayers are mere liturgical formulæ. There was said by the Attorney-General to be too much claimed for sacerdotal mediation.
7.0 P.M.
These things are not absolutely inherent or necessarily perpetual. For my own part, I would cheerfully dispense with the amateurish sermon. A man may be a good parish priest without being a fancy preacher, and the sermons would not be less valued if one did not get them so often as once a week, nor always from the same preacher. Why should not Anglicanism borrow from some of the other Churches something of their principles of itinerancy, and the organisation of a missionary order of preachers, selected for their natural gifts, and perfected by special training? I want to know, on the other hand, why our liturgical prayers should be condemned. One thing I am going to tell the House—it is my own personal opinion; it is a small thing, and I should like to get rid of it; it might have great consequences—I
1672
should like to get rid in our Anglican services of the intoning of prayers. The monotone in our services is born of the muddled thinking that confuses prayer and praise. To music it was never anything but a sort of mediaeval maiden aunt. It ought to have been left behind with other sterilities so soon as the growing sense of design and more refined and artistic perceptions of the Middle Ages gave us the austere, but beautiful forms of Church music which have come down to us from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. My belief is that if we could get the matchless sixteenth century English of our Bible and our Prayer Book properly read in Church, with good articulation and true emphasis and in a natural voice, we should hear much less of the demand for nineteenth century extemporisation. Let me refer further to some other grounds of disfavour to the Church to which the Attorney-General did not refer. All Churchmen on this side of the House are prepared to reform, drastically if you will, our patronage law and our system of choosing our ministers. Most of us are wishful to secure, in the choosing of the parish clergyman, a much closer consultation than we have at present of the interests of parishioners. If provincial incorporation with Canterbury is the stumbling block, let us recognise the growing needs, as well as the national pride of Wales by letting her have, like York, within the pale of the great historic Anglican Communion, a province and a primate of her own. Surely the descendants of the converts of St. Augustine and of St. David can bring themselves to respect so far each others great traditions that there should be resulting from it, not jealousy, but a rivalry in goods works that should tend to the uplifting of both.
Let me summarise what we believe to be our case against this Bill. With regard to the Welsh Church, its funds are far from excessive—they are not even sufficient. Its ministers are often overworked and underpaid. Its funds are well administered, and used with a single eye to the welfare of its worshippers. Its doors are open to all, yet none can be forced to enter; its zeal, influence and acceptance amongst large industrial populations are daily increasing. Its so-called privileges are largely disabilities, obligations, liabilities and burdens from which ministers of other Churches are free. No present hardship, suffering or exaction can be pointed

1673
to as due to its existence. The only grievances alleged are historic and a mere sentimental legacy from a happily receding past. The Bill to rob it of its modest Endowments is detested from one end of England to the other, and even when you come to Wales itself, though it may be that the Bill is opposed by only one-tenth of the representatives of Wales in the House of Commons, it is, nevertheless, we believe, resented by a far larger proportion of her people than that, and it is too much, as we can all see for ourselves, for the stomachs of many Nonconformists and many strong party men amongst Radicals in England. These are the considerations which hon. Members opposite persist in ignoring. To this end they are using the haste of which I spoke and straining in this way our constitutional forms. It is a sorry cause, it seems to me, for the sake of which to seek to override this resentment of ours, which your numbers may overcome, but which your victory will not silence nor allay. If this Bill passes, it will be remembered, not as a triumph of the Celtic temperament, but as an example to the discredit of majority rule, and as a manifestation of its least edifying and, indeed, its morbid side. I shall be told, perhaps, that I am bringing an indictment against a nation. That weatherbeaten piece of artillery has no terrors for me. Peoples, like individuals, have to pay in moral responsibility for political freedom and power. Unless peoples are of unlike passions with persons, then by the same means as we do with persons we should seek to win and to retain the good opinion of peoples. I wish to be, and to be thought, a friend of the Welsh people. Therefore, it is that I have no hesitation in ranging myself rather with their outspoken critics than with their political flatterers and local sycophants. That is why I ask the House, even now, deeply committed and unfairly urged onward though it be, to reconsider its judgment and so to gain time for that religious co-operation and reconciliation which we believe the passing of this Bill can only embarrass and defeat.
Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Hume-Williams) referred to what he called the growing opinion in England against this Bill. I was wondering whether he was deriving much consolation from the reduced majority at Grimsby. He advanced a rather novel proposition. He said the Irish Nationalist Members could hardly take
1674
part in a discussion and in a vote on a question of this kind. I do not quite understand how hon. Members on the other side, on the one hand, refuse self-government to Ireland, and, on the other, refuse to allow Irish Members to take part in our affairs. The hon. and learned Gentleman further suggested that Members of the Catholic Church could not take part in this discussion. One of the Members for Wales (Lord Ninian Crichton-Stuart) is himself a Roman Catholic, as is also the Chief Whip on the other side, but we as Nonconformists have made no objection to their taking part in any discussion which would vitally affect the religious life of the Principality. We have had very little to-day on the principle of a State Church. A State Church which is refused by the Parliamentary representatives of the nation to which it belongs by thirty-one Members out of thirty-four must either have failed in its mission or be unacceptable in its creed and its tenets. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, said that place must be given to sentiment, I agree, and I would ask those who are interested in the future of the Church in Wales whether it is wise to ignore Welsh national sentiment, whether it is wise to ignore the sentiment which has pressed itself against the Church, not of necessity against its creed, because, when he referred to the secession of the Nonconformists in 1811, it was not a secession on a question of principle. As a matter of fact, the Calvinistic Methodists of to-day hold identically the same creed as the Church of England.
I suggest that, before this Bill is finally disposed of, either hero or elsewhere, the question ought to be considered by those who are interested in the Church whether it is wise in the interests of that Church to ignore national sentiment. We are also informed outside that the Disestablishment of the Church means the repudiation of religion by the nation. Reference has been made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) to the question of patronage, and he has expressed his readiness to deal with the matter. The Tory party were in power for twenty years, and if they were desirous of dealing with the question, it ought to have been dealt with before now. Take the position at the present day in Wales. During the last few weeks there have been several livings vacant, and the position has been that we Nonconformists have been urged

1675
day after day to exercise our influence in favour of particular candidates for the cure of souls in Wales. If Disestablishment is the repudiation of religion, a system of patronage is a disgrace to religion.
Then the hon. and learned Gentleman asked what advantages Wales is going to derive from the Disestablishment and Dis-endowment of its Church. He said that, so far as he knew, no one in Wales would derive any benefit from it. May I advance one or two reasons for saying that Wales will benefit. First of all, its Churchmen will benefit by its Disestablishment, and, secondly, the nation itself will benefit. To the Church itself it will secure freedom from that system of patronage to which I have referred, it will secure free choice of its minister, and it will confer, for the first time, such a freedom of choice that they can ignore political considerations, for in the past the curse of the Church in Wales has been that its livings have been the spoils of political parties. A good deal of the feeling against the Welsh Church and a good deal of its inefficiency to-day is due to the fact that its leading ministers and even its bishops are too often appointed, not for their knowledge of theology, not for the religion, but for the zeal which they have shown on the political platform. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I make this statement and I leave any hon. Member who represents a Welsh constituency to deny it. My hon. Friend the Member for North Carnarvon referred to the position occupied in the Church by the late Dean Howell. I am old enough to remember the appointment of the present Bishop of St. Asaph, and I say without any hesitation that if a poll had been taken in the diocese of St. Asaph as to who was the fittest and best person to fill the diocese as a theologian and as a religious leader it would have been Dean Howell, and not the person who now occupies that see.
How are we, as a nation, going to benefit by Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church? One thing we are going to secure is to get the freedom of our own churchyards. I heard an hon. Member refer to "our" churchyards. Legally, as well as morally, they do not belong to the Church. They are the churchyards of the parish; they are vested in the rector as trustee for the parishioners. That is beyond controversy. Even the rector of the parish himself has not absolute control, because the churchwardens have a right to interfere if the
1676
rector allows the burial of a non-parishioner. The point we are making is this, that these churchyards never belonged to the Church, and that they are held only in trust for the parishioners. They are not held in trust for the communicants. They are held in trust for any parishioner who dies in the parish. There is more to be said than that. Not only are they held in trust for the parishioners, but there can be no doubt that one of the reasons for the bitterness which lies behind a good deal of the movement for Disestablishment in Wales is the callous, cruel and indifferent manner in which the parsons have exercised their right over the churchyards. What do I mean by that? I will give an instance which came under my own notice not very long ago. One of the leading Nonconformist ministers within the last two years had to bury his only son. He appealed to the clergyman to be allowed to use the service of the Nonconformists, and to allow it to be conducted by a leading Nonconformist minister in Wales. He was refused that privilege, as it was within the power of the clergyman to refuse, and we had the discourtesy and cruelty of a clergyman of the Church of England thrusting his services on the parents in their great sorrow. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that one of the things we most covet and fight for at the present moment is that in future the churchyards of our native country shall be controlled by a public body which shall be answerable to public opinion.
The hon. and learned Member went on to argue that there was no evidence that the Endowments of the Church in Wales were badly used, and he said that if we could prove that the Endowments were improperly used, he would not continue his opposition. I am here to state—and I say it without fear of contradiction—that the real reason for the demand which is made by Wales for the Disestablishment of the Church is the fact that her Endowments are not properly used. I have stated in this House and outside, and I repeat, that if the Endowments of the State Church in Wales had been properly used, and transferred from rural districts to mining districts and to the large towns, I would not have cast my vote for the present Bill. What is the position? Hon. Members are defending the Endowments in Wales by the work done by the Church. But it is work which has been done by the Church not where it is endowed, but where

1677
it is carried on by voluntary efforts. Take the position in South Wales—Cardiff, Newport, Swansea, and the Rhondda Valley, account for no less than one-fourth of the whole Welsh population. The total Endowment is £1,038, and I say it is unfair for hon. Members opposite who defend the Endowments of their Church to come and tell us that the Church is active, progressive, and increasing in strength, numbers, and influence, when they know perfectly well that the progress in the work has been brought about not by means of the Endowments of the Church in Wales, but by voluntary effort and sacrifice of Churchmen in South Wales. Let me compare the position with the position in Anglesea and Carnarvon. In the places where there is one-fourth of the population you have a little over £1,000 in Endowments, but there are three parishes in Anglesea where three churches have £2,200, and there are less than 220 communicants. I take the case of my own Constituency, the Eifion Division of Carnarvonshire. There are Endowments in that constituency to the extent of £9,000 a year, but there are less than 3,000 communicants of the Church of England, whilst, on the other hand, there are 24,000 in connection with Nonconformist bodies.
Our argument for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church is because, notwithstanding all that has passed in this House during the last forty years, notwithstanding all the appeals of the leaders of the Church for its own reform, nothing was ever practically done to bring about a change in the position. We say that money which should have been transferred from rural districts to the large towns is being wasted to-day in our rural districts. I mentioned the matter on a previous occasion, and I was reminded by an hon. Member that that was not the question before the House. I am aware of that, but I would remind the House that if the true interests of the Church were at stake, the matter could have been dealt with during the last twenty years. Less than twenty years ago a scheme was drafted in the form of a Bill, and if I am not mistaken the Bill was actually brought before the House, providing for the pooling of Endowments and the transfer of money from rural districts to the populous districts in South Wales. What became of it? It was treated with contempt, and I was rather surprised the other evening to find that the system which
1678
at present admits of money being used in rural districts where the churches are empty is the system which is to be continued in future. The hon. Member for the Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) said:—
"Do hon. Members opposite think that the Representative Body will have so little regard for the existing trust deeds, so little regard for the trust deeds of the Endowments in the parishes, that we shall take the money from them under your Bill and spend it in other parishes? "
If that means anything, it means that the Endowments which are now found in the rural districts are to be continued in those districts, and that the large incomes now attached to churches which are practically empty, or where the number of communicants is small, are still to be continued, because those who claim that the Endowments are needed in the parishes do not say anything about the work done in other parts of the Principality. We are told that the Bill is a mean Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] I rather expected that cheer. May I point out that we are leaving to the Church in Wales at least £200,000 a year? We are leaving a sufficient sum to enable them to provide £200 a year for each parish in Wales. May I point out that the Church of England in Wales is the Church of the rich; it is the Church of the landowner and the mine-owner.
Mr. ORMSBY-GOREindicated dissent.
Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: The hon. Member denies it. Let me ask him to give me in Merioneth or Carnarvon the name of a single landowner or a single mine-owner who is not attached to the Church to which he belongs. What we say is that the Church, which is left £200,000 a year, cannot be said to be meanly dealt with. On the other hand, I would point out that the Nonconformists of Wales to-day are contributing no less than 15s. per head towards their religion, while the contribution of the rich Churchmen in Wales only amounts to 5s. per head. Our argument; is that we have dealt liberally and generously with the Church. The Bill before the House is much more generous than that which had the support of Mr. Gladstone in 1893. It is much more generous than the Bill of 1909, which was submitted to two General Elections. More than that, we feel that the laymen of Wales, in any event, are not against us, and I think the most significant thing in this movement against the Bill is the absence from the platform of the Welsh laymen. I know

1679
that you can name a hundred English laymen in Wales who are standing up for the Church. They are our squires, landowners, and successful grocers from England who have come to reside in our midst, but the hon. Member opposite cannot deny what I say,' that the Welsh layman is not opposed to the Bill. He desires freedom for his Church, and he wishes to mould his Church to answer the needs and idiosyncrasies of the Welsh people. He thinks if that be done, the Welsh Church will again become a centre of religious life in the Principality.
Mr. MALCOLM: I do not feel certain that the concluding observations of the hon. Member (Mr. Ellis Davies) have added very much to the discussion on the Third Reading of this Bill. I am really sorry that he should have sounded a class utterance as against those to whom he is on political and certainly on religious grounds opposed. Nor do I think his accuracy is very commendable. Of course, a very large number of persons have signed protests against this Bill in Wales, and when you take off whatever percentage your imagination may devise for the way the protests were got up you still have a great many thousands in Wales who are neither squires, nor landowners, nor mine-owners, nor even English grocers. And the county Carnarvon is, I think, to be congratulated upon the show which it has made hitherto on the opposite side of the House in this Third Reading Debate. We have had the advantage of speeches from two of its Members. The hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Bench a little while ago gave us a very interesting speech upon a great number of topics, all of which pleased us, and in many cases he enlightened us. But I do wish that these hon. Gentlemen, instead of suggesting; a broad ease for some change in the Establishment in Wales, had directed their minds more to the Bill which is supposed to be under discussion. Our real grievance is that in spite of all the arguments and appeals which we have made, and which have fallen upon deaf ears in this House, it seems impossible to pierce the impenetrable inattention which His Majesty's Government show to our double complaint that this Bill conveys a twofold insult and injury to the ancient Church in Wales, first by divorcing it from its age-long union with the State, and second, by crippling its spiritual activity in robbing it of a very large part of its
1680
already quite inadequate income, and transferring these moneys to secular objects.
The only defence that I have heard was one mentioned in a passing phrase by the hon. Member for Carnarvon, who spoke from the Front Bench, and who said that, of course, it was quite all right, because in Wales all secular matters were really religious. This double injury, as we conceive it to be, is to be inflicted, not by the hands of Churchmen, who are anxious to liberate their faith from the fetters of State interference, but from a body who are primarily politicians, and a majority of whom have a conscientious, but quite persistent hostility to the claims of the Anglican Church. Some of these Gentlemen are never tired of telling us that they base their claim upon the Reformation settlement which they argue broke the continuity of our Church, and, therefore, thereby justified the alienation of funds. It seems to me to come strangely from the lips of those who base so much upon the Reformation settlement that they should be the first to lay hands upon the Establishment which the Reformation settlement set up. Alone they were unable to do this. Alone they are unable to-pass even the present Bill, and therefore they invoke the aid of Roman Catholic representatives from Ireland without which this Bill would have been wrecked over and over again. Again and again, I admit freely, the cry has been raised from these benches "saved by the Irish." The Liberal Whip who spoke an hour ago said that he had gone into the figures and could assure us that "saved by the Irish" was not the case; but in that the hon. Member for Mayo disagrees with him, because in his speech on the Third Reading he said:—
"Saved by the Irish. Yes, why not? We have saved them over and over again. The Irish Catholics are against Establishment. They are against Endowment. They are Free Churchmen to the tips of their fingers."
On this point I do not think His Majesty's Government is quite so sure as the hon. Member for Mayo, because I observe that in the Home Rule Bill it docs not include, in fact it expressly deprives a new Irish Parliament of the right to legislate on Church matters in Ireland. It would seem to be by way of compensation perhaps that whereas they cannot legislate for Church matters in their own country they are to be allowed to have a voice in settling Church matters regarding Wales, so that while they are arguing for

1681
the right of self-government for Ireland, the ancient Church in Wales should be deprived of its heritage. And that is the measure of their gratitude and the reward to the English Churchmen in this country who no fewer than three times in the last five or six years have saved the voluntary schools for the Roman Catholics. I would like to say that I think that this undoubted blow which is aimed at this Church throughout England and Wales is one which no British Government would dare to inflict in any other country, or upon any other Church under the British flag. If right hon. Gentlemen opposite were to introduce legislative measures gravely offending the Mahomedan in India, transferring the property of the Hindus, or interfering with the Church organisation of Buddhists, they know very well that they would have revolution and bloodshed in India within a month. If they were going to try to dismember the Nonconformist bodies in England from those in Wales, they know that they would be out of office within a week. So jealous is every religious corporation of its property, its organisation, its independence. And yet there are those in this House who are not ashamed to say that they believe that in this particular case of the relations of the State with the Anglican Church, they, by their hostile action against us, will heal old wounds, will soften old asperities, and will make for religious peace so enduring that the Chancellor of the Exchequer looked forward in one of his more sanguine moments to the reunion of the new sect, as I think he called the ancient Church, with Nonconformist bodies. And the Home Secretary actually imagines and says that after the passing of this Bill the Church of England in Wales would take her place in the sisterhood of the Free Churches.
What a fool's paradise hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are living in. It is not in the power of legislation to affect changes so miraculous, so devoutedly to be desired. These great differences—I think it is as well to state it perfectly clearly—sad as they are, are not based upon questions of Establishment, or questions of Endowment, or of status, or of wealth. They lie upon fundamental divergencies of doctrine, of conceptions of worship and of organisation, differences which no Parliamentary device like this Bill can possibly bridge. And I would like to add this particular application of what is, I think, a general principle. We know that in daily life, when a grave injury is done, the doer of
1682
the wrong is always the person who bears resentment longest. In this case, we of the Church shall certainly endeavour to forgive, though we cannot forget. We believe that political Nonconformists will forget, but that they will not be able to forgive. A rankling sense, we are assured, will remain behind, and though our Establishment has been broken, and though our endowments have been taken away, there would be no more chance of a closer spiritual union between the then Free Churches in Wales than there is now in the Colonies or in India or in the States of America. If these unhappy dissensions, which we all must admit are not likely to be diminished but rather increased by the passage of this Bill, how can we believe that by your, action you are promoting the interests either of a Christian Church or of a Christian State? I suppose that we all remember the classic letter written by Dr. Dollinger in 1885 to Mr. Gladstone, only a few words of which are generally quoted. I crave leave to quote a few lines from that letter. Speaking of Disestablishment, Dr. Dollinger said:—
"It would be a blow to Christianity, not only in England but throughout Europe. If such a measure were adopted by a country with a history like that of England there could be no mistake as to its significance. It would be well understood alike by the friends and foes of Christianity in Germany, in France and throughout the civilised world."
Yes, it is, in our belief, the State which in the long run is going to suffer by this Bill, and by the larger Bill for the Disestablishment of the same Church in England, which has been promised to us to succeed this one by more than one Cabinet Minister. My belief is that just as there-is a divinity which hedges the character of king and of subjects alike, so there should be a divinity to hedge the conduct of a State, and I believe that that divinity is best expressed by the ancient Church which we now have. It was, perhaps, still better expressed in earlier days when there was less division between us. As for the Church itself, you may cripple its body, but you cannot kill its soul, though you do drive it back into the little upper chamber where it first saw the light. In this country, as in others, our Church has survived a great many persecutions for the faith, and she has triumphed over them. She has done penance for many sins committed in her name. She has rectified many blunders committed by politicians who thought sincerely that they were doing her service. She has flourished in spite of the Reformation, a movement, as we all know, political.

1683
in its origin, which enabled Henry the Eighth not to get rid of the Mass but to get rid of Catherine of Aragon. She has survived the settlement which was meant to be temporary, but which the blunders of politicians have made permanent, and have perpetuated apparently for all time. Yes, the Church which has prospered the life of this country, in spite of so many difficulties, will surely survive the revolution which is before us to-night. I expect that hon. Gentlemen will all agree to that. But that does not seem to me to excuse them from putting their hand to an instrument which will hold her back in her good work at this moment when, in spite of all the fine phrases which fall so glibly from the lips of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite about the good of the Church, about spiritual freedom, and so on, they are really of two minds as to whether they want our Church to be fettered or free.
You have not really made up your minds. If you want her to be free what do all these Clauses about Re-establishment mean—these Clauses which take away with one hand what you are giving with the other? You must know that within the circle of our Church itself there are a great many men who do not object to Disestablishment at all, but who find it insurmountably impossible to vote for this Bill so long as these Re-establishment Clauses remain. Once the Church is Disestablished what can it matter to you or to Parliament or to anybody, except to Church people, what the internal economy of our Church is to be? What have you as a Government or as a political party to do with the composition of Convocation, and whether it is to include Welsh bishops or whether it is not? Why do you require, as the Home Secretary told us, to be satisfied as to the composition of the first Welsh Synod? Why do you wish to put the imprimatur of the State on the Church's own definition of her own scope? A Church so constructed would be a State Church of the very worst possible kind. It is without precedent; it is unheard of, I believe, in any country of the world—unknown in Scotland, unknown in Nova Scotia, unknown in Wales, unknown even in South Wales, too. You cannot have it both ways. You ought to settle for yourselves whether you are to have us fettered or to have us free. If you want us fettered and keep the Re-establishment Clauses, then do not go on prating about getting us free. If you want us free, do what you
1684
can to cut these Re-establishment Clauses out of the Bill. I say it is nothing less than a scandal that we, after the passage of this Bill, should have to go to a purely secular authority, to the present Home Secretary, or whoever his successor may be, or to somebody in quite another place perhaps, to ask him for leave to set up this so-called free spiritual body on one set of lines or upon another.
There is the test of the sincerity of the promoters of this Bill—the test of the sincerity of their reiterated profession that all they want to do is to level up or to level down our Church to the line of perfect equality with others; of their constant assertion that they are going to do all this for the good of Christianity in general and the good of our Church in particular, that they wish us no harm, and that they rejoice in the good work that we are doing. I say, "Here is the test. Disestablish our Church if you can, Disendow it if you dare, but do not humiliate us, do not humiliate the ancient church of our country in Wales by setting upon her the gyves and fetters of a State-made constitution at the very moment when you are telling her that you are doing all this to leave her free. Leave it to the Church herself to set in order the house that you have put in disarray, and to work out the salvation of her people according to the light of ancient faith and practice, and not according to the whim of a Parliamentary draftsman. In this way you can test your own sincerity, as we and others will test it too. We ask no impossibilities of His Majesty's Government. If your consciences or your constituents, or both, ask you to Disestablish or Disendow the Church in Wales, do it if you can. We, unfortunately, on this side of the House cannot stop you. If your legal training enables you to advise His Majesty that the Coronation oath can bear the meaning that the Church in Wales is not included in that worship, discipline, and government of the Church of England which he swore to maintain, then do that. The whole moral responsibility lies with you. But when you have done that, proceed with your work of destruction. Nobody has asked this House, nobody has asked this Government, to reconstruct the organisation of the Church which you have destroyed, so far as human influence can destroy it. We beg of you, while you still have time, to leave out these Clauses, which you have called your Re-establishment Clauses, which only humiliate and

1685
hinder her, and leave us to again build up a temple which you will have left in ruins.
Mr. THOMAS TAYLOR: I support this Bill for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the English Church in Wales as an English Churchman. I do it from the rock-bottom foundation of absolute equality. As a Liberal I carry my principles into all spheres. I do not understand the State giving a preference to any Church; I do not understand any religious denomination claiming any privilege on that basis. I say, "Religious equality in all things," and surely, if there is to be equality in political matters, then equality ought to obtain in religious matters. I have had experience in the Church of almost every office which is open to a layman, and I see the evil of the principle of Establishment. I do not want to go into the question, but I believe the real want of the Church to-day is home rule. There are evils existing which cannot be removed so long as she is an Established Church, and for that reason I support Disestablishment of the English Church in Wales, and shall, if I am here, support the Disestablishment of the English Church. The hon. Gentleman opposite has spoken about the British flag. Who would think of our establishing any Church in the Colonies under the British flag? The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, to its honour, has done marvellous work in our Colonies, and it does not need an Established Church. It goes to the Colonies on the same legal footing as all other denominations. I hold that it is the healthier for it. In regard to Endowment, I accept the fact, in so far as I can read and learn, that many of the Endowments of the Church—not all, of course—are public property. During my election I was asked whether I would like to see the Endowments of such-and-such a church in the town I represent removed? "Certainly not," I said. Then I was asked why the Endowments of the Church in Wales should be removed? I replied that I firmly believed that this Parliament would take no private Endowment from the Church any more than they would fake my private property or anything that I had.
I believe that many of these Endowments, such as are mentioned in the Bill, are public property given at a time when the Church represented the people, and given to the Church as trustees. On another occasion I was asked during my election, "But were not most of these Nonconformists, who now dissent from the
1686
Church, members of the Church? I said," Certainly they were, but give another instance where members of an institution or a firm have retired from that institution or firm and left all their money behind them." It seems to me that honestly, fairly, and justly the people have a direct interest in many of these Endowments which have been given for the people to the Church. We know that the Church was the educational and Poor Law authority at one time in the State; the Church was the charitable institution, and those charities and these educational Grants were given to the Church for the people; to be returned to the people. As a Churchman, I firmly believe that all Churches should be on the basis of justice and equality. I am too independent, I have too much dignity, to ask for other people's money; I prefer to keep my own church. The hon. Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) stated the other day that the Churches in Wales would be continued, and that if this Bill passed there was not an individual Church in the Principality which would not be maintained in full. As a Churchman, I say "Of course, certainly. Would it not have been better, would it not have endeared the Church to many people who are now estranged from it, if the Church had undertaken to do this voluntarily, and not be forced to do it."
8.0 P.M.
In the town which I represent, the Church is, of course, out and away the strongest religious body. It is very strong and very wealthy. When we want a new church in Bolton, we build one. For instance, the Bishop of Manchester within the last six months of last year consecrated two new-large churches and one mission church, and we are building more. That is what Churchmen do in Bolton. We have pride in the Church as a democratic body representing all classes and taking an active part in their life, and by that means it is prosperous. Man cannot live by bread alone, and churches cannot live by Endowments alone, and I have yet to learn from my experience of many years that the spirituality of the Church is strongest where the Endowments are greatest. It is not so. Endowments at times do evil rather than good. As a Liberal Churchman I believe that Churchmen are beginning to take the view that they will not ask a privilege nor seek to be superior socially as members of an Established Church than their neighbours. I believe that co-operation between the different Churches is the very great need of the

1687
time. There are too many denominations, and one great means of reducing the number would be by amalgamation. That would be for the good of the Churches. But there would have to be Disestablishment and Disendowment, and all must be on an equality. You cannot have co-operation while one Church obtains the preference. My experience is that where Churches work under a voluntary system, such as I have described in the case of the Churches in Bolton, there is co-operation between the different denominations. Let me give another instance. We have renovated within the last six years the church which I have attended all my life at a cost of no less than £11,000. I have been and I am honorary treasurer, and it has given me pleasure to receive subscriptions towards the renovation of that church from Nonconformists. One morning I received a cheque for £250 from a Congregationalist for that purpose. That is the spirit I want to see growing, and that is the spirit that I believe will grow whenever the Churches are put on absolute equality. As I stated last year, the Church of England at this time is losing its life only to save it. It may appear that it is giving away its interests, but, on the other hand, it will be endearing itself to many people, and will bring many outsiders within its fold. I am confident that thousands and tens of thousands of Nonconformists would rally to the Church of England if it were a Free Church. I do not want to bring politics too much into this question, but Liberal Churchmen whose views are broader than those of hon. Members opposite in many cases are thinking for themselves and acting for themselves, and are puzzled to know how it is that many defenders of the Church take action in other matters against the interests of the people. Whilst this question has been about the defenders of the Church of Christ have been going about the country advocating the taxation of the people's food. That will never support the Church. The Church requires a broader spirit in the Church and a more liberal spirit, and to bring the Church more in touch with the people. As I said at home I say again, as a Liberal and as a stout, strong Churchman, that I shall never regret voting for absolute religious equality.
Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I could not help thinking as the hon. Gentleman (Mr.
1688
Taylor) was making his speech what a different kind of speech we would have heard from his predecessor who represented Bolton. I do not fancy that the opinions which the hon. Member has expressed are those which are widely held in Bolton. He spoke a great deal about the sacred principle of religious equality, but it does not occur to me that the way to carry out equality between the Churches is to take the property of one Church and treat it as Robin Hood might have done and leave the properties of the others. They are all Endowed and becoming Endowed, and it is the regular policy of the main Nonconformist bodies now. I believe it to be a good policy, and, so far from taking away Endowments which have existed for centuries, any more than you would take away Endowments which have existed only for five and twenty years and are thus secured to Nonconformist bodies, you ought to leave the Endowments of the Church if only because of the right which she has obtained through prescription. When the hon. Member talks of carrying out the whole policy of this Bill, and of desiring to take away the Endowments of the Church, and of desiring to take away its ancient churchyards and of desiring to remove curates without compensation, and, in fact, to take away two-thirds of the income of the Church which has been, I may say, consecrated to it by its prescriptive right, then it seems to me that it is fatuous and almost hypocritical to talk of the sacred principle of religious equality when, forsooth, there will soon be nothing sacred left except the sacredness of that principle. Hon. Members opposite say that the property they are taking belongs to the nation, but the Church of England has a better right to this property through the centuries than has much of the Nonconformist property at this moment belonging to Nonconformist Churches and chapels. I do not urge the taking away of that property. I think it would be wrong, and therefore the much more strongly do I feel that it is a much greater wrong to the Church to take away its property as is done under the present Bill.
A boast of the Chancellor of the Exchequer only the other day, in dealing with the Budget, was that he was not taxing the poor man, though he was budgeting for some £209,000,000, but yet he is not ashamed to take away £157,000 a year from the Church of England, and to

1689
take it from that portion of the Church which is the very poorest part of the whole. I urge, and I feel that it is all the more outrageous to do so under the Parliament Act when you are acting under a suspended Constitution, when there is no proper Second Chamber to revise or delay or reconsider or amend this Bill, whereas under any fair Government such a chamber would exist, and I venture to say that no matter how it was constituted the chances are that it would alter many of the important provisions of this Bill. Hon. Members opposite know perfectly well that even among their own ranks there are many who feel that many of the provisions of the Bill are very hard and unjust, and if that be so in this party-ridden House, I venture to say it is much more so in many parts of the country. Some hon. Members who have spoken have talked a great deal about Welsh nationality. We had a very eloquent speech from the hon. Member for Arfon, Carnarvonshire (Mr. William Jones) who largely dwelt on that topic. Indeed, I gathered that the whole gist of his eloquence really was that Welsh nationality ought to be trusted, and that if we did so we should approve of this Bill. But if Welsh nationality is to be trusted, why not English nationality, because this measure affects both parts of the Kingdom, and the Church of England in Wales and the Church of Wales in England is one. There is every reason why English nationality should be consulted and considered just as much as Welsh nationality, and if you took a division amongst the English Members only in this House, there is no question that this Bill would be rejected. But, if we are to take Welsh nationality as hon. Members have urged, I would like to ask which part of Welsh nationality. Is it to be the alleged minority, the defenders of the Church property, those who have among their numbers Nonconformist petitioners who desire that this Bill should not be passed in its present form, those petitioners who rare described by "The Banner" in the most offensive language, and who have been told by that Welsh vernacular organ that their action is a "disgraceful dodge" and a "shameful weakness," and which further stigmatises them in the following language:—
"It is surprising to find any Nonconformist and Liberal of principle signing this petition. By so doing they at once sell their birthright and spit mockery upon the efforts and sacrifice of their forefathers in the fight for religions liberty. It, is easy to understand how a serving man or slip of a servant girl under the thumb
1690
of a Tory and Church master, or in the presence of the vicar or curate may stoop to the temptation of signing the petition. But when the petition is actually signed by the religious leaders of Nonconformist denominations and by persons who hold official positions with the party of progress, it is time to protest in the most emphatic way against treachery of this sort."
If advances towards better understanding between different denominations are to be met and characterised by language of that kind in the way that is done by "The Banner," then I can only say that I have very little hope of the different sections coming nearer together for many generations. But if I am not to take that part of Welsh nationality which is called the minority, am I to take the other part and to take the opinion of the alleged majority who say they are a majority, but refuse to have a religious census for fear that it should be shown that they are not a majority after all, and who, in fact, in this House depend upon Irish Roman Catholic votes for their victories. I know that the Home Secretary has stated that it is not so, and I am astonished that he did so. Certainly it appears in the OFFICIAL RETORT of the 21st April, that the right hon. Gentleman said that:—
"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 Welsh Church Bill."
I can only say that that statement is absolutely contrary to the fact. I looked up several occasions, and I think the Home Secretary will be bound to admit that he was wrong. For instance, on the 13th December, 1912, an Amendment was moved to the effect that all Church property except tithe should be left to it. Leaving Ireland out of account altogether there was a majority of eighteen in favour of that Amendment and against the Government. That certainly was one important provision that would not have been carried but for the Irish vote. Take again the 19th December, 1912, on an Amendment to leave the glebes to the Church. Leaving Ireland out of account altogether the votes were exactly equal, and again in the case of a similar Amendment on Report, the 4th February, 1913, there was a majority outside Ireland of twenty-four for the Amendment and against the Government.
It being a, Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

ROAD BOARD.

  CLASSIFICATION OF ROADS.
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
  My object in asking leave this afternoon to move the Adjournment of the House was to call attention to a very important matter of principle in connection with the government of the country. I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board present, and I hope that ere long we may be honoured by the presence of the President of that Department, because I wish to address to him some remarks to which I hope he will give a satisfactory reply. It will be within the recollection of the House that, when introducing the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that it was the intention of the Government to make alterations in the system of Grants from the Imperial Exchequer to local authorities, and that those alterations would be based mainly on the recommendations of the Departmental Committee which had been considering the question of Imperial and Local Taxation. The House will agree that this is a matter of considerable importance. The whole basis hitherto in force is to be altered, and therefore the position of local authorities may be seriously prejudiced or improved according to the way in which the new Grants are allocated. I find, in looking through the Report of the Departmental Committee, this very significant recommendation:—
  "That the necessary Parliamentary authority be obtained as soon as possible to enable the Road Board to commence a provisional classification of roads."
  As far as I am aware, no authority has been applied for, or obtained, from this House by the Road Board to start on that scheme of classification, and yet we find that the Road Board have issued to all local authorities a circular, dated 30th April, requesting that they will immediately start on an elaborate scheme of classification of the roads throughout England and Wales. The roads are to be divided into three classes—first, second, and third. The reason given for requesting this information is twofold. The Road Board say that they have had under consideration the question of preparing a detailed schedule of all the public roads in England and Wales
  "with a view to its use as an aid in the selection of works of road improvement towards which Grants should be made out of the Road Improvement Fund, and that they have been requested "—
  1692
  this is the second reason, and I venture to say it is the real reason, as will be apparent when I have dealt with the circular—
  "by the President of the Local Government Board to frame the proposed classification on such lines that it could also be used as a basis for Grants in aid of maintenance expenditure from the national Exchequer."
  If the Road Board merely want this information so that it can be used in future as a basis for allocating Grants for certain districts, why is it suddenly asked for at this particular date? The Road Board have been in existence for some years, and have made several Grants, though not as many as some of us would like. Why do they suddenly come forward in such a mad hurry to get this preliminary information before the 18th of May if it is not that they wish to carry out the second purpose mentioned in their letter, namely, at the request of the Local Government Board, so to frame their classification that it might be used as a basis for Grants in aid of maintenance expenditure from the national Exchequer? Why does not the President of the Local Government Board say that is why they want it? Why bamboozle the local authorities and this House by pretending that they want it for some other reason? It is not an honest way of getting information. It is expensive information.
  Mr. BOOTHmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. GWYNNE: The President of the Local Government Board slated at Question Time that this circular had been issued, not by his direction but with his concurrence. Therefore, if the Road Board are doing an illegal thing, as I think they are, the hon. Member for Pontefract can deal with the matter later on if he wishes. But I am addressing my remarks to the President of the Local Government Board, and it is his place to answer. The hon. Member is not the President of the Local Government Board, nor is he responsible for the Treasury. The President of the Local Government Board is quite capable of answering for himself. The right hon. Gentleman told me that this circular was issued with his concurrence. I am not arguing that a classification will not be necessary. If the Grants are to be made on a new basis, a classification will be necessary. But why have not the Road Board or the Local, Government Board gone through the proper legal steps to obtain consent for this classification? Why has this House been deprived of the chance of discussing

  1693
  the matter? Why have the local authorities been told to get on with the work? Not only have they been asked to do this, but they have been told to do it in a hole-and-corner way. They are asked to make an elaborate classification, including the supplying of maps showing in different colours the whole of the roads of England and Wales, and requiring the taking of a census of the different roads that would come in Classes A and B—a census not merely for one day, but for seven consecutive days of sixteen hours, a matter entailing a large expense. This has been done, not through the ordinary channels, but in such a hurry that the authorities have been required to send in the preliminary particulars by the 18th May. This circular did not reach most local authorities until 4th May. Hon. Members on both sides of the House must be aware that county councils and other local councils, such as district, town, and urban councils, do not meet every day like we do. They do not sit for ten months in the year. They have their meetings either quarterly or monthly. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] The hon. Member opposite says "No!" Can he tell me of any single county council that meets other than I suggest?
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: The committees of county councils meet very often, and they are in charge of matters of this sort.
  Mr. GWYNNE: We all know how often committees meet, but committees have no right to pledge their councils to the expenditure of funds—thousands it may be. At any rate, I do not think the President of the Local Government Board will uphold that sort of thing. In many instances the local councils do not meet at all between 30th April and 18th May, and it has been left to the clerks and surveyors to decide which roads they shall make application for to come under Class A or Class B. Let me read to the House a typical letter from the clerk to the district council of the Constituency which I represent, which I think is a fair expression of opinion from any clerk who is called upon to answer this circular letter. He received this circular letter telling him that the council must at once start to send in plans and a list of roads which they think should be included in Class A or Class B for Government Grant. He replied to the effect that the proposals were of such an extensive and complicated character that it was practically impossible to give them due
  1694
  attention or to submit them for the approval of his council in the time indicated, I refer to the proposals for a traffic census on or before the 18th instant, in the case of highway authorities that only meet once a month, and perhaps met before the receipt of the communication. The clerk to the Eastbourne Council wrote:—
  "I am fully aware of the importance of the matter, and appreciate the fact that such proposals should be made by my council, but I trust to heat that the date of submitting them will be extended for a reasonable period to give them an opportunity of considering the matter carefully. I notice on pages 47 and 101 of the Final Report of the Departmental Committee on Local Taxation, recommendations that where necessary Parliamentary authority should be obtained to enable the Road Board to commence the work of the classification of the roads, but I have not yet seen that that authority has been granted."
  The Road Board replied to that communication—their letter being signed by the chief engineer—and I have the original letter here if the President of the Local Government Board wishes to see it. The acknowledgment concluded:—
  "In regard to the last paragraph of your letter, the present, classification of the roads is being undertake by the Road Board at the request of the President of the Local Government Board."
  Does the right hon. Gentleman opposite repudiate that? We are getting accustomed to repudiations of utterances from the Front Bench, and I would like to know whether on this occasion the Road Board is to be thrown over, and whether the right hon. Gentleman will now say that they were doing this entirely on their own authority and without his authority. If not, if the chief engineer was correct, then the answer of the right hon. Gentleman to me this afternoon was incorrect. I really do not mind for the purposes of my argument. It does not matter which Gentleman is incorrect so long as I know which one I have to go for. If the Road Board is incorrect, let us know it. If not, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will amend the answer which he gave to me this afternoon. Note the position into which local authorities are being put. They have been asked to embark on this expensive scheme. The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon said, "It is not really a very important matter; it is not a very large scheme upon which we are embarking." I asked him if any estimate had been made as to the cost, and he replied, "No," as far, so I understand, as the Road Board themselves are concerned. May I point this out: If every authority in England and Wales has got to start with this classification and has got to take the census and supply the information required, it must run to thousands in many

  1695
  counties. Will the hon. Gentleman opposite say that in the county which he represents it will not be so?
  Colonel IVOR PHILIPPS: I am certain it will not.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Well, I do not think, at any rate, the President of the Local Government Board will go so far as to challenge that statement.
  Colonel IVOR PHILIPPS: I challenge each county and every county.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member should be allowed to make his statement in his own way.
  Mr. GWYNNE: We got it this afternoon from the right hon. Gentleman that, although the Road Board is not to bear any of the expense of getting this information, that it is estimated it will cost the Road Board £8,000 to sift that information and to make their report. If it is to cost the Road Board £8,000 to do that it would not be unfair, I think, to allow the local authority some adequate sum which it must cost them. If it is such a small scheme, why is £8,000 required in order to go through the information that is received? How is that sum going to be spent? The right hon. Gentleman must see that it must run into thousands. How can he take a census of every road in the United Kingdom for sixteen hours a day, for every ten miles of the road, for seven days without it costing a large sum of money? Who will decide which of the roads are to be classified under A and B? Is it to be thrown on the clerks if the councils do not meet? If the councils do meet is the decision to lie with the local members of the council, who at present have no adequate information before them? My point is this: That admittedly this is going to make a great change in the whole rating system. We have only to read our Order Papers this morning, where we find a question put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater, in which he asked the President of the Local Government Board—
  "Why it was that Somerset was only to have a contribution equal to half that received by Wiltshire tinder the proposed new Grant? "
  My argument is that the new system will necessarily alter the proportions of the Grant. That may be largely due to the fact that the present system is unequal, but the right hon. Gentleman must admit that some counties may gain
  1696
  double what others will do, and some may lose. Therefore it is a matter of vast importance to the various counties. What is the position in which you are placing these local councils? You are asking them now in great haste to decide whether a new system, about which nobody yet knows any details, of which none of us in this House know the details, and which the the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has not yet made up his mind—as usual with his half-baked legislation!—he does not yet know himself how it is going to be worked out—yet the local councils are being called upon forthwith between the 4th and 18th of May to make up their minds as to whether and how they shall apply in respect of their roads, and what class they shall ask them to be placed in. We know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated in general terms that he intends to make increased Grants contingent on increased expenditure, and, therefore, it may be very much to the disadvantage of a local authority to have any roads coming under Classes A and B.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The notice that the hon. Member gave to-day was not to discuss the proposals foreshadowed in the Budget, but to deal with the circular which has just been issued to the local authorities.
  Mr. GWYNNE: The circular does refer to that matter, Mr. Whitley, and that is why I am dealing with it. The circular distinctly says which class the roads ought to be put in, and I am trying to point out what difficulty there must be to the local authorities to decide under which class to place their roads. I want to show how this is imposing an unfair responsibility on the clerks that have been called upon to decide, or local authorities who may have met, seeing that they do not know what the effect of it will be, whether they make application for many or few roads to come under these scheduled classes. If in the ordinary course this had been brought before the House before the classification has been made, we would have had an opportunity of discussing that matter, and getting certain information from the Chancellor of the Exchequer which would guide local councils in applying for Grants. The local councils are at the present time in the dark. The President of the Local Government Board says it is not necessarily binding that authorities sending in applications now

  1697
  to be included under Class A or B will be included. I agree that it does not mean that the Road Board must include them, but it means that if they do not apply they will not come before the Road Board to be included. They have, therefore, now to make up their minds one way or other in regard to Class A or B to get a State Grant or to remain outside, and be free from State interference, and free to take the expenditure on their roads upon their own shoulders. I am not opposing the advisability of making State Grants in this way, but I say it is unfair to ask the local councils to take upon their shoulders the responsibility without telling them what the responsibility will be.
  I think it is unsatisfactory that the Local Government Board should shelter itself behind the Road Board. We know quite well the Road Board have powers independent of this House. I am told it is desirable that they should be independent, but it was never intended to give them power to put pressure upon local authorities and demand this classification without first coming to the House! I cannot believe that Members on either side are in favour of handing over still more powers to a bureaucracy which the Road Board and the Local Government Board are becoming, without coming to this House for further permission. If the principle is once admitted by which the Road Board can send round circulars, and invite local authorities with all the weight of officialism to start upon large schemes, look at the position in which we may find ourselves. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman says now, "I never gave the Road Board orders to do this." But what did the Under-Secretary say to me on Thursday. I asked him why the local authorities had been called upon to start this classification, and he said that "it was for the local authorities to supply the particulars we have asked for." If they had not asked for it, or if they had asked Sop it, why not say so frankly. Later on, when I asked a supplementary question, namely, "Will the hon. Gentleman say what right he had to ask the local authorities for this information at enormous cost to the counties," he said, "The information is necessary." If it is necessary to obtain this information in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could get on with his Budget proposals, why cannot the right hon. Gentleman frankly admit it, and come to the House and ask permission to do it in the ordinary way,
  1698
  instead of doing it in this hole and corner fashion. It is not the first time a matter of this kind has arisen since the right hon. Gentleman has occupied his office, because there is another matter of a somewhat similar nature, which is, that the right hon. Gentleman is causing a lot of expense to local authorities to give him information in order to frame his Housing Bill. I think it is time to put a stop to this, and if the right hon. Gentleman wants to put local authorities to expenditure of this sort, he should either get sanction or provide the cost out of the Imperial Exchequer. I think there is another matter which one might comment on in regard to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's suggestion in these proposals, that the local authorities will likely save a sum of 9d. in the £ on the rates. It was pointed out last week that the right hon. Gentleman had chosen a very well known figure.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Gentleman has got a special privilege of leave to move the Adjournment of the House, and in doing so it is well that he should keep strictly to the terms of the notice upon which he obtained that leave.
  Mr. GWYNNE: The question of this alteration of the basis of taxation surely admits of one discussing so far as we know them the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this connection.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Certainly not. The House gave leave to discuss a particular matter, and the hon. Member must keep strictly to the terms upon which he got that leave.
  Mr. GWYNNE: I do not wish to argue the point, but the terms were, I think, fairly wide—
  "To call attention to the action of the President of the Local Government Board in endeavouring to place so heavy a financial burden upon the local authorities by calling upon them, through the Road Board, to immediately start upon a scheme of classification of roads without having obtained the necessary Parliamentary authority."
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible so far as this is concerned, that the President of the Local Government Board is taking this action for him, for certainly if the President of the Local Government Board has nothing to do with the Road Board, as I was told

  1699
  by the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon, it must be to obtain information for the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is working at the present moment. Does the President of the Local Government Board really think it is fair to cast this costly burden upon the shoulders of the ratepayer? If it is a mere flea bite as some hon. Members seem to think, why not place the burden upon the Imperial Exchequer instead of upon the ratepayers. If it is such a mere detail let him be generous and say, "We will bear the cost." At all events I ask, if this classification has to be made, is it a fair thing to place upon the local rates the cost of obtaining the information? I say it is not a fair thing to ask local councils to start on this costly scheme, not because the Road Board want to get information upon which to give the ratepayers a Grant, but obviously when the reason is to get information for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I think my hon. Friend has acted perfectly right in bringing this matter before the House on account of the somewhat extraordinary and unwarrantable procedure on the part of the Road Board and the Local Government Board We shall await the explanation of the Government with very great interest. So far as London is concerned, it has no interest in this question, but all Members of this House are interested in seeing that all parts of the country are treated with the respect due to them. Local authorities should be allowed to exercise their own powers in their own way for a good purpose, unless some very good cause is shown to the contrary. I think the Motion for the Adjournment may have one good result. It may help us to clear up what has been singularly mysterious for a long time, namely, the relationship between the Road Board and the Government. The Road Board has had entrusted to it many millions of money extracted from the pockets of the taxpayers. It does not contain on its body a single elected representative. We are told that it has entire control over that money, and that this House has no responsibility for its expenditure or policy, and that no Member of the Government can possibly venture to interfere with it. I will read to the House an extract from the speech of the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he was Secretary to the Treasury in December, 1902—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Nothing arises on this Motion except the recent action in connection with this circular, and the discussion must only deal with that as affecting the Road Board and the Local Government Board.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I bow to that ruling, and I think when you have heard me, Mr. Whitley, you will see that I am keeping well within that Resolution. We are trying to bring in the irregularities of the Road Board and the Local Government Board in imposing on local authorities expenditure of this kind. This is how the Chancellor of the Duchy described the position:—
  "The Board is not under the control either of the Treasury or anyone responsible to this House. I am speaking at this moment for an individual and a body over whom I have no authority, and for whose policy I have no right to speak."
  The right hon. Gentleman further said:—
  "It would be impertinent for any Member of the Government to make any suggestion to the Road Board. It was altogether outside the functions of Parliament if I made any kind of representation at all to Sir George Gibb or the Road Board."
  That is the position we have always found ourselves in when we have wanted to criticise the Road Board.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Will it be in order for us to criticise the relations between the Road Board and this House?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is what I was endeavouring to point out to the right hon. Gentleman. A Debate of that kind does not arise on this Motion. This is an urgent matter or Mr. Speaker would never have allowed it, and it must deal with something that has recently happened.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: Is it not competent for us to-night to ask if the Government have power to do this through the Road Board? That is one of the questions raised in the Motion for which we gained the right to move this Adjournment, and that question is specially raised. The complaint against the Government is that they have been endeavouring to place a financial burden on the local authorities by calling upon them through the Road Board to perform certain duties. Have we not the right to raise the question whether they have the right to call upon the Road Board to do this or not?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is what I am trying to confine hon. Members to and I am not allowing them to stray from that point.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: The Resolution is:—
  "To call attention to the action of the President of the Local Government Board."
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That is exactly what I am doing. Hon. Members are not Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy-Speaker of this House, and they are very noisy. The Resolution is:—
  "To call attention to the action of the President of the Local Government Board in endeavouring to place so heavy a financial burden upon the local authorities by calling upon them, through the Road Board, to immediately start upon a scheme of classification of roads without having obtained the necessary Parliamentary authority."
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That does not in any way raise the question of the constitution of the Road Board or its relations with the Government. Those are matters which have been going on for several years, and could not be raised on a Motion for the Adjournment. These Motions are only allowed on the ground of some immediate and urgent matter newly arisen; therefore, old matter must not be brought up in the course of discussion.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Is it not in order in this discussion to point out that the action of the Road Board and the Local Government Board has been irregular and improper in this matter?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is what I am saying. If hon. Members will be good enough to address themselves to that point they will not be interfered with, but they must not go into the matter of the constitution of the Road Board, which is a subject which has been before the House over and over again.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: The right hon. Gentleman opposite has always maintained that the Government could not exercise any power over the Road Board through the Local Government Board. I was proceeding to show that the right hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding those declarations, has issued directions through the Road Board, and that is exactly one of the positions we want to clear up. There is no doubt that in this circular the name of the President of the Local Government Board gives weight to the orders of the Road Board to these local
  1702
  authorities to incur this expenditure, and what we complain of is that the President of the Local Government Board should have lent his name and got into communication with the Road Board and made suggestions to them that the Road Board should send out circulars to all these different local authorities, thus compelling them to embark upon heavy expenditure. That is our complaint. According to the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that was the grossly irregular action of the Local Government Board. I believe they are gross irregularities on the part of the Road Board, because, after all, the Departmental Committee, a very learned body on local matters, came to the conclusion that the necessary Parliamentary authority would have to be obtained to enable the Road Board to commence the work of classification. No Parliamentary authority has been obtained, and therefore I cannot help thinking that if the Departmental Committee is right then the Road Board has very greatly exceeded its authority in sending this circular down to the local authorities.
  The circular is dated the 30th April and the Budget was not actually introduced until the 4th May. If Sir George Gibb had such an accurate forecast of the amount of money that was going to be placed at the disposal of these local authorities for roads, where did he get it from, if not from the President of the Local Government Board? Therefore, it appears that there is that close communication between the Local Government Board and the Road Board, which we have always been told did not exist between the Road Board and any Department of the Government. A circular goes down to these road authorities which says, "You are to set your surveyors to work, and you are to classify your roads, and you are to do it very quickly." There is no oppportunity for the ratepayers' representatives to discuss the question, and very likely this classification may be of no value to these local authorities at all. Who can tell? The House has not even decided whether the roads should be classified under four heads or under three. The Departmental Committee recommended three, But there are a great many people, including Sir George Gibbs himself, who recommend four. Yet, long before this Budget is ever introduced, before we have ever accepted its principles or even debated them, a circular goes down from this irresponsible body, the Road Board,

  1703
  responsible to nobody in this House, at the suggestion of the President of the Local Government Board to the local authorities and tells them that they are to classify their roads under three heads, when possibly it might have been better to have classified them under four heads, and without any opportunity being given for the ratepayers' representatives to discuss the question. These orders are given in this way. It is a new sidelight on the action of His Majesty's servants, which we see peeping out only too often in superseding the local authorities and setting aside local government, and in riding roughshod over the ratepayers' representatives. It is another sidelight on that, and it is also a sidelight on the way in which financial control has been drawn by the Government from this House; and is being continually drawn from this House. We await the explanation of the President of the Local Government Board. Perhaps, after he has spoken, the offence may not appear to be so great, but still I think my hon. Friend was quite right in bringing this matter before the attention of the House.
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Let me report to the House, if I may, what the position is with respect to these increased Grants for roads, in order that they may understand the necessity for the issue of a circular such as that which is now complained of. For a long period it has been pressed upon the Government and upon this House that additional Grants should be given to local authorities to assist them in bearing the cost of the maintenance of the roads. It has been said that this is a national purpose, and that Parliament ought to contribute. The Government now are prepared to ask Parliament to vote an additional sum of about £1,250,000 for the benefit of the local authorities who now bear the cost of the roads. For that purpose, it is admitted on all hands that a classification of roads is essential. The hon. Member who moved this Motion said that in his opinion the classification of roads, distinguishing between those which should be assisted from the central Exchequer and those which need not be assisted, was essential. The Royal Commission on Local Taxation reported in 1901, thirteen years ago, that there ought to be a classification by a central authority of the roads in this country in order that
  1704
  those which served a national purpose should be specially—
  Mr. AMERY: On a point of Order. Is the general history of the question of the Road Board and the classification of roads since the year 1901 in order on this Motion?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the right hon. Gentleman should be allowed to explain the circumstances, since he has just been asked to do so.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Both sections of that Commission reported that a central authority ought to be invited to prepare a classification. The Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament on Financial Adjustments two or three years ago recommended that there should be a classification of roads made by a central authority. The Kempe Committee, which has just reported, also held that it was essential for the purposes of these local Grants that a classification should be made by a central authority and they recommended the Road Board. The reason the Government share the view that it should be made by the Road Board is precisely because the Road Board is independent of a Government Department. I think it was the Noble. Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil) who, when its constitution was before the House, urged, and very properly urged, that it should be a body not subject to the ordinary pressure of Parliamentary exigencies. Therefore, this is the very body of all others which can properly be trusted to determine the basis on which Grants should be distributed by a Government Department, precisely because it is of that independent character. As soon as the Government had decided that this year it would make proposals to Parliament for increasing the Grants to local authorities, naturally it devolved upon me—it was my plain obvious duty—to take measures to secure that this policy could be carried into effect, and I consulted with the Chairman of the Road Board as to the steps which were desirable and practicable.
  Mr. HEWINS: Before the Budget was introduced?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, certainly, as soon as the Government had decided upon their policy.
  Mr. HEWINS: Before Parliament had granted it?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Certainly, it was an administrative matter. The position as regards the Road Board was this: They already in the ordinary course of their duties have obtained particulars from time to time on the lines which are now suggested should be made general with respect to a very considerable number of roads. A census has been taken probably in about 1,000 cases at different points of the roads of the country for the purposes of the Road Board, in order to enable them to know what is the amount of traffic along the various roads for which they were requested to make Grants. Frequently, when local authorities make application to the Road Board for Grants, the Road Board, instead of accepting the proposals, make alternative suggestions which, in their view, are improvements, and for that purpose it is necessary for them to have these statistics of the traffic upon particular classes of roads. For their own purposes, apart altogether from any Grants under the Budget, the Road Board has contemplated for a certain time back that it would be necessary in order to enable them to perform their functions efficiently to generalise the partial and almost haphazard census which they have obtained in this way, in particular cases and at various times. They contemplated having a general survey, but they held it back and they issued no circular for the very reason that all the world knew a Departmental Committee was sitting on the question of local taxation, including Road Grants, and that the day was probably not far distant when a classification of roads, as recommended by the Royal Commission thirteen years ago, and as recommended by the Joint Select Committee three years ago, would become necessary, not only for their own purposes, but also for the purpose of some future Grants. The hon. Member who moved the Resolution said that it was an odd coincidence that just at the time when the new Grants were about to be made, the Road Board should be making their survey for their own purposes. It is not a coincidence at all; they deliberately held back the proposals that they had in mind for a long time, until the moment should come when a classification might be necessary for purposes of Road Grants.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Is the hon. Gentleman now answering for the Road Board, because when I asked him a question this afternoon, he said that he had nothing at all to do with it.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am answering the attack the hon. Member has made upon me for having directed the Road Board to do a thing which he says is illegal for them to do. It is necessary for me to answer this attack, unless, indeed, the hon. Gentleman himself does not think it worth answering.
  Mr. GWYNNE: The right hon. Gentleman does not appear to understand the point. I asked him whether, in giving the explanation in the way he was doing, we were to take it that he was speaking officially for the Road Board—a body with which, earlier in the evening, he told us he had nothing to do. He is now making excuses for what that Board has done,
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I did the hon. Member the courtesy to answer the attack which he has made upon me. He asked me, as President of the Local Government Board, by what authority I required the Road Board to call upon the local authorities to give certain particulars. I am replying to that question. I did not require them to do so. As a matter of fact, the Road Board were contemplating getting certain particulars, and I am now endeavouring to put the House in full possession of all the circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion said he thought it was odd that this step should have been taken by the Road Board before it was known that any measures were going to be taken to deal with Road Grants—before, in fact, the Budget Statement was made. But the House of Commons was informed at the beginning of this Session, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Government intended to make proposals this year in order to deal with the question of local Grants.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: They were not informed in detail.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: The information was of the vaguest kind.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In any case, it was essential, as soon as the Cabinet had decided upon its policy, that the Departments concerned should take such steps as were necessary to pave the way for the execution of that policy. It has been suggested that I said that the Road Board had not acted at my request in this matter. This is the first of many inaccuracies in the statement of the hon. Member. I said nothing of the kind. I said they had not acted by my directions, which

  1707
  is a very different thing. They had, for some time, been contemplating the issue of a circular, and I requested that that circular should be framed in such terms as would make it of service also for the purpose of classifying the roads for Grants. I did not direct the Road Board to do anything whatever, because I have no authority to do that. Perhaps I had better read the actual circular, or rather some of the passages in it.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also read the answer he gave me this afternoon.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will read the important passages of the circular in order that hon. Members may see precisely what it was that the Road Board asked the local authorities to do, and precisely under what circumstances they had done so:—
  "I am directed by the Road Board to inform you that they have had under their consideration the question of preparing a detailed schedule of all the public loads in England and Wales, excluding for the present those within the county of London and county boroughs, divided into classes according to the relative importance of each class for traffic purposes, with a view to its use as an aid in the selection of works of road improvement towards which Grants should be made out of the Road Improvement Fund, and they have been requested by the President of the Local Government Board to frame the proposed classification on such lines that it could also be used as a basis for Grants in aid of maintenance expenditure from the National Exchequer."
  Then it goes on to say—[Interruption.]
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If hon. Members below the Gangway on both sides think they have any point of Order, I must ask them to kindly address it to me.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The circular proceeded:—
  "I am directed by the Board to invite the assistance of all highway authorities concerned in the preparation of the proposed classification by sending certain particulars."
  Mr. CHAPLIN: That was for the purpose of the Budget, I suppose?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman can see the circular. The Road Board were good enough to adapt their circular in order to fit it for the purposes of the Budget Grants, and so they requested the local authorities to classify the roads, and they made their suggestions for the division of the roads into three classes. That was the recommendation of the Kemp Committee—a recommendation which the Government intended to adopt, and, if my memory serves me rightly, it was also a recommendation of the Royal Com-
  1708
  mission on Local Taxation. It might be that if the classification was not to have been used for this purpose, the Road Board might have asked for a larger number of classes, and not have issued a request for classification under three heads. Careful inquiry was made whether or not it was necessary to obtain special statutory powers to enable the Road Board to issue the circular and obtain these particulars, and the Departments concerned, and the Road Board also, agreed that it was not necessary for them to ask Parliament for any legislative powers, as it was well within their ordinary competence and within the sphere for which they had been created. This is the point I wish hon. Members to consider. The Road Board was about to issue and had for some time contemplated issuing a circular inviting particulars of roads in order to classify them for their own purposes. The Government was about to propose to Parliament the classification of roads into three classes, for the purpose of additional Grants to be made by the Treasury. Hon. Members opposite complain because I got into communication with the Road Board. But suppose I had not done so—suppose I had left the Road Board to issue their schedule in such a form that it could not be used for the Road Grants we contemplated making. What would hon. Members have said then? What would they have said if I had adopted the course they seemed to approve? I am sure they would have been the first to accuse me of gross administrative incompetence, because I had not been able to foresee that the classification would be necessary for the Grants, to be made by the Exchequer, and because I had allowed a classification on wrong lines to be made without any action on my part or any communication between the Local Government Board and the Road Board. They would have said, "What are we to think of a Government Department which is unable to communicate with other bodies established in its own neighbourhood, and dealing with similar topics, which has not sufficient common sense to co-ordinate the action of these several authorities for a common purpose."
  Mr. GWYNNE: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the Road Board would have had no power to make any classification on their own behalf on these lines, because the Departmental Committee recommended that the necessary

  1709
  Parliamentary authority be obtained in order to make this classification. I asked the right hon. Gentleman this evening, and I now repeat that question, why was not the necessary Parliamentary authority obtained for making the classification?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member quotes that extract from the Re port of the Committee, as though it had legal authority. We examined into the question whether Parliamentary authority was necessary—
  Mr. GWYNNE: Who are we?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The various departments concerned—the Treasury, the Local Government Board, and the Road Board, and we came to the conclusion that the Road Board was fully competent to act.
  Mr. HEWINS: Under what section.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In the ordinary discharge of its duties. It was competent to obtain such information as was necessary for the discharge of its duties.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Under what Act?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Roads Improvement Act. Suppose there had been no question of a Government Grant, suppose the Road Board were dealing, as they had been dealing for some years, merely with its own Road Improvement Fund. It has found it necessary to obtain these census particulars at about one thousand points on different roads. Suppose there had been no question of any Treasury Grants, it still would have gone on to issue a general circular on these lines, within its own statutory powers, under its own constitution, and for its own purpose.
  Mr. CHAPLINwas understood to ask: What will be the cost?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am coming to that in a moment. That is not the point with which I am now dealing, and on which the hon. Member has challenged me. He said that the Road Board, apart from all question of cost, had no power at all to make any classification of any sort for this purpose.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Classification such as this.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Very well. My point is that the Road Board have power under the statutory authority which constituted it, for their own purposes—not for Exchequer Grants, but for Grants from the Road Improvement Fund—to obtain,
  1710
  not to require, not to force upon local authorities, not to insist upon them supplying, but to invite local authorities, if they wish, to supply particulars of 3,000 or 4,000 points, just as they have already invited local authorities to supply particulars with regard to 1,000 points, and the local authorities have gladly done so. Since it was possible for them to make this classification for their own purposes, obviously it was not impossible for them to make that classification in such a form that it should be useful simultaneously for the Grants in aid of rates, which the Government contemplated distributing. That is the whole story.
  Mr. GWYNNEmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member, who has made one speech at the beginning of this Debate and a great number of supplementary speeches since, has continually asserted that we are requiring local authorities to supply particulars, or that the Road Board is requiring local authorities to supply particulars. The Road Board has done nothing of the kind. No local authority need supply any particulars if it does not wish to do so. There is no statutory power to require local authorities to supply particulars—none, and no compulsion is exercised or is contemplated to be exercised on the local authorities.
  Mr. F. HALL: Or will be exercised?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Or will be exercised. The Road Board has never exercised such compulsion, and never will. The local authorities are well aware that since the whole purpose of this classification is to enable them to receive £1,250,000 more annually than they have received before, they are probably most willing to co-operate with the Road Board in the future as they have done in the past by supplying any particulars that may be desirable or necessary. Next, hon. Members asserted that a great cost will be imposed upon the local authorities. That has not been the experience in the past. These local authorities have had experience of similar circulars, or rather similar requests, dealing with particular cases, and a census of this kind has been taken frequently and at very small cost. The local authorities will not be required to employ numbers of highly-paid officials. As a matter of fact, when these censuses have

  1711
  been taken hitherto they have usually employed their own road men—sometimes their own policemen and sometimes police pensioners—at a very small cost, and it has been found in the past that the average expenditure for each census point is about 30s.
  Mr. SANDERS: For how long a time?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: For the whole period. I believe it is only for one week. All that is required is that a man or two men shall stand at a given point. [An HON. MEMBER: "How many hours?"]
  Mr. GWYNNE: For sixteen hours a day.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must again protest against hon. Members interrupting the Debate by interjections. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gwynne) had a full half-hour, and what he could not get in in that time he ought to be content to leave out.
  Mr. GWYNNErose—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Docs the hon. Member rise to a point of Order?
  Mr. GWYNNE: Yes, Sir. I desire to say I was answering the question the right hon. Gentleman had put to me as to the time. He did not know the details of the circular, and, as I was well informed on that point, I gave the time to him.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member had a copy of the circular in his hand, and so had the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. GWYNNE: He had not read it.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It was a perfectly unnecessary interjection.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: For sixteen hours a man has to stand at this particular point during seven days; consequently, it would be necessary to employ two men. As the local authorities employ their own road men, or policemen, or police pensioners, it is found in practice, and I am informed that this is the experience, that the average cost is about 30s. per point. As the Road Board only requisitioned for particulars at one point in every 10 miles on a rural road, and as, probably, 4,000 or 5,000 points will be sufficient, for the whole country, the expenditure for taking the censuses themselves will be in the neighbourhood of £6,000 or £7,000 divided among about sixty-four county authorities. There
  1712
  may be some small additional expense for maps and for other purposes, but the whole amount is quite trivial in comparison with the immensely increased Grant of £1,250,000. Let the House remember that this expenditure is once and for all, or, at all events, would cover a period of years, while the Grants of £1,250,000 are not single Grants, but will go on annually until Parliament otherwise ordains. Let me further point out—I mention this incidentally—that it is advisable for their own purposes that the highway authorities should have some scientific knowledge of the amount of traffic upon their roads, in order that they may have the best guidance as to their maintenance. There is one other point. The hon. Member who moved this Motion said that we had insisted upon local authorities supplying information in the utmost haste upon which the classification was to be based; that we had left it to the clerks and surveyors to decide which roads they were to ask should come into Class A and Class B; that that was unfair to the clerks and surveyors; that the local authorities did not meet except at comparatively infrequent intervals; and that it was absurd to commit local authorities, with so-little period for consideration, to so grave a matter as the classification of the roads in their counties. That would have been a very serious and a very cogent charge if it had any basis at all. As a matter of fact, we have asked the local authorities to do nothing of the kind. The local authorities have not been asked to send in their proposals for the classification of their roads by the 18th May or any fixed date at all.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Read the circular.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: They have not been asked without consulting with their local authorities to send in any such particulars. The hon. Member ejaculates that I should read the circular. The circular says, and this is the point:—
  "Any highway authority intending to make proposals for the classification of roads within its area should on or before the 18th May in the present year send for approval of the Road Board a list of the points at which such highway authority proposes to take a traffic census."
  Not roads as classified, but a list of the points at which such highway authority-propose to take a traffic census.
  Mr. GWYNNE: The right hon. Gentleman has not explained to the House what taking a traffic census means. It means that every road which comes under Class

  1713
  A or B has to have a traffic census taken, and the clerks and surveyors have to decide, if it falls to them to decide, which roads come under Class A and Class B.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In the first place, I do not agree that the Committee cannot meet. They can meet at short notice, and are competent to deal with a preliminary point like this. The selection of census points does not in the least degree pledge the local authorities to any particular roads as either first-class or second-class roads, and the Road Board will be perfectly prepared to receive from any local authorities any supplementary list of census points or any variation of their original list which they have sent in. But it is necessary to have census points, and it is necessary that the Road Board should have cognisance of them, so that by their general knowledge of the roads of the country they can tell whether or not the census points chosen are likely to supply a fair test of the traffic passing along the roads which are the roads with which they deal.
  Mr. SANDERS: May we take it from the right hon. Gentleman officially that a supplementary list will be allowed, because that is a point which is raising a good deal of difficulty. If we could have that cleared up it would ease the situation a great deal.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Certainly, I can give that assurance.
  Mr. SANDERS: On behalf of the Road Board?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes. They inform me that they will accept such supplementary census points if the Local authority thinks it desirable to submit them or to alter its original list. Also the local authorities can send it in, if they so desire, later than 18th May if they find themselves not in a position to have done it by that date. The reason why it is advisable to have the information as soon as possible is this: In order to get the fullest traffic along the roads it is necessary that the census should be taken during the summer months, and that has been stated in the circular. If it is postponed too long the months will have passed when traffic over the roads is the heaviest; therefore it is desirable to have the census points chosen as quickly as possible. Secondly, the Government desire to distribute, if the House of Commons approves, a very considerable in-
  1714
  crease in the Grants this year. These Grants cannot be distributed until the classification is made, or, at all events, until the provisional classification is made, and therefore if you postpone the classification you necessarily postpone the Grant, and if you have no classification at all you can have no Grant.
  Hon. Members opposite are continually pressing me for information as to the amount of additional Grants which will go to each locality in the country. It is impossible to give that information until there is at least a provisional classification of the roads. Therefore, for the convenience of the House of Commons itself, it is very desirable that this information should be obtained as soon as possible. I am informed by the Road Board that no local authority has refused to give this information. No local authority has even complained in respect of it, and the Local Government Board also has received no complaint and no representation from any local authority. On the contrary, a vast mass of material has come to the Road Board from the various local authorities. They have not yet had time to tabulate it, but so far as we are aware there is no reluctance on the part of the highway authorities of the country to assist the Road Board in every way they can with the utmost expedition in their power, in order to secure at the earliest possible date a large increase of Grants for road maintenance, of which they have so long stood so sorely in need.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: The right hon. Gentleman told us in ominous tones that if you postpone this classification you postpone the Grants, and if there is no classification you will get no Grant at all. Why is it that all these questions, which have got us in such a tangle to-night, have not been considered and thrashed out before? All these proposals were made in the Budget. Apparently we now learn for the first time that they were all made completely in the dark, without any knowledge whatever on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to what the basis of distribution was to be, how the Grants were to take effect, and who would get them and who would not. The right hon. Gentleman handed me the circular which has been the subject of so much discussion. The first thing I find in it is that they have been requested by the President of the Local Government Board to frame the proposed classification on such lines that it

  1715
  could be used as a basis for Grants-in-Aid of maintenance and expenditure. That shows that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the first time in the history of any Budget I have ever heard of—and I have heard some five and forty—had no idea of what was going to be the effect of his Budget than the man in the Moon. He did not even know what was to be the basis of distribution of all these Grants, which we are told are to be given in aid of local taxation. If I had elicited that alone, I think I have done quite enough to more than justify the Motion. I am entitled to remind the House what it was that my hon. Friends complained of, and what were the questions upon which they desired to elicit information. The first was, had the Government a right to place any burden on the local authorities without having obtained Parliamentary authority to do it? The second was, had they the right to do it through the Road Board. The third was, have they the right to do it for the purpose of immediately starting a scheme for classification. I gathered from the right hon. Gentleman that there was to be no imposition by the Government of any burden upon the rates at all. I understand that the work, whatever it is, is to be carried out, of course, through the rates. Is that so?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman has quite correctly interpreted what I said. There is no imposition upon the local authorities. They have not been required to do anything at all. They have been asked to furnish information. It will be collected at their cost, which we anticipate will be very small.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: They are expected to do it at the cost of the rates. I am old-fashioned enough to remember the days when there was a strong party in favour of the reform of local taxation, which generally managed to get their way, and any proposals of any kind to add fresh burdens to the rates, when they were imposed for national purposes, were always opposed, objected to, and, as a rule, thrown out at once. These good old days are over. That is why hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, who still preserve some of the old traditions, have been led to believe that burdens imposed on one class of property only were most unfair. Those who hold
  1716
  these opinions have every right to be watchful when we see the action which is being taken at this moment under a Government which, if it has been remarkable for anything at all, has been remarkable for overriding the powers of local authorities in all parts of the country, passing Bills day after day for imposing further burdens on them. They have actually been getting powers to impose those burdens on them over their heads and against their will by Acts of Parliament. You cannot be surprised that there is great watchfulness on this side of the House now. Why have we got into all this tangle to-night? Why has this question arisen at all? It is because we have a Chancellor of the Exchequer who introduces a Budget with all kinds of proposals, which may be good for all I know, and possibly some of them may be the reverse, without having taken the trouble to ascertain in the least what the effect of his proposals is going to be. It is on that account that he has been obliged to take the course indicated in the circular which was handed to me by the President of the Local Government Board.
  Mr. ALBERT SMITH: I understand that the motive for moving the Adjournment was to ascertain whether the Government had power to put this expense on the local authorities without the sanction of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has cleared that matter up. I wish to say a word in regard to the local authorities in connection with this matter. It has been stated that the Government has no power to put any expense whatever on local authorities to ascertain the nature and condition of their roads in regard to the Grant they are to get from the £1,250,000. I would like to know what local authority there is in the country who would refuse to spend something to ascertain the nature and condition of their roads with the view perhaps of getting what would be equal to a threepenny rate in return! With regard to the argument that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made these proposals in the dark, I would ask any hon. Member who has had to do with a local authority whether he does not know quite well of the heavy burdens imposed on the ratepayers at the present time. I feel perfectly sure that the relief offered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be welcomed by every local authority, and I think the House would do well to reject the Motion for the Adjournmen.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: The hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. Smith) seems to have missed the whole point of the Motion before the House. He seems to suggest that this Motion was directed against the Grants proposed to be made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in relief of local taxation. That is a grotesque misrepresentation of the ground of the Motion. The ground of the Motion was not to prevent local authorities from getting a share of the Grant, but to prevent the Government by means of the Road Board putting burdens on the local authorities without Parliamentary sanction. It is no use hon. Members saying that the cost that is to be put upon the local authorities is comparatively small when viewed in relation to the largo Grant which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is proposing to give to the local authorities. That is not the point we are discussing. What we are discussing is, whether the Government has any right at all to cause the Road Board to put this expense on the local authorities without Parliamentary sanction. The hon. Member opposite has endeavoured to saddle the Opposition with some desire to prevent the local authorities receiving Grants, and it is just as well that the House should know that there is not the slightest foundation whatever for the suggestion. Quite the contrary; the Opposition are doing their duty to the House and the country in calling attention to an insidious form of putting an extra burden on the local authorities without Parliametary sanction. The right hon. Gentleman in his reply said that the Road Board had authority to call for a classification of roads, but I did not understand him to say that they had power to pay for it. I am not quite sure that there was not some mental reservation in his statement. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the Road Board has power to pay for a survey and census such as is demanded from the local authorities?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: For their own purposes.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: I wonder why he does not persuade the Road Board to do it for their own purposes at their own expense. Why should he call upon the local authorities to do it at their expense? [Interruption.] I do not mind one interruption, but half a dozen become unintelligible. If the right hon. Gentleman says that the Road Board has power to spend money for this purpose, why does he require the work to
  1718
  be done at the expense of the local authorities? I wonder if the real explanation is not to be found in the report of the Committee on Imperial and Local Taxation. Clause 9, Sub-section 8 of the Report, states that the finding of the Committee is that the necessary Parliamentary authority should be obtained as soon as possible to enable the Road Board to commence a provisional classification of roads. From that it would appear that the Committee certainly thought the Road Board had no power. The right hon. Gentleman said that since then they have considered the matter further, and that they think it has got power. If they think so, why on earth does not the Road Board make the classification without calling upon the local authorities to bear any part of the expense? The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no sort of compulsion on a local authority to make the expenditure. Technically that is true, but it is not the real fact. The right hon. Gentleman knows that local authorities have the alternative of saying at which points the census will be taken before 18th May. In order to make that statement to the Road Board, they have to make up their minds which classification the roads are to fall into.
  Mr. LEIF JONESindicated dissent.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Then the hon. Gentleman who interrupted mo read the request in the wrong way. I am not in the least surprised, for he frequently reads things wrongly. The fact is that this is stated in the circular—
  "Any highway authority intending to make rules for the Classification of roads within its area should in or before the 18th of May, of the present year, send for the approval of the Road Board a list of the points at which such authority intends to take a traffic census."
  This list is Form No. 1:—
  "The number of census points will he determined with regard to the character of each road proposed to be classified."
  How can the local authorities say how many census points they are going to take except in connection with the character of each road proposed to be classified? [HON. MEMBERS: "Read on!"] What I have said is quite accurate. They have got to make up their minds which classification is going to be adopted in regard to the road before they can settle the point. The document proceeds:—
  "But generally speaking, it will be sufficient to have on rural roads an average of one census point per ten miles of road."
  What on earth has that got to do with it? I have read the rest of the sentence, which

  1719
  is perfectly meaningless. I will leave it to hon. Gentlemen, if they want, to read any more. On the question of expense, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was only going to be £6,000 or £7,000—quite a small matter. He got a little involved in his arithmetic, even in regard to that figure, because he seems to suggest that watching roads for eight hours a day, employing two men for seven days, could be done for 30s. I do not think that that is a possible figure. I do not think that you can carry out even the points census at less than twice the figure named. But that is not all the expense. There are, in addition, ordnance maps, surveys, and various other things to be done. It is very curious that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that all that work can be carried out for from £6,000 to £7,000, while the Road Board for merely checking the work of the local authority would incur an expenditure of £8,000. Of course, one
  does know that in duplicating officials in Government Departments, a great deal of money is wasted, but even under this Government it would scarcely be possible to spend £8,000 on the supervision of work costing only £6,000. I think that my hon. Friend is not only justified in calling the attention of this House to the gross abuse of powers by the Local Government Board, but that he would have done very wrong if he had not done so. I know that hon. Members opposite are desirous of making what political capital they can out of the suggestion that this Motion is, in fact, in opposition to the Grants. I only ask them at least to credit the Opposition with this sense, that they are unlikely to oppose anything which will give relief that is proposed.
  Question put, That this House do now adjourn.
  The House divided: Ayes, 110;. Noes, 229.

  Division No. 110.]

  AYES.

  [9.50 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Du Pre, W. Baring

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

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

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Fell, Arthur

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Astor, Waldorf

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Barnston, Harry

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

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

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

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

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Hills, John Waller

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone. W.)

  Bird, Alfred

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Boyton, James

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Starkey, John R.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hunt, Rowland

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Stewart, Gershom

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

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

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

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast. North)

  Campion, W. R.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Tickler, T. G.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Kinloch-Cogke, Sir Clement

  Touche, George Alexander

  Cassel, Felix

  Kyffin-Taylor, G.

  Tryon, Captain George dement

  Cator, John

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Watson, Hon. W.

  Cave, George

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Weigall, Captain A. G.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

  Wilson, Hon. A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.)

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Worthington Evans, L.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Crichton-Stuart. Lord Ninian

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Denniss, E. R. B.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Dixon, C. H.

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

  Rupert Gwynne and Viscount

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Mount, William Arthur

  Helmsley.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Adamson, William

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

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

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Boland, John Pius

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Barton, William

  Bowerman, Charles W.

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

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Hogge, James Myles

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

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

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

  Bryce, John Annan

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hudson, Walter

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  John, Edward Thomas

  Pratt, J. W.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

  Clough, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Joyce, Michael

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell '(South Shields)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kelly, Edward

  Reddy, Michael

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Kilbride, Denis

  ' Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cotton, William Francis

  King, Joseph

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Crooks, William

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

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cullinan, John

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

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

  Robinson, Sidney

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

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roch, Waiter F. (Pembroke)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  De Forest, Baron

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Delany, William

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Rowlands, James

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Lundon, Thomas

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

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

  Dillon, John

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk, Burghs)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  McGhee, Richard

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Doris, William

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

  Sheehy, David

  Duffy, William J.

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

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Shortt, Edward

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Manfield, Harry

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrlm, S.)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Falconer, James

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Meagher, Michael

  Tennant, Harold John

  Firencn, Peter

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrlm, N.)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Field, William

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Middlebrook, William

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Millar, James Duncan

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Molloy, Michael

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Waring, Walter

  Geider, Sir W. A.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

  Gill, A. H.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Glinville, Harold James

  Mooney, John J.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Morrell, Philip

  Webb, H.

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Morison, Hector

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Muldoon, John

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

  Murphy, Martin J.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Hackett, John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Hancock, John George

  Norton, Captain Cecil W

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Dowd, John

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Hazleton, Richard

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

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

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Malley, William

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Henry, Sir Charles

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

  Young, William (Perth, East)

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Shee, James John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Hinds, John

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Question put and agreed to.

  ETABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
  Postponed proceeding resumed. Amendment to Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question." Debate resumed.
  Mr. EVELYN CECIL: On the interruption of business I was dealing with this statement of the Home Secretary:—
  "There is no single occasion on which, if alt the representatives from Ireland had been absent from this House, any single important provision of the Bill during its progress…"
  I pointed out to him that that was quite an inaccurate statement. I gave him three instances why it was not true, and I propose

  1723
  to quote one more, which I hope he will admit is equally contrary to the fact. An Amendment to this Bill was moved on the 10th January, 1913, to safeguard the interests of curates, and there was a majority outside the Members from Ireland of 23 in favour of the Amendment and against the Government. That makes four distinct instances in which the Home Secretary's statement was quite inaccurate; and if I need give him any greater proof I could refer to the communication made by the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool in the "Winnipeg Free Press," which has been already quoted to-night. The fact is that in order to keep up this bargain between the Government and hon. Gentlemen from Ireland below the Gangway, this Bill is being pressed on for the purpose of the Home Rule Bill. In my opinion it is being pressed in this way in order to endeavour to justify the Parliament Act, and the Suggestion stage is being omitted under that Act for fear that the Irish vote would not be sufficient to counteract the awkward situations for the Government which may ensue. There have been various statements made during these Debates by hon. Members from Wales. I see the hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs is in his place. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to some remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley in the Debate the other night, and he stated that he was very glad that one thing had resulted from the discussion on the Financial Resolution, and that was that he had got an admission from my hon. and gallant Friend that if this Bill passed no church in Wales would be closed. I interrupted him at the time and pointed out that my hon. and gallant Friend said he hoped no church would be closed, and that is a very different thing, indeed.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I remember the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley saying in this House, about eighteen months ago, that he spoke with the authority of the bishops, that no Christian service of the Church in Wales would be found to be affected.
  Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I am afraid I have not looked up what was said before, but I very much doubt whether the bishops would go so far as that. I was certainly present, however, when my hon. and gallant Friend made the observation that he
  1724
  hoped no church would be closed in Wales, and when the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen Boroughs said the hon. Member for Dudley stated that "no church in Wales would be closed," I immediately interrupted him and said, "he hoped" no church would be closed. As far as I can gather, it has been said that the Welsh Church would lose no religious influence from being Disestablished; but if the hon. Member asks me if I really think and believe that, I would tell him that I do not. I think it will lose considerable influence. I think some churches run great risk of being closed, and I draw my conclusion from what has actually occurred in Ireland. If the hon. Member has been over in Ireland he may have learned that under the Irish Act a large number of churches have fallen out of repair and have been closed. There have been fewer clergy, and in one case, I believe, even something like eleven parishes have been amalgamated under one clergyman. I see no reason to suppose that the effect of this Bill in Wales will not be much the same. Though I hope, earnestly hope, that churches will not be closed, I cannot help but fear and believe that some of them probably will. We are not, of course, seeking merely to defend our property as such. We feel much more anxious, because if we lose so many Endowments we shall not, as a matter of practical common sense, be able to carry on the good work that the Church is endeavouring to do in Wales. If that required proof, I would refer to some interesting observations made a year or so ago at a meeting of the South Wales District Methodist Association, at which the Rev. J. Morgan Jones, of Cardiff, said that—
  "If they could not pay their ministers proper salaries they would not be able to retain their best men, and would have to put up with secondary preachers. IT they wanted to retain the cream of their ministers they must be prepared to give them a living wage."
  Dr. Clifford said at the same meeting—
  "The first thing of all was efficiency. Why was it so many churches in towns were being turned into cinematograph shows. And not always because the lease was run out, but because the ministry could not be maintained in a difficult down-town church."
  That is precisely the position in which probably we shall find ourselves in Wales, and that is as clear evidence as I think I could give to show that it is recognised among all hands, and among all denominations, that if you deprive any denomination of its Endowments to that extent, its work is crippled and its good influences restrained. Then we had, bearing on this

  1725
  matter of voluntary subscription, and maintaining the Endowments of the Church, or of chapels, the hon. Member for South Carnarvonshire (Mr. Ellis Davies) making this remarkable statement this evening. As I understood him, he said that it was a remarkable thing, but that no landowner or quarry-owner in Wales was a supporter of Nonconformity.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: The statement I made, and which I repeat, is, neither in the county of Carnarvon or Merionethshire was there a prominent land-owner who was not associated with the Church.
  Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I should have felt even doubt about that.
  Mr. E. DAVIES: You need not
  Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I think the hon. Member for Merionethshire (Mr. Haydn Jones) might be described as a quarry owner, and a landowner, and I think there is no doubt ho is a supporter of Nonconformity. I confess I fancied that the hon. Member's statement had a somewhat wider application, and that he intended it to apply to the whole of Wales, but even limited as it is, the instance I have given is a contradiction of his statement. Even if it were extended further, I should have been very much disposed to think there were other hon. Members from Wales, such as the hon. Members for Montgomeryshire (Mr. D. Davies), West Denbighshire (Sir J. H. Roberts), who is to be one of the Commissioners, and East Denbighshire (Mr. John), to say nothing of the right hon. Member for Swansea Town (Sir A. Mond), who may, I think, be relied upon to subscribe and sup-poet Nonconformity in Wales. Some hon. Members talk with a note of sarcasm of a "State-paid Church." I think some objection might be taken to that phrase, and if you bear in mind the individualist history of the Church, its initiative in educational progress, its centuries of ministrations to the poor, I consider it would be just as true to say you have a Church-made and Church-paid State as to say that you have a State-made and State-paid Church.
  After all, the real issue of this Bill is a religious issue. If the Government insist upon taking away the Endowments of the Church, I can only say we on this side shall never rest satisfied until the money is restored. It is not such a very difficult thing to do. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was good enough to give us £400 per year
  1726
  by a stroke of the pen in a couple of nights by Resolutions of this House. We might be glad to take that as a precedent for restoring money to the Church in Wales. And, mind, the Church itself seeks no party and no politics, if it is left alone. I note the sneer from an hon. Member. I am speaking with absolute genuineness and with absolute conviction, and I repeat that the Church to which I belong certainly desires to espouse no party and no politics if it were only left alone. It strives to use its influence and opportunities, just like other denominations, for the national welfare. This Bill will remove from many a parish the spiritual helper, the friend in need, the unfailing sympathiser, whose loss perhaps will only be really felt when he is gone. This Bill treads in the footsteps of that unfortunate measure in France some years ago, which confiscated religious property there. I have not heard since from any impartial observer that any advantage has come to France in consequence, or that any advantage is likely to come to France in future. When the religious minister of those parishes in Wales disappears, where his influences, have been unfelt and almost unseen, but are there nevertheless, secularism, infidelity, agnosticism, will step into his place. I can only add that we, whose convictions in this matter are very, very deep, once more implore the Government to hold their hand before an immeasurable evil, with far-reaching consequences, is forced, not upon Wales only, but upon the community as a whole.
  Sir WALTER ESSEX: In listening to this Debate and the Debates on the same measure which have gone on in this House for several Sessions past, and taking a survey of the matters on which the battle has been waged, one could not help noticing that to a large extent we have won from the supporters of the Church the acknowledgment that Disestablishment-itself cannot any longer be as sturdily defended as at first seemed likely, and that they are choosing, as a stouter position, and one more easily maintained, resistance to the Disendowment Clauses. I congratulate the House, unaffectedly and sincerely, also upon the change in the tone of the Debate, in that it has recognised that men in all quarters of the House are motived by a very real concern for religion as they understand it and individually feel it; and so, saving for now and then the sparking out of a note of passion here and there, we have heard from

  1727
  the other side more temperate references to the opinions we severally hold. Those of us who are defending this Bill assure hon. Members opposite, who are as stoutly opposing it, that ours is by no means an undertaking which fills us with pleasure—for this reason, if for none other: That for the present we are in opposition to men who we know full well in the majority of cases are as keenly intent upon religious progress in this old country of ours as we ourselves can hope to be. Reference has been made to the position of Nonconformity in this struggle. We must not for a moment let pass unchallenged the statement that this is a struggle between Church and dissent. That may be an aspect of it, but it is only a one-sided view. Hon. Members who are disposed to read that idea into the discussion will do us the justice to remember that Nonconformity—whether we find it in this country or in any of the various colonies of our far-flung Empire, is of necessity a standing embodied protest against the idea of the association of the secular power of the State with those more intimate relations between the individual and his Creator, as carried on and ministered to by the Church. For this reason Nonconformity, when it has been virile and healthy, has never ceased on behalf of true religion to protest against that association as being detrimental to it, as making against the quality, the goodness, and the efficiency of the Church, and as by no means making for its support and invigoration.
  A challenge was thrown across the floor of the House to-night by a speaker whose contribution to the Debate was beautiful in tone, kindly in spirit, and wonderful in form—a challenge that to-day there were no disabilities that Nonconformists could urge as afflicting them in this country. We do not want to go back two or three centuries to find grounds to disprove that. Something has been said to-night about cemeteries. I know that my Church friends feel that the proposed alienation of the old parish graveyards is one of the bitterest provisions of the Bill. But do they not know that the same trouble is with us now in this country as in Wales? I reside in a London parish—and I use it as an illustration of what has gone on in Wales and all over the country. We put up out of municipal funds from £27,000 to £30,000 for the establishment of a parish cemetery. To-day there
  1728
  has been in the consecrated portion of that cemetery a virtual addition of a number of acres to the churchyard of the rector, which years before was closed under the Intra-mural Burials Act passed by this House, and but for the fact that the rector, long since passed from us, was a man who saw the fairness of our claim, the fees still drawn by his successor for that churchyard, which the parish itself had provided, would have been greater than they are to-day. Shall I need—I hope I do not speak unkindly or uncharitably—to call the attention of the House to what this country has suffered from the action of the Church in matters of education? We Nonconformists, at any rate, have suffered. [An HON. MEMBER: "Gained!"] We shall probably differ—but know that to-day we have not that national system of education we ought to have because the Church has stood between us and the attainment of that high ideal. My hon. Friend, of course, would remind me of the work done by Bell, and the National Society in thousands of villages of our country. I would like to point out to him the work of the predecessor of Bell—while in no sense disparaging the work done by the organisation I have mentioned, and which was first formed under Bell. The Church has fought us steadily, not merely in the schools, but also in our universities. It has stood between the nationalising of these institutions, and to-day, while we ought not to know in the education of our children any difference between the Nonconformist and the Church child, we have brought down into their young minds this miserable squabble, so often to the detriment of their moral, spiritual, and intellectual training.
  There are real troubles still amongst us, but I for one am not supporting this Bill merely because of these things. I believe they can be removed with little difficulty. I know that they well could be removed by the action of this House could we get it to look upon these matters with a broader and wider view. But I would follow the criticism of the hon. Member for Sheffield and say that we as Liberals are perfectly sincere, whether we be Nonconformists, Irish, Roman Catholics, or what not, when we claim that this Bill should be defended by us on the ground that it liberates the Church from the fetters in which to-day she sits. How often we have heard opponents of the Bill speak as did the hon. Gentleman the last

  1729
  speaker from Sheffield about its being probably desirable occasionally to modify the liturgy of the Church, to give the layman larger powers within the Church and its counsels, to permit him to choose his own pastor and spiritual leader, and in various ways to make the Church more popular and more democratic. It can do none of these things without coming to this secular assembly and submitting to the mortification of these things of the Church being dealt with by Roman Catholics, Jews, Agnostics, or whatever the hon. Members may be who sit here. Is that a position which the hon. Member is proud of? Yet it cannot be altered so long as the State bears any relation to the Church—as it does—which is not altogether without a parallel in the relation it bears to the Post Office! I say this again, that we all sincerely believe that in the liberation of the Church from State patronage and control we shall confer upon her a widening of her liberty, an increase of her power, and a development of her usefulness.
  In the earlier Debates a brilliant Member of the Opposition, who has since been promoted to another place, called attention to the fact that the Endowment and Trust deeds of every Church, Nonconformist included, were dealt with by this House. He referred to the settlement effected in the union of the three Methodist bodies under the title of the United Methodist Church. He said that the powers sought by that Bill were powers that had reference both to its creed and to its trust funds, and he said, why should the State not interfere more and more with Nonconformists, as in this case they did? For once that brilliant and eminent lawyer was away from his brief. I can speak with some authority about this particular settlement, for I had a pretty active share in the work of forming it. And I think every man may be proud that he is privileged with the work of the consolidation of Christian Churches rather than in their segregation. What was done in that case was to enable these three Churches to join in one common fund, the funds which had been and were their property as separate entities. And with regard to control by this House of these funds, this House, or the other, had no more right to interfere with these funds than with any other trust. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I recommend hon. Gentlemen who cheer that to cheer when I have finished—because the
  1730
  whole of these funds were given not to these churches, because they were State institutions, not because they represented the State on any particular side, such as education, Poor Law, or what-not, but were given to these churches because they were, Methodist churches, for the maintenance of Methodist doctrine and teaching, and for that, and that alone, and the endeavour was to see that these funds were continued for that purpose. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am prepared to take the argument up on that line, and only that they should not by any means pass from that line of usefulness.
  Before I leave that, the matter of creed, it was not noticed by the right hon. Gentleman that the Act gave special powers to the controlling body of that newly constituted Church to modify in its annual assemblies any item of its doctrine and teaching, as such progress with religious teaching and experience seemed to make necessary. That you cannot do now, and remember that the liberty you are offered will give you that, although you may not at present place any great value upon it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite laughed when I referred to the diversion of Church funds from Church purposes. Do they not see the difference that we claim arises between funds which are being taken by this Bill and those which are left. There are three classes of funds—those specifically for religious work and which can only be used by the body now possessing them, and that will still possess them. Others that were given to social work, to use the common cant phrase. [An HON. MEMBER: "When were they given?"] I broke a lance with the Noble Lord oposite on that point before, and the arguments used on this side have not been met in defence of the funds used for these proposals. There is no Noncnformist Church to-day in precisely the same position. We were met by the statement on the other side—I heard nothing of it in this Debate—that we might have concurrent Endowment, and I believe that Motion was made in all sincerity and good faith. I believe that the Noble Lord once or twice spoke tentatively upon it, and seemed to suggest that it would receive his favour; but it does not lie within the power of this House to make concurrent Endowment. Nonconformity neither wants it, nor would take it. Nonconformity stands proudly upon self-sustenance and self-support. We are free Churches, and what you offer is not yours to give, nor ours to receive.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Nor yours to take away.
  Sir W. ESSEX: We are not taking from the purposes for which we hold it was originally intended to be devoted, whatever has been given to the Church as the Church of England, or as for a section of the Christian Church, is proposed to be left, and if we have blundered we have blundered "with a good intent and in ignorance. Those are the lines this Bill has been framed upon. The hon. Member for Croydon referred in his speech to the scope of this Bill as being so restricted that we should not dare to apply it to India. There could be no comparison between the multiform religions of the Fast and the Church in Wales. What has Islam or Hinduism to do with this question? They stand on no parallel ground. The hon. Member said that our proposals in certain Clauses of the Bill practically constitute a new sect and separated the Church, making it run along lines which were repugnant. I listened to that remark very closely, and I wondered how far the hon. Member had the support of those who sat behind him. The intention of those Clauses is to make sure that the reserve funds and the fabric of the Church, cathedrals and what not, shall be securely held until the properly constituted authorities of the freed Church shall be able to assume the control and direction of them.
  What else could we have done? Could we have left these funds drifting about in anybody's care without control or security? Who was to take all these glorious old fabrics of the parish churches and the other buildings? We had to set up some sort of transferring authority, and that we have done, and surely it is unkind criticism to say after our honest endeavours to secure the continuity of these funds to the Church to which we admit they rightly belong, we have done ill-service to those who are speaking on behalf of them. There has been a great deal of talk about severance of the spiritual communion of the Church. If that comes about, then it is your own fault. There is no intention or endeavour or wish on this side of the House to separate you from a spiritual communion with Canterbury, which you value so highly, and doubtless so properly, and if your Church Convocations or governing assemblies want to make that spiritual connection still more close and vital, that is
  1732
  your concern, and we have no right to intervene.
  Mr. MALCOLM: Supposing the Welsh bishops were summoned to Convocation of Canterbury after the passing of this Bill, it would not be considered a Convocation.
  Sir W. ESSEX: The hon. Member may get the better of me on Church law. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Home Secretary said it!"] All I want to point out is that any spiritual communion for the purpose of solidarity and work might be carried on. I do not doubt that if it found that the existing Church authority is unequal to making that communion complete and all-embracing, the ingenuity which is not wanting in the councils of the Church will be able to effect that small alteration. Reference has been made to-night U. Swansea, Cardiff, and South Wales generally. I would very respectfully commend the experiences of the Church of England in those great crowded districts as an example of what we desire for the whole of Wales. She there is less endowed than anywhere. Over great areas of South Wales she has practically no Endowments. She depends upon that which cannot be better assured, the love of her people. It has proved equal to the building up of magnificent structures for the worship of God and for the comfort of the numerous communicants assembled in those great cities; and I am perfectly sure the proud boast of Welshmen combatting this measure will be realised to the full, and that not a Church whose ministrations are necessary for the spirtual welfare of any town or village will be closed by this Act, but that there will be set up an enormous accretion of enthusiasm and passionate devotion which will have its results in the Church in an unmistakable manner in the very near future. You have driven by your hard and rigid methods and governmental polity many and many a man from your ranks into Nonconformity. These men will come back to you in large numbers when they find there is scope for their activity and their proper personal responsibility is accepted by your clergymen. They will come back to you in large numbers, for I for one do not hesitate to say here that I do not believe that this measure, when it is passed, is going to make for the strengthening of Nonconformity, for it will remove very largely the raison d'étre of Nonconformity in your district.
  In short, the Church, while it may lose this beggarly sum—[HON. MEMBERS:

  1733
  "Oh!"] Yes, for a great wealthy community like yours it is not worth the fuss you are making about it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Then why take it?"] We are not taking it. Nonconformists are not taking it. They have built up a gigantic system of religious communities all over the length and breadth of this land from their own contributions, direct and particular. You will find that same fertilising flow of benevolence come to you and your work. For my part—though it is no immediate concern of this House; it lies very close to the affections of me and many a religious man who is not a member of the Church of England—I believe that the outcome of all this struggle will be for the Church of England in Wales a large and a new birth. We detest the necessity laid upon us—that was the meaning of the revolt in the Liberal party last year—to take from this Church what is not the peculiar property of the Church and to give it to secular purposes, and you have no right to ask that we should do other than we have done. The funds are not yours, and they are not ours as Nonconformists. They belong to the whole community. When you have recognised that small matter, and have assessed that beggarly figure, your hearts are big enough, and your purse is deep enough, to refertilise your Church with streams of money and with oceans of love to find her a greater blessing and a more glorious light to Wales than ever she has been.
  Viscount WOLMER: We have just listened to a very interesting speech—a speech which I think is largely representative of a very important section of English Nonconformist opinion. If I may say so, it was a hesitating, apologetic defence of this Bill, and I am convinced that the hon. Member supports this Bill more because it represents the accomplishment of old ideals of his than because he really feels that it is going to do any good either to the nation or to any religious community within the nation. We also listened earlier in the afternoon to another speech of a very different character. It was a speech by the hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. W. Jones). I confess when I listened to his speech I realised deeply the difference in temperament between Welshmen and Englishmen, and, if I may say so, that speech, eloquent and brilliant as it was, was very characteristic of the sort of speech we are accustomed to hear from Welsh Members on this Bill.
  1734
  The hon. Member devoted a, great part of his time and eloquence to descriptions of the evils and wrongs of the Church in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. He told harrowing stories how men were driven out of the Church, but I do not think all his facts were strictly accurate, for they were largely touched up by that imagination which the Prime Minister complained we on this side of the House did not possess. I should like to put this to the hon. Member. It is not enough that he should dwell on the wrongs of the past. He may say if he likes that Anglicanism is not a suitable religion for the people of Wales. If he can prove his point, and if it is admitted—which I am not prepared to admit—that Wales is a nation in the ordinary sense of the term, I think a certain case could be made out for Disestablishment, but in order to justify Dis-endowment you have to prove a great deal more than that. You have to prove either that the Church is not entitled to the Endowments or that she is misusing them, and that is the point where hon. Members for Wales stop short.
  They tell us about the grievances of the past—about what was done two or three hundred years ago. I remember listening last year to a speech by the hon. Member for the Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. L. Williams) in which he started with the Ven. Bede and stopped in the middle of the 18th century. That speech was on the Second Reading Debate, and to the hon. Member's mind it was obviously a sufficient excuse to justify the provisions of this Bill. Speaking as an Englishman, I do not know whether or not the Church in Wales is one which is suitable to Welshman. But this I know—that before the Royal Commission the entire Welsh Nonconformist denominations only claimed 42 per cent. of the population as their adherents. What is to become of the remaining 58 per cent.? If they are not within the pale of the Church what right have you to minimise the chances of their coming within the pale of the Church, and what good are you going to do by crippling the work of the Church? We want a great deal more than that to justify the provision of this Bill. If hon. Members can make good their claim to Disestablishment—I do not think they have succeeded in doing so—they have yet to justify the other parts of the Bill, and they have to prove that Disendowment must necessarily follow. The majority of the precedents are against them. They have the Irish

  1735
  precedent in their favour, but the precedents from Canada and Australia are against them. In those Colonies the Church has been Disestablished, but it has not been Disendowed, because it was proved that she was using her Endowments in the best possible manner. I maintain that that can be proved of the Church in Wales to-day.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: Does that apply to tithe?
  Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Member is taking a good deal more than tithe; he is taking glebes and churchyards. When he gives glebes and churchyards back to the Church, I will consent to argue the question of tithe. Hon. Members have also to explain that Disestablishment necessarily means dismemberment. Again I can quote precedents against them there. In the West Indies you will find Disestablished and Established dioceses represented in the same synod. There is no earthly reason why the same thing should not prevail in these islands. The questions of Disendowment and dismemberment have nothing to do with the question of Disestablishment. Those are the points upon which we look to hon. Members opposite for justification. The hon. Member for the Eifion Division (Mr. Ellis Davies) did attempt to answer some of the arguments we have brought forward. He spoke a great deal about Church reform and Church self-government. He said that the Church's funds were not used for the best possible purposes, because they were in need of redistribution, and he said a Bill had been introduced to redistribute them, but it had not been passed. I do not think he is correct in that. I have looked up the annals on this question rather carefully, and I do not think a Bill of that kind has been introduced.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: What I said was that it was prepared, but I was not quite sure whether it had been introduced.
  Viscount WOLMER: I do not think it has been introduced. That, however, is a minor point on the questions of Church reform and Church self-government. I ask the House who have been the greatest opponents of Church reform during the last generation? Why, members of the Liberation Society sitting opposite. What was the history of the Clergy Discipline Bill or the Benefices Bill? Both of these were introduced to deal with the crying
  1736
  needs of the Church. They were obstructed by the Members opposite, by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by Sir Samuel Evans. They were obstructed Clause after Clause, and line-after line. In regard to the Clergy Discipline Bill, your predecessor in the Chair, Sir, had to interrupt a speech of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and say he had never known such Parliamentary obstruction in the whole course of his experience. Hon. Members opposite are not entitled to cast that in the teeth of the Church. If their desire is that the Endowments of the Church should be better distributed, that the Church should be given self-government, and that her spiritual efficiency should be increased, and her power developed to the utmost possible limit, then an easy course is open to them. They have only to facilitate instead of to frustrate the various measures of Church reform which are brought forward. They have only to lend their great powers of eloquence and influence to further the self-government of the Church with the various reforms of Church matters which are brought forward without plundering her, or dismembering her as they are doing in this Bill. One thing that strikes me most forcibly in this Debate is the cynical manner in which a small House is passing this measure into law against the will of the people of this country and, I believe, against its own better feelings, too. The opinion in this country has been expressed against it more unspokenly than against any measure which has ever been before Parliament, and I believe, if there was a free vote taken in this House, there would be a clear majority against the Bill. It stinks in the nostrils of Members on both sides of the House, and they are inwardly ashamed that they are wasting the time of this great Parliament in depriving a Church, which is doing nothing but good, of £150,000 a year.
  I ask the House why it is that the Government are proceeding in this fashion. When the Prime Minister introduced the Parliament Bill he invited, especially and personally, the electorate of the country during the passage of any great Bill through the House to protest in a constitutional manner against the Bill if they disapproved of it. How has that invitation been responded to in regard to this Bill? There was, in the first place, a petition of 500,000 adults from Wales, and no petition of equal magnitude has ever been

  1737
  raised in. Wales. Then there was a petition of 2,000,000 adults from England against it, and not a single petition worth mentioning in favour of it. I ask how the Prime Minister's challenge could have been better accepted that that. Finally, there was this petition of 100,000 Nonconformists, whose consciences were shocked at the Disendowment Clauses of the Bill. That is one way of protesting. But there is another way of protesting against the Bill being passed through Parliament. There is another Bill going through this House—the Home Rule Bill—and there is a section of public opinion which feels strongly against it, and they did not waste their time in petitions. They did not waste their time in organising meetings and petitions. They spent their money on rifles, and the people of Ulster, by arming themselves and preparing to resist the Bill by force, have been able to extract concessions from this Government which Welsh Churchmen have never been able to extract. Just compare the difference of the conduct of the Government on these two Bills. Of the two Bills, this Welsh Church Bill, I venture to say, has shocked the people of England more than the Home Rule Bill. It has aroused more resentment than any other Bill that has ever been known. Even the Home Rule Bill has not aroused the same degree of resentment as the Welsh Church Bill; but all the efforts of life-long Liberals, such as the Bean of Lincoln, the Bishop of St. Asaph, the hon. Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs (Mr. Gladstone), and the Nonconformists who have made protests, have been treated with supreme contempt by the Government. Why, even a Suggestion stage has been denied them. Even the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil is shocked at the treatment the curates are going to receive under the Bill. The hon. Member for Glamorgan feels the same as he does on this question. The hon. Member for Morley feels that the glebe ought not to be alienated from the Church, and different sections of this House and different parts of the country which usually support the Government in every measure, raise their voices in protest against the inquitous meanness of the various parts of this Bill. The whole thing is waved aside by the Government without the slightest consideration and without affording us time to discuss it. But here they come to the Ulster Volunteers promising them an amending Bill. I say that the whole conduct of the Government is an incitement
  1738
  to violence. It proves that they will not listen to Debate, or consider the merits of the arguments. It proves that they are not prepared to listen to the justice of the case, and that they will yield to force and nothing else. I say that their conduct of this Bill proves absolutely the wisdom of the men of Ulster. They measured up the Prime Minister, and saw that the only argument, to which he would listen was force. I say that the studied contempt with which the Church, and Nonconformists, too, have been treated, absolutely justifies the attitude of Ulstermen. No argument has been too trifling and too absurd to justify hon. Members in their own minds in passing into law this Bill, which is going to cripple to a great extent the Church in Wales and the noble work in which she is engaged without benefiting any other religious community in the land. I think that the last insult which the Church has received is the names of the Commissioners who have been announced. Why, the hon. Member who is to reply in this House for the Commission is known to be one of the bitterest opponents of the Welsh Church—one of those promoters of this Bill who have insisted upon thier pound of flesh, and resisted every concession which the Government has given as depriving them of the spoil for which they were eagerly hoping. Why the appointment of such men to act in a judicial capacity, and from whom there is no appeal, shows the sort of mercy the Government is prepared to extend to the Church in Wales. They are claiming tithe on the ground that it is national property. They are claiming the tithe of the Church, but they are not going to touch the tithe of the lay impropriators which comes from the same origin.
  It being Eleven of the clock the Debate stood adjourned; Debate to be resumed to-morrow (Tuesday).
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  BUDGET PROPOSALS (IRELAND).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
  Mr. CASSEL: I should like to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is a position to furnish the House with particulars of the increase of Irish

  1739
  expenditure for the year 1914–15? I should like to ask, further, whether he is able to let us have the dates on which the Grants are to commence under the Finance Bill before Wednesday?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will give the hon. and learned Gentleman the in-formation for which he asks. The general effect of the provisions which the Government propose to insert in the Finance Bill with reference to Ireland's share of the new money available for local authorities under the Budget, will be that a sum which | will be fixed at approximately £697,500 for a full year will be added to that part of the Transferred Sum which represents the cost of Irish services to the United Kingdom Exchequer. This money will be at the general disposal of the Irish Government and Parliament. As in the case of the Great Britain Grants, the payment of the additional sum will be dependent on the passing of the legislation which is necessary before the new Grants can be made available for local authorities in Great Britain—that is to say, on the passing of the Finance and Revenue Bill. Temporary provision will be made to give Ire-land the benefit of any Grant which may be given to local authorities in Great Britain in respect of any portion of the current year.
  The sum of £697,500 is estimated as follows:—

  £

  Irish share of the proposed Grants in the first complete year on the basis laid down in House of Commons Paper 212, of 1914, for "Education" and "Other Services."

  630,000

  Add 9/100ths of proposed Grants (£750,000) for Tuber culosis, Nursing and Pathological Laboratories, United Kingdom

  67,500

  Total

  697,500

  Mr. CASSEL: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part as to the date on which the Grants are to commence?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The portion of the year will be the same in the case of the Irish Grants, as in the case of the Birtish Grants namely, Four months' period.
  Adjourned at Eight Minute after Eleven o'Clock.

BUDGET PROPOSALS.
  INCOME TAX AND SUPER-TAX.
  INCOME TAX AND SUPER-TAX.
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  PUBLIC HEALTH (GRANTS).
  PUBLIC HEALTH (GRANTS).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS.
  ROAD GRANTS.
  ROAD GRANTS.
  ESTATE DUTY.
  ESTATE DUTY.
  RATING ASSESSMENT COMMITTEES.
  RATING ASSESSMENT COMMITTEES.
  POLICE GRANTS.
  POLICE GRANTS.
  Teachers' Superannuation Scheme.
  Teachers' Superannuation Scheme.
  Probate Duty.
  Probate Duty.
  General Register of Seamen.
  General Register of Seamen.
  Motor Spirit Duty.
  Motor Spirit Duty.
  Waterford Road Grants.
  Waterford Road Grants.
  Settlements (Stamp Duties).
  Settlements (Stamp Duties).
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  MEDICAL CERTIFICATES.
  MEDICAL CERTIFICATES.
  CASUAL LABOURERS.
  CASUAL LABOURERS.
  Reinstatement Application, Gurnaclea, Queen's County.
  Reinstatement Application, Gurnaclea, Queen's County.
GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  BELFAST TRADE AND LABOUR COUNCIL.
  BELFAST TRADE AND LABOUR COUNCIL.
  PUBLIC LOAN.
  PUBLIC LOAN.
  Trades Union Congress (Dublin).
  Trades Union Congress (Dublin).
  Waterford Roads (Steam-Rolling).
  Waterford Roads (Steam-Rolling).
  Doorla Ranch (Cattle Grazing).
  Doorla Ranch (Cattle Grazing).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Valley National School, Achill, County Mayo.
  Valley National School, Achill, County Mayo.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Land Registry Offices (Ireland).
  Land Registry Offices (Ireland).
  Shire and Clydesdale Stallions (Registration).
  Shire and Clydesdale Stallions (Registration).
  Exported Cattle.
  Exported Cattle.
ROYAL NAVY.
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS.
  ROYAL DOCKYARDS.
  INSTRUCTIONAL ALLOWANCES.
  INSTRUCTIONAL ALLOWANCES.
BRITISH ARMY.
  KING'S REGULATIONS (NEW EDITION).
  KING'S REGULATIONS (NEW EDITION).
  ACCIDENTAL SHOOTING (PRIVATE A. J. COLE).
  ACCIDENTAL SHOOTING (PRIVATE A. J. COLE).
  ROYAL GARRISON ARTILLERY.
  ROYAL GARRISON ARTILLERY.
  Building Trade Dispute.
  Building Trade Dispute.
  National Competition.
  National Competition.
  Elementary Education (School Fees).
  Elementary Education (School Fees).
  Secondary Education (Stirling).
  Secondary Education (Stirling).
  Elementary Education (Scotland).
  Elementary Education (Scotland).
POST OFFICE.
  SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE.
  SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE.
  MEAL RELIEFS.
  MEAL RELIEFS.
  Regent's Park Canal (Drowning Cases).
  Regent's Park Canal (Drowning Cases).
  Royal Canal (Ireland).
  Royal Canal (Ireland).
  Imports of Cotton Piece Goods.
  Imports of Cotton Piece Goods.
  Births and Emigration.
  Births and Emigration.
  New Exchequer Grants.
  New Exchequer Grants.
  San Domingo.
  San Domingo.