Three Amendments to this Clause propose alternative methods of dealing with border parishes. Each of them involves a number of consequential Amendments, and perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I draw attention to them. The first is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) which proposes to leave out certain words in the Clause followed by a series of Amendments, the effect of which would be to provide in the Clause that all parishes which are not wholly in Wales or in England should be treated as being outside Wales. The second Amendment is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Wycombe Division of Buckinghamshire (Sir A. Cripps), which proposes to do away with the general assent of the parishioners and the appeal to Privy Council, and substitute the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the Welsh Commissioners. The third Amendment is in the name of the hon. Member for the Lewes Division of Sussex (Mr. Campion), which proposes that the border parishes should be treated as being outside Wales unless by petition they ask to be treated as within Wales or Monmouthshire. Those are the three Amendments, and of them I understand it is desired that I should take the one in the name of the hon. Member for Kingston.

Do I understand you to say that something was granted by desire? I do not wish to challenge your knowledge, Mr. Whitley, of the general desire of the Committee, but it is not the universal desire. My preference would be for an Amendment put on the Paper for several days which we have had a chance to study. I do not wish to interfere with your discretion, Mr. Whitley, as to what is the general desire., but a number of us would have preferred the taking of an Amendment which has been longer on the Paper.

That is a matter entirely for me to decide, and I have to decide it with a consideration of all the circumstances of the case. The Amendment I have chosen seems to me to raise the clearest issue, and that is one of the reasons I have come to the decision I have just announced.

On behalf of those who are watching this Bill most closely, may I say that I do not think we have ever expressed a desire for any particular Amendment to be taken. We regard the time as being so totally inadequate that we prefer the matter should be left in your hands.

It is entirely under the powers entrusted to me that I have come to the decision I have announced.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words"(1) The Welsh Commissioners shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, with respect to."

I regret that my series of Amendments have not been longer on the Paper, but I think I can make clear to the Committee what the effect of them will be. If my four Amendments are adopted Subsection (1) will then read:—

"Any ecclesiastical parish part only whereof is situate in Wales or Monmouthshire, shall for the purposes of this Act be treated as being wholly without Wales or Monmouthshire."

These Amendments deal only with the border parishes situated partly in Wales and partly outside, and have no reference to those parishes which are in English dioceses, but are situate wholly in Wales or Monmouthshire. With the latter class of parish I have no desire to deal at all, and I do not want to trench upon the time allotted for the discussion of a different point. There are twenty border parishes in all, and I am taking my figures from the Report of the Royal Commission. Six of them only are in Welsh dioceses, two in the diocese of Llandaff and four in the diocese of St. Asaph. There are none in the other Welsh dioceses. The other fourteen are wholly in English dioceses, two in Chester, and the remaining twelve in Hereford. I do not propose to dwell at length upon the general question of the dismemberment of the Church. That is a point of very grave importance, and one which I quite agree fairly arises on this Clause, because nothing can show more clearly the unity of the Church in England and Wales than the striking fact that there is such a large number of parishes partly in England and partly in Wales. That is a very strong illustration of the inadvisability and injustice of endeavouring to tear the Church in Wales from the Church of England. I do not propose to dwell further upon that point. I want to make three points, and three only, in favour of my proposal.

The proposal in this Sub-section of the Bill is that you shall introduce Disestablishment and Disendowment not only into Wales, but into part of England. This proposal, therefore, is the commencement of Disestablishment and Disendowment in England quite apart from Wales and Monmouthshire. To that proposal I take the strongest objection at the earliest possible moment. All these parishes are partly in England. The majority of them, fourteen out of twenty, are wholly in English dioceses, and therefore these parishes are not covered by the words in Clause 1 of this Bill itself, which provides that the Church of England, so far as it extends to and exists in Wales and Monmouthshire, shall cease to be established by law. These parishes, therefore, are not within the main Clause of the Bill, nor are they within any of the arguments, so far as I know, which have been advanced for the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales. They certainly are not within the demand made by the majority of the people in Wales nor the criticisms levelled against the administration of the Welsh dioceses, and I am at a loss to understand on what principle any parish or any part of a parish which is in England, and especially in an English diocese, is to be brought within the principle or the equity of this Bill. This proposal is in effect a raid across the border into England, and it is an attempt, under cover of a somewhat obscure provision, to make a beginning in regard to the Disestablishment and the Disendowment of the Church of England in England.

Oh, no; not an atom of it.

I hope I have made my point clear. There can be no dispute as to what I say, that the effect of this Clause is to disendow parishes which as to all of them partly and to many of them mainly are in England, subject, of course, to the discretion which is given partly to the Commissioners and partly rests upon the wishes of the parishes themselves. Although the Bill does not ipso facto disestablish the Church in these parishes, it does authorise Disestablishment and Disendowment in those parishes subject to compliance with the forms of the Bill. That is my first point, and I want to object most strongly at the very beginning to this attempt, as I conceive it, to begin to extend the principles of this Bill to England apart from Wales.

The second point I want to make is this. I object very strongly to the proposal of the Bill for dealing with these border parishes. On this point my Amendment differs from the others. What is the proposal of the Sub-section for dealing with the border parishes'? Power to bring them within the Bill is given to the Welsh Commissioners. That is a body of which at present we know nothing, and, if the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. McKenna) is adopted, we shall not even know their names before the Bill passes. We are told that one of them will be a member of the Church of England. I believe the right hon. Gentleman himself claims to be a member of the Church of England, and even as to that one we shall know nothing except that very general fact. The other two may be hostile for all we know to the views held throughout the Church of England, and to these three men will be committed the power to disestablish and disendow the Church in any one of these twenty partly English parishes.

Subject to appeal to the Privy Council.

And to the general desire of the inhabitants.

I am going to refer to those points in a moment. The only consideration on which the Commissioners are to act is with reference to the general wishes of the parishioners. I rather think that means the Commissioners are to have regard to nothing except the general wishes of the parishioners. In the earlier Bills other considerations were to be taken into account. The tribunal concerned was to take into account the proportion of the population upon the Welsh side of the border, the situation of the parish church, and any other relative subjects. Those considerations, for some reason, are omitted from this Bill, and nothing is referred to except the general wishes of the parishioners. Does it mean that the general wishes are to be the only guide to the Commissioners, and therefore the only ground on which the Privy Council can act in the case of an appeal? Is the appeal to the Privy Council to mean nothing but this, that the Council has to satisfy itself as to the wishes of the parishioners, and that, having ascertained that, it has no discretion except to follow those wishes? We would like to know whether that is what the Bill means. In the next place, who are the parishioners referred to in this Clause? Does it mean every resident occupier in the parish? Is it confined to the resident occupiers or does it include all those who inhabit the parish? Does it include women and children? There is no definition of "parishioners" in the Bill, and one would like to know what is the intention of the Government and how they propose to make that intention clear. In the next place, what is the meaning of "general wishes"? How are general wishes to be distinguished from particular wishes? What is the meaning of the phrase and what effect is to be given to it? Then, how is it intended that those wishes shall be ascertained? Is there to be some sort of plebiscite or nothing but an inquiry, as a consequence of which the Commissioners may come to such conclusions as they think fit, leaving no material upon which an appeal can be based?

All that certainly wants consideration, but apart from those questions there is a much wider question involved in this proposal. The proposal, I suppose, is that in some way or other you shall get the opinion of the parish as to whether there should be Disestablishment or Disendowrment or not. In other words, the parishioners shall be consulted as to whether the funds now belonging to the Church shall continue to belong to the Church or to the incumbent or shall be applied to other local or general purposes. Just let the Committee consider what that means ! It means there is to be a discussion and a contest in each of these parishes as to the application of money. You are to have the spectacle of argument, of canvass, I suppose, and of discussion in each parish as to whether funds now devoted to religious purposes shall continue to be so devoted or shall be diverted to other objects which no doubt will be put before the parishioners in glowing terms by the opponents of the Church. I think this is a most undesirable way of settling this matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—a most undesirable way. It is a most undignified and a pitiable thing that these people in these rural parishes should be quarrelling and disputing as to whether a certain annual sum shall be applied to religious or other purposes. We shall have all the bitterness which has been imported even into these Debates introduced in every one of these parishes. There will be a contest, a struggle, and a fight over money, a fight between the application of money to religious and the application of money to secular purposes. The proposal is very ill-conceived and is one likely to do a great deal of harm. I would like to have the matter, not relegated to this sort of local or parochial option, but settled by Parliament or by some tribunal appointed by Parliament, not bound by the result, possibly the chance result, of discussions and votes of that kind. It should be decided on considerations far wider, and, I think, of a far worthier character. One is always open to criticism if he comments upon proposals of this kind, which are pseudo democratic, but, for all that, I have put my view forward, and I think it is the right one. I think the proposal to submit the question to this kind of arbitrament is very unwise and is likely to do a great deal of harm.

The third point I want to make is a criticism upon the frame of the Bill. These decisions will take time. The ascertainment of the general wishes of the parishioners must take some time, though how many months I cannot say. There may be appeals, and the appeals, of course, will take time. Meanwhile, the 1st July may come and the date of Disestablishment may pass. What is to be the position of these parishes between the date of Disestablishment and the final decision of the question whether the Bill should apply to them or not? I do not think that can have been considered. It seems to me the Bill leaves it, at all events so far as I can interpret it, in great uncertainty. Will there during this interval be any, and, if so, what, check upon the dealings with Church property or Church matters? Will Ecclesiastical Law apply? Must the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty make their calculations and their adjustments as to these parishes or not? What will be their duty in the matter? If a vacancy occurs in a living, who will nominate? Will the nomination be made by the present patron, or will it be made under Clause 20 of the Bill? All those matters, and others which I need not go into, will be left in uncertainty, and I think we ought to know what is the view of the Government. If I am right in my interpretation, the effect is to illustrate once again the unwisdom of leaving the status of all these twenty parishes in uncertainty instead of dealing with it once and for all.

I have put before the Committee my reasons for objecting strongly to the provisions of the Sub-section itself. My proposal, of course, is a very simple one; it is that you should hold that, unless a parish is wholly in Wales or Monmouthshire it does not come within the Bill. I do not see for the moment any other way in which the whole of my objections can be met. Of course, it may be said with regard to any particular parish that there is nothing but a fraction of it in England and that can be dealt with by an adjustment of boundaries, but as regards many of these parishes that cannot be said. Some of them are almost wholly in England, and as regards one of them the incumbent of the border parish is also the incumbent of a neighbouring parish wholly within. If the Bill passes the effect may be that the same man will be the incumbent of a disestablished parish and of an established parish in two different dioceses. All sorts of questions and difficulties may arise. I want to deal with them, and above all I want to deal with them at once. I do not want to leave the matter open to be fought out and determined hereafter. Above all, I have the strong feeling I have expressed, that in no case ought the Committee to agree to extend the principle of Disestablishment and Disendowment, which has only been supported and defended for Wales, to any English parish.

The hon. and learned Member always states his case with such fairness and moderation that one cannot help feeling a certain amount of regret when one is unable to agree with him. On the present occasion I do not think he has established a good case in support of his Amendment. In the first place, he has not done justice to the proposals of the Bill as they stand. What is the scheme of the Bill? We propose that, so far as boundaries allow, the geographical area of Wales and Monmouthshire shall be treated as the area over which Disestablishment shall operate. We have taken the geographical or national boundary. There is no suggestion of an attempt that we are endeavouring to introduce Disestablishment into England. On the contrary, parishes which are situated in England but are attached to Welsh dioceses have been cut out from the operation of the Bill.

What about the English parishes in Wales?

It follows almost morally if you treat the geographical area of England as the area in which Disestablishment shall not operate, you treat the geographical area of Wales and Monmouthshire as the area in which it shall operate. We have strictly, so far as circumstances permit, carried out the intention declared in the first Clause of the Bill to Disestablish and Disendow the Church of England in the territory of Wales and Monmouthshire. But there are parishes which are partly in Wales and partly in England. We do not look to their diocesan relationship, because we have already accepted the geographical area as the dividing line. We have refused to claim the Welsh parishes in England although they may be connected with a Welsh diocese. We have abandoned the diocesan area. Quite regardless of their diocesan connection, how are we to treat these parishes which are partly in England and partly in Wales? The hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that we should cut them off from Wales altogether and leave them to England. But he has given no reason for such a proposal. What is our proposal? We say that in all these parishes the Establishments and Endowments are made for man and that man is not made for them, and we propose to consult the people who live in those parishes and allow them to determine whether they shall be treated as being either wholly English or wholly Welsh. We say we will consult the inhabitants and let them decide whether they will come under the English scheme of Establishment and Endowment or under the Welsh scheme of Disestablishment and Disendowment, and I submit to the Committee you cannot in a matter like this have a better guide to the wishes of the people. The hon. and learned Gentleman says we are? departing from our own principles and that we founded our case for the Bill on the desire of the people in Wales. He adds that we are cutting off the parishes which are not in Wales at all. But we propose to consult the desires of the in- habitants of certain parishes and let them decide the point whether or not they shall come under the scheme of Disestablishment and Disendowment. We give to the people who will be affected, we give to the parishioners themselves, the power to decide whether or not they will come under the Bill. The hon. and learned Member pointed out, with perfect truth, the difficulties in the way of determining this point. But in any scheme of government there is nothing so easy as in advance to give illustrations which show how impossible it would be to work the scheme. Parliamentary institutions themselves, unless they existed, could never be justified. Will it really in practice prove such a very difficult matter to discover what is the opinion of 400 or 500 people on the whole in regard to this Bill?

What do you mean by "on the whole"?

The majority.

Then why do you not say so?

Whether they are to be men, women, or children, I have no doubt competent persons will have common sense enough to be able to discover the desires of the inhabitants without any difficulty. It does not lie in the mouth of hon. Members opposite to emphasise the difficulties in this case. They have told us day after day that if the inhabitants were only consulted they would almost unanimously—and they produce their petitions as evidence of it—they would almost unanimously express their determined desire to remain—

Who said "unanimously"?

The words I used were "almost unanimously." At any rate, it is suggested that they would, by a large majority, declare their desire to remain under the Established Church. Are we really going to have any serious difficulty in this comparatively trifling number of cases in determining what the wishes of the inhabitants would be? Let me call the attention of the Committee to one or two of these cases of startling difficulty. I have here a list of the parishes. I find a parish partly in England and partly in Wales in the diocese of St. Asaph. Let me take two cases, one pointing in one direction, and one in the other. The first is the parish of Llanymynerch, in which out of a population of 1,017 there are no less than 265 communicants, and counting in with the communicants their children—when I speak of communicants I mean communicants of the Church of England—I think there can be no doubt that there would be no kind of difficulty in determining the general desire of the parish.

It depends on who they are.

I will take another parish—Threapwood. Out of a population of 305 there are twenty-six communicants. Then I come to the case of the parish of Cwmyoy, in the diocese of Llandaff, where out of 426 inhabitants there are thirty-six communicants. I can, too, give a parish the other way, where out of 970 inhabitants there are 201 communicants—a parish also in the diocese of St. Asaph. In the majority of the thirty parishes affected there cannot be the slightest difficulty in determining what the desire of the inhabitants is, and certainly in parishes where there is a very large proportion of communicants compared with the total of the inhabitants it is quite clear that the view of those communicants would be in favour of the Establishment.

No, no.

At any rate I will assume that. I agree with my hon. Friend that it may not be a certainty. But let us consider what is the difficulty as a whole. What does it amount to? There are only twenty parishes which are going to be affected in Wales and Monmouthshire. Altogether there are upwards of 1,000 parishes in the Principality. Surely those twenty parishes can be disposed of with the greatest of ease. Let us assume that they become divided, that half go to England and half to Wales. What is the prolishment and Disendowment for over 1,000 portion that ten parishes bear to upwards of 1,000. Here we are carrying Disestab-parishes. Are we to be stopped on the threshold because of the difficulty of determining whether some twenty parishes shall come within the scheme? I submit to the Committee that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not made out his case. Nobody is more likely to recognise than those who have the responsibility for conducting this Bill through the House that there are many local difficulties, and that local feeling may in many cases be deeply affected. But that is an inevitable condition in connection with a Bill which affects a large area, and, so far from looking upon it as an objection to this measure, I should say that, as far as Wales and Monmouthshire are concerned the difficulties of this kind are so trifling in relation to the feeling of the whole Principality that really the House ought not to be called upon to devote very much time to discussing this point. The next point made by the hon. and learned 'Gentleman was that the decision is to be made by the Commissioners, but that it is now proposed not to include the names of the Commissioners in the Bill. The reason for that can be discussed when we reach Clause 10. Of course I do not object to the hon. and learned Gentleman having drawn a certain inference. But he was not right in that inference. He said the names of the Commissioners would not be known until the Bill had passed. I presume he meant until it had passed into law. But they will be published before that time.

Before the Bill leaves this House?

No.

That point arises at the beginning of the next Clause It was quite right that the hon. and learned Member should ask the question, but we cannot debate it now.

I have no intention of dealing with it now. The reasons will be given when we come to the next stage of the discussion. The last point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman was on the question of time. He suggested that the time between the passing of the Act into law and the date of Disestablishment would not be sufficient to enable the wishes of the inhabitants of those twenty parishes to be discovered. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that every step will certainly be taken within six months to discover the wishes of the inhabitants. After all, the task is not so very difficult. We can obtain a General Election in far less time. These are small parishes. There is hardly any one of them which has as many as 1,000 inhabitants. Presteign has 1,700 inhabitants, and there is another which I have already named with 1,017. There is one other, Lache in Saltney, partly in Flint and partly in Chester, which has 3,500. With these three exceptions there is not a single border parish, which is partly in England and partly in Wales, which has more than a few hundred inhabitants. To say that the Commissioners could not determine what the sense of the inhabitants is within six months, even allowing time for an appeal, is, I think, to make a suggestion which really is not founded upon fact. I believe the Committee will find that in practice in four out of five of these parishes the question will be settled without the smallest difficulty. In the small remainder there may be a certain amount of difficulty and an appeal, but six months, and certainly a year, is far more than ample time for the work that has to be done. For these reasons, I submit the Committee should not accept the Amendment.

I have listened very carefully to the argument of the Home Secretary, but it appears to me that he has in no way answered the points raised by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cave). If I may say so, without discourtesy, the right hon. Gentleman, when he is speaking on this Bill, fails to realise that we are dealing, not only with a Disendowment and Disestablishment Bill, but with a Dismemberment Bill. It is when we come to the dismemberment question that we meet with great complexity and difficulty, for, so far as I know, since the Toleration Act of William and Mary of 1688 or 1689, there has not been a proposal in this country where, by political action, we have sought to break up a religious organisation. A matter of that kind has always been considered as outside the sphere of political action altogether. I am not going into that general question upon this Clause, but it seems to me that this Clause reveals the complexity which meets you when you are dealing with a novel suggestion of this kind. It is the most reactionary and sectarian suggestion that has been brought forward in the House of Commons for at least 200 years. I have no hesitation whatever in saying that. Let us see how the Home Secretary attempts to deal with it. This Clause is an entirely novel Clause. I will ask anyone who is going to speak from the other side whether he can find any precedent in any legislation which has been passed for the last 200 years in this country that has any similarity whatever to the proposals in this Clause. I feel quite confident that he will not be able to do it. This is the first time that intervention by statutory action to break up a religious organisation has ever been sanctioned or allowed in this country.

When we come to the question of dismemberment, surely all the arguments which have been used by my hon. and learned Friend inevitably apply; yet not one of them has been answered. The general scheme of the Amendment is this: that if you are to have dismemberment as regards these border parishes, the method of dismemberment and the extent of dismemberment ought to be decided and determined by the House itself. I entirely agree with that. If you are to introduce a novel principle of this kind into our religious life, this House ought to take the responsibility itself and decide, once and for all, whether these parishes are to be within the Established or Disestablished area. It would be out of order to go into my own Amendment, except to mention it. My proposal was that if this matter could not be carried out by the House itself, it should be carried out by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I suggested that body because it is their daily routine, not, of course, to deal with the dismemberment of a Church, but to deal with the rearrangement of parochial conditions. If that body had been inserted instead of the Welsh Commissioners, some of the objections which we feel might have been overcome. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no."] Yes, to a certain extent. The first thing I want to ask the Home Secretary is this: What answer has he given to what was said by my hon. and learned Friend that this Clause, as it stands, does, in effect, introduce Disestablishment and Disendowment into the English area. That is an extremely important point, so far as Churchmen are concerned. It is said by the Home Secretary to be only a little matter; but when we are dealing with what constitutes a precedent—this will be a precedent for the first time—I say it is wholly unjustifiable by a side wind—that is what is done—to attempt to introduce Disestablishment and Disendowment within the English area. It is no answer for the Home Secretary to say, "What other way could we do it?" It is no answer for him to say, "It is a small matter." When he says there is no other way of doing it, the answer to that is this: That if you start on the unjust principle of compulsory religious dismemberment, you will find yourselves in difficulties, inconsistent with true principle, in every direction when you attempt to carry out what, in itself, is unjust and unfair. It is no answer whatever to say that we must be unjust and unfair in this Clause because we started from a principle which, in itself, is essentially unjust and unfair.

Does the Home Secretary deny that this is introducing Disestablishment and Disendowment into the English area? Can he deny it? I want to ask him, Has any argument been brought forward in support of this Bill which would not condemn this proposal of introducing Disestablishment and Disendowment into the English area? What becomes of the doctrine of nationality? What becomes of the doctrine of representation in this House? What becomes of the whole principle—I quite appreciate what the principle is, and I do not shut my eyes to it, although I disagree with it—on which this Bill has been brought forward in this House? The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that Churchmen, although they desire to give every weight to the national feeling in Wales, yet say most distinctly that the Church and religious divisions have never depended either upon nationalities or geographical areas. Their overriding consideration is religious, which has nothing to do with nationality or geographical areas at all. I appreciate and understand the view that is put forward as regards nationality from the Welsh side. No Churchman has asked to stand in the way of Welsh nationality. He only says that where nationality and religious conviction come into conflict, religious conviction ought to be the ruling principle. I think he is right in saying that. If anyone is going to speak from the other side, I ask if he will deny what was said by my hon. and learned Friend that the Clause, as it stands, allows, by a side wind, the principle of Disestablishment and Disendowment to be introduced into the English area. Unless hon. Members can deny that, I say the whole fabric of a Clause of this kind is essentially iniquitous, reactionary, and sectarian. What is the next principle underlying the Clause? The decision is to be given with reference to the general wishes of the parishioners. Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that any religious community or organisation—I do not take the Church, but take the Wesleyan or any other religious community with its own oganisation—can possibly maintain that organisation if you allow each district or parish to become independent and go off in some other direction? Conceive what is being suggested here. Are we to have this principle, that where you find some parish, perhaps in Cornwall or the West Riding of Yorkshire, where the general wish of the parishioners is for Disendowment and Disestablishment, they are to have it? The Home Secretary has spoken sometimes of the wishes of the parishioners and sometimes of the wishes of the inhabitants. Is he going to propose to this House that where you have an Established Church, as we have it in England and Wales, I will take it in England for the moment, that in his view in any parish where the general wish of the parishioners happens to be adverse to the Church organisation you are to have Disestablishment and Disendowment in that parish? If he does not say that, how can he support the present proposal?

I agree with what my hon. and learned Friend said—that it is a pseudo-democratic notion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Can you deal with any organisation, either political or religious, if you allow separate parishes to go off into separate organisations according to the general wishes of the parishioners of that particular parish? I deny that any such scheme of Church organisation is possible. When we are talking about precedents, are we to establish here for the first time—this is the idea of the Home Secretary—a reactionary Erastian notion that the general wish of the inhabitants of the parish is to overrule the religious views of what may be a majority, in order to determine whether or not they are to be excluded from the religious organisation to which they belong? That is a monstrous proposition, an iniquitous proposition, a proposition which, if carried to its logical result, will put an end to all religious organisation, as well as to all religious feeling in every part of the country. I feel, myself, strongly that the doctrine of introducing notions of this kind into our religious life and organisation is inconsistent with what we mean by religious feeling, religious faith, and religious conviction. It is absurd to say that I or any other Churchman is to have his Church life determined because in the particular parish in which he lives there happens to be for the time being a majority who desire either the Disestablishment or Disendowment of the Church. That is what is being done. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I say it is inconsistent with every notion of religious faith and religious conviction, to subordinate religion to the mere vote or the mere general wish of the parishioners of a particular parish. I go further than that, and say that you ought not to subordinate it to political considerations at all. I say-that the doctrine of dismemberment of the Church is the most reactionary and the most sectarian ever brought forward in this House for at least two centuries.

12.0 M.

Let me deal with, the other point which my hon. and learned Friend referred to, to which no answer has been given. I agree that there is the suggestion of the appeal to the Privy Council. What does that mean? Just conceive a poor parishioner who is convinced of the truth of his Church, who wishes to live and die under the organisation to which he is traditionally attached, and I will assume that that poor parishioner is in one of these border parishes, and that the Welsh Commission has given a decision against him. It is an absolute mockery to tell him that he has any right as regards the appeal to the Privy Council, and the Home Secretary knows it, and so does the Under-Secretary know it. Do you mean to say that a poor man, perhaps a man who is earning his £1 a week or thereabouts, can make effective in a Bill of this kind an appeal to the Privy Council? You are holding out to him what is nothing more than a mockery and a farce. You are telling him he has a right of appeal which you know, and everyone knows, a poor man can never exercise in a case of this kind at all. It is, I suppose, on the mistaken doctrine that we are a rich Church that this appeal is to be formulated in favour of the rich man so far as the Church is concerned. I cannot conceive any other reason for putting in this appeal. It may be, possibly, that a rich man might take advantage of it. You do not care for the poor Churchman. You are constantly talking of our Church as though it were a rich man's Church. It is a poor man's Church. There are hundreds of thousands of poor men devoted to its faith and its doctrine, and not one of these poor men, as you know perfectly well, has the slightest chance of taking advantage of an appeal of this kind. What would the appeal come to? What is the Privy Council to decide? Are they to decide whether the general wish of the parishioners in a parish has been properly represented by the Welsh Commissioners or not? I want to know what you are giving the appeal about. I speak strongly on this because in my alternative Amendment I struck out this right of appeal because I think it is a mockery and a farce as regards poor men, and a mockery and a farce as regards pro- cedure generally, and I cannot conceive any question which could really be brought before the Privy Council after the Welsh Commissioners have given a decision, whatever it may be.

It has already been pointed out as regards the Welsh Commissioners that we shall discuss their constitution on the next Clause. Therefore, I do not intend to deal with that, but has any hon. Member opposite ever heard of a case where a man is to be excluded from his Church by the decision of an outside secular body over which he has no control at all? Has that ever been heard of before this Bill? I do not care how the Welsh Commissioners are constituted. Constitute them in the best way possible. Are you going compulsorily to drive a poor man out of a religious organisation to which he is attached and to which he desires to belong at the dictation of three Commissioners over whom he has not the least control? What becomes of religious love and religious conviction? We have been told more than once that religious matters are very seriously considered within the Principality. I agree with that, but ought not we to have a logical result? Is there a man within the Principality of Wales or in Monmouthshire of real religious conviction who would allow questions of his religious organisation to be left in the hands of three outsiders in reference to whose appointment he has no voice at all? That is the proposition we have to face, and we have to face it, because this appeal is an unprecedented appeal as regards this question of dismemberment. If it was not dismemberment we should not have any border parishes at all. Border parishes only come into operation because there is a dismemberment Bill. I will ask again, is this to be taken as a precedent for putting on one side on political grounds all religious convictions in order to carry out the monstrous principle, so far as religious life is concerned, of breaking up by compulsory action an existing religious organisation? I have looked carefully and I can find no precedent whatever in any Act for any Clause resembling this. If we have to deal with a matter of this kind, the House ought to take its own responsibility, the House ought to give the decision itself. It is not a matter which ought to be delegated to any body, however appointed, much less to Welsh Commissioners, who have to decide what is called the general wishes of the parishioners of the particular parish.

No one will deny the earnestness and sincerity of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I think any stranger who entered into this House and heard the Debate would be extraordinarily surprised to find that a speech of that character was made on the simple proposition that the majority of the people in a parish should be consulted as to whether they are to come within the Establishment or not. It is views like those of the hon. and learned Gentleman which make the position of Liberal Churchmen so difficult. Intolerance and privilege breathed through every word of his speech. It is a crushing calamity to religion that the people who are ministered to by the Church should be consulted as to the government and the organisation of their Church. Surely that takes us back to the Middle Ages, to the days when to question the authority or the fiat of the Church was an offence for which one could be burned at the stake, and indeed some of us felt grateful that the hon. and learned Gentleman had no power over our souls and bodies or else we should have thought we were in grave danger of a very painful and degrading end. He talks about poor men. He says we on this side do not consider the poor man. Who are the majority in these cases? Do these parishes consist of rich men? There may be two or three rich men, but, as everyone knows, in any area of this country, wherever you take it, the vast majority of persons are poor men.

I said the religious opinion and conviction of poor men.

Yes, they are going to be consulted. I want to approach this question with the utmost sincerity and good feeling, but it seems to me such a remarkable contradiction of everything they have said that they should oppose this Clause with such heat and such anxiety. What is the object of all these petitions which we have had day after day? It is surely to prove that there are vast numbers of people in Wales who object to Disestablishment and Disendowment, and yet here is a Clause which will give those people who are supposed to be seething with discontent against the Bill an opportunity of deciding whether they are to be Disestablished and Disendowed or not, and yet we have been taunted with being a mechanical majority carrying out a policy which is not approved of by the Welsh people. It really is a crushing exposure of the real opposition to Disestablishment and Disendowment. We have heard speeches from two of the most convincing and weighty speakers in this House, and it is a crushing exposure of the fact that what is objected to is that the people of Wales should take a part in the government of their own Church. Every free Church is governed on the principle which the hon. and learned Gentleman says is destructive of religion, and so extraordinary does he object to democracy that he says he would have minded less if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had been the body to decide this. Let us quote the hon. and learned Gentleman's own language. He said this was a novel and iniquitous suggestion, and he said it would be a terrible thing to extend the principle of Disestablishment and Disendowment to any portion of England, however small. But, then, why should it be any better for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to start these novel and iniquitous suggestions and to start the principle of Disestablishment and Disendowment in any small part of England? I do not say hon. Members are not sincere, but if they dig into their minds they will find their objection to the Clause is not so much in the fact that it dismembers and all the rest of it, but that there is a real and genuine-opportunity to the parishioners of these parishes to be consulted. These are the Gentlemen who have asked for a religious census of Wales. In twenty parishes we shall have a religious census of Wales, and I hope hon. Members opposite may be satisfied with the result. As a Liberal Churchman I am most anxious not to do anything in any way to hamper or hurt the Church to which I belong, but it seems to me that nothing is better for the Church—and I think experience in every corner of the world except this teaches us that it is so—than to have the free winds of democracy blowing through its dark and dusty corners, and for my part I support this Clause as it stands with all sincerity and with every confidence.

I hope, before the Debate on the Amendment concludes, we shall have some attempt on the part of the Government to explain the machinery under which this Clause is going to be worked. The right hon. Gentleman was,. I think, intentionally obscure in his speech as to the way in which the opinion of the people concerned is going to be taken. What we want to know, and what we have have a right to know, is whether this inquiry is going to be a public or a secret inquiry. Is it going to be carried on as a public inquiry or like the Land Inquiry? Who are the people who are going to conduct the inquiry? I suppose the Welsh Commissioners are not going themselves to ask the opinion of each parishioner? Whom are they going to depute to find it out, and what question is going to be put to them, and who are going to be consulted? Is it going to be adults, is it going to be men, is it going to be women, is it going to be every parishioner of every age? The right hon. Gentleman entirely fails to tell us any of these points, which we are absolutely entitled to know, and upon which very likely the votes of some people might depend. All he does is to say, "We are going in for the magnificent principle of consulting the people," and he also went so far as to say "the people who will be affected." The hon. Member (Mr. Beck), who has spoken in such a feeling way about the benefits of the draughts of democracy moving dust from the corners of the Church, has also advocated this principle of consulting the people now, I think, for the first time in regard to this Bill. Why did not the Liberal Churchmen adopt the principle of consulting the people in the parishes of Wales, where we might have had a majority in favour of the Church? You talk about majorities! The only argument you have in favour of the Bill is that there is a majority of Welsh Members in favour of it.

My point is surely very plain. We are thoroughly satisfied with the majority, because we see nothing but Welsh Liberal Members sitting around us. Hon. Members opposite deny that there is a majority of the Welsh people in favour of the Bill, and the moment they get the opportunity of testing that they fight against the very Clause which will give the opportunity.

The hon. Gentleman said exactly what I thought he said, and he has repeated it. This is a question in each border parish. Why did you not do that in each parish in Wales? Why did not the hon. Gentleman advocate it at an earlier stage if he is so keen about it? Why were the Cardiff Boroughs and the Denbigh Boroughs left out of the proposal? If this is a question of consulting the people, it only goes as far as the hon. Gentleman wishes it, and he does not consult all the people. I should like to know how any of the Nonconformist bodies, if they were in a minority in a parish, or if their position was doubtful in any parish, would like to submit to the parishioners the question whether they wish to remain in their community and whether they would agree to their Endowments being taken if they were in a minority. We consider ourselves entitled to our Endowments. How would Nonconformists like to have their Endowments taken away in places where it is doubtful if they have a majority by submitting the question to people who have no concern in their community at all? I should like to know, if this is a question of dealing with religious convictions, which I deprecate most solemnly, why it was that the Government introduced a new safeguard in the Government of Ireland Bill providing that the Irish Parliament cannot alter the constitution of any religious body except where the alteration is approved by the governing body thereof, or divert from any religious denomination any property which they possess. If it is right not to take away property without the consent of the body concerned, and if it is right not to dismember a body without their consent, what is the point of putting this into the Irish Bill, and why have the Government not adopted the same principle in regard to Wales? I call it almost cant to talk this way about consulting the people at this stage of the proceedings. It is unworthy to come from the mouths of hon. Gentlemen opposite who up till now have never suggested in any way, except in those particular parishes, that the real voice of the people in each parish should be consulted.

I confess I am very much surprised that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bridgeman) of all Members should object to the provisions of this Clause, because he is the Member for the Oswestry Division, and he knows that this Clause, of all Clauses in the Bill, is one which applies in that Division. There are portions of the Oswestry Division which are now in the diocese of St. Asaph and which are expressly excluded from this Bill.

That has nothing to do with this Sub-section. I was only talking of the border parishes.

Then I take it that on the first Sub-section the hon. Gentleman has no grievance. The whole of his grievance, as I understood him, is only with respect to the Subsection which deals with the border parishes, part of which are in England and part within the limits of Wales. I should like to see what are the dimensions of the problem with which we are dealing. I understand that there are fourteen parishes in England which belong to Welsh dioceses. These are excluded from the Bill. On the other hand, there are twelve parishes in Wales which belong to English dioceses, and these come within the operation of the Bill. There are also twenty parishes which are called border parishes. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am not, surprised to hear the figure twenty challenged. I have taken the figure from Powell and Dibdin's book as correct. In a book which they have published they say that that is the number of border parishes. I do not know whether they are correct or whether the Home Secretary is correct in saying that there are only eighteen.

indicated dissent.

Then there are twenty parishes which are called border parishes. Of these twenty thirteen are altogether in English dioceses, and do not come within the operation of the Bill at all. Therefore, there are only five left. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am only asking for information. I think it is right that the true circumstances should be understood in this Debate. According to the book published by Powell and Dibdin only five of the parishes will come within the operation of this Bill. But I do not care myself whether the number is twenty, or eighteen, or five. I do submit that, though the Government have been perfectly right so far as the fourteen and the twelve parishes are concerned, they are quite wrong with regard to the way in which they suggest the other twenty parishes, which are border parishes, should be treated. How did these border parishes come to exist at all? Hon. Members opposite seem to think that the fact that there are border parishes is rather an argument against this Bill, but no one who knows anything of the history of Wales will agree with that. What really happened was this: After the Norman Conquest of England it was found impossible to conquer Welshmen as easily as William conquered Englishmen. After the battle of Hastings there was hardly any opposition offered to the conquering arms of William in England. Ever since 1066 England has always been governed by foreign dynasties—Norman, Angevin, Welsh, Scotch and Dutch.

The Clause we are now discussing deals with the border parishes, and I cannot see the relevancy of the hon. Member's observations.

The course of things in Wales was quite different. Wales had to be conquered piecemeal, and grants were given by the English Kings to the Norman barons of all the land in Wales which they could conquer. That went on from the time of William Rufus to the time of Edward I., and altogether there were 143 Lordship Marchers established there.

The hon. Member, I think, has not observed my ruling. I do not think it is relevant to go into these matters. We have to deal with the border parishes.

With great respect, what I wish to point out is how the border parishes came to exist. I think the history of how the border parishes came to exist is relevant to the Amendment. I shall not take two minutes to state what I wish to say on the subject. These 143 Lordship Marches were not all on the border. They were spread all over Wales, and there were some on the border counties of Wales. After Wales had conquered England by putting a Welsh dynasty on the throne, Henry VIII., determined to deal on different terms with Wales. Up to then Wales was not a geographical expression. In 1535—

As the time is limited, surely this historical statement is not relevant to the point we are now discussing.

I am not able yet myself to see the connection, but the hon. Member seems to think that there is a connection.

I am sorry if I have hurt the historical conscience of the hon. Member. Parliament did not look at the ecclesiastical divisions in existence when it constructed modern Wales. What Parliament did by Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Act of 1535 was to say that certain of these Lordship Marchers were to be added to the counties of Hereford. Gloucester and Shropshire and others were used to form the counties of Monmouth, Radnor and Montgomery. They did not ask whether the dioceses were coterminous with these marchers. They took the marchers as they stood and added them to the counties. That is why we are to-day met with this difficulty. Undoubtedly there are twenty parishes, part of which are in England and part of which are in Wales, and I protest against the way in which the Home Secretary has acted in this matter. What did we find the day before yesterday when the Government of Ireland Bill was under discussion? When the case of Ulster came up there was no suggestion that a plebiscite of Ulster should be taken. We all remember the eloquent speech of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) in which he said, "We stand for Ireland as a nation"—

On a point of Order. May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is not evidently wasting the time of the Committee?

I think I may express the hope that hon. Members taking part in the Debate will adopt the greatest possible conciseness in presenting their arguments.

I thought I was stating an argument which supports the contention of hon. Members opposite, and. I am surprised that the Noble Lord should object. I was trying to prove that the Government are treating Wales differently from the way they are treating Ireland. I say that what the Government ought to have done was to have taken geographical Wales entirely, and Disestablished and Disendowed all that part of the Church which is in Wales. The fact that there are twenty parishes, a portion of which is in England and a portion in Wales, does not affect the matter at all. Those parts of the parishes which are in Wales should be Disestablished and Disendowed. That would remove the objection of the hon. Member for South Bucks, because he would not then see any part of England Disestablished or Disendowed. That is the proper way to treat Wales. We Welshmen stand for Wales a nation, exactly as the Irishmen stand for Ireland a nation. I look forward to this Bill as one further step in the consolidation of Wales; but since our wishes in this matter have not been met by the Government, I quite agree that the proposal in the Section is probably the best way out of it, that is, to ask the majority of the parishioners in the twenty parishes affected what their views are. But I would like to point out that it may be a very unfair thing for those inhabitants of the twenty parishes who live in Wales. It may be that the bulk of the inhabitants are over the English border, and therefore the wishes of the Welsh section of the community in those parishes will be overborne by the unenlightened conservatism of the inhabitants of the English parts of the parishes. It may work very unfairly towards the Welsh parts of those parishes to have this reference made to the parishioners themselves; but since the Government have accepted that solution of what is undoubtedly a somewhat difficult problem, I, for one, though I disagree with that solution, am not prepared to carry the matter any further.

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent, as it appeared to him that the Committee was prepared to come to a decision very shortly without that Motion. Debate resumed.

I rise to support the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Beck). It is not necessary to say much more than that I believe he faithfully represents the views, not only of Libera! Churchmen in this House, but of Liberal Churchmen and democratic Churchmen throughout this country, as well as in Wales. The point is rather a small one, and I am not quite sure as to the amount of attention which should be given to it. The hon. and learned Member for South Bucks (Sir A. Cripps) got up with such sound and fury as seemed to me totally misplaced, and I concluded from that that the Opposition attached some little importance to this proposal. The hon. and learned Member contradicted himself again and again. At one time he spoke against this Parliament having any right to touch a religious matter at all; then he said he wanted this Parliament to decide this particular point, then the parishioners; and so he wandered about, contradicting himself, I am sure, to the amazement of all his admirers in this House, and they are many. But the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) was a little more moderate in his tone Our view, on this side, is that when you touch the real Conservative or Tory upon this question you see an impossible gulf between the two sections of Churchmen, those who believe in the parishioners having a voice in the conduct of their own parish church, and the High Church ecclesiatical Tories who do not. There is no use in saying that those two points of view can ever be reconciled. The ideas of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I know, are quite sincere; but he shrinks with horror not so much from this Bill in its other phases as from this particular point that you are getting in the thin edge of the wedge with regard to having the voice of the parishioners being heard, as he sees quite well that if once the parishioners in this country taste that little measure of freedom the principle will go further. That is why we rejoice at this Bill. There are some aspects of it I say to Welsh Radicals which I consider are more or less of a compromise that scarcely can be justified by a democratic Parliament, except on the ground of tactics and trying to get through the Bill smoothly. But this particular point not only commends itself to Non-

I beg. To move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Monmouthshire"["situate in Wales or Monmouthshire"], to insert the words "or whereof the whole is situate in Wales or Monmouthshire but forms part of an English diocese, or whereof the whole is situate in England but forms part of a Welsh diocese."

The Amendment, I need not say, is one which is friendly to the Bill, and if any hon. Member has any doubt in his mind on that point I will ask him to read the letter which was written by the Bishop of Hereford in the "Times" the other day, and which, I think, would set the mind of any hon. Member at rest, that this Amendment is in no way opposed to any principle of this Bill. The Amendment only asks on behalf of parishes wholly in England but yet in Welsh dioceses, and also on behalf of parishes wholly in Wales yet in English dioceses—that is to say, on behalf of parishes wholly in one country and yet in a diocese of the other country—that they should have precisely the same treatment that is already extended by this paragraph of the Clause to parishes which are partially within and partially without the border of Wales, and that the same system, as we have already learned from the discussion which we have just had, is that the Welsh Commissioners shall have power to determine, with reference to the wishes of the parishioners, whether or not the parishes concerned shall be included in the Bill. Let me say here that so far as I am concerned I am certainly content with the Government proposal in regard to the machinery as applied to the parishes partially within and partially without Wales. I am perfectly satisfied that the Government mean to establish machinery to carry out a bonâ-fide inquiry into the general wishes of the parishioners. It never occurred to me, I must say, to doubt that. I am perfectly willing to take that machinery for the parishes on behalf of which I now move this Amendment.

In the first place, the acceptance of this Amendment will not open the door to further concession, because it applies to parishes which are in English dioceses, and which, therefore, incur what is to them a decided hardship under this Bill, whereas any demand that may or may not arise in the future in any other part will be in respect to parishes in Wales which do not incur the same hardships as parishes which are wholly in Wales but yet in English dioceses. The second point is that this Amendment carries with it the idea of a consultation of the parishioners. We have also seen, from the discussion we have just had, that that is not an innovation in the Bill; it already exists in the first- paragraph as applied to parishes partially within, and partially without Wales. It is not at all an innovation which we propose by this Amendment. We do not seek to substitute a new boundary; we only seek to modify the boundary that already exists. So for these reasons I submit to the Government that, from the point of view of maintaining their consistency, and from the point of view of not doing this by any further concession, this Amendment is quite unobjectionable. Under these circumstances I do not think it can be said that this Amendment asks for very much at the hands of the Government, yet I admit that it means a good deal to a certain number of border parishes. I therefore earnestly hope that the Government, in confronting and overcoming the vast problems which are raised by this question, will not overlook this opportunity to set at rest the acute anxiety and uncertainty of what may be a comparatively small number of parishes. Of course, I do not suppose, if the Government accept this Amendment, that they will elicit any thanks from the Opposition or any admission that it is an improvement of the Bill; nevertheless, I beg of them to deal with the Amendment on its merits, and not let their judgment be obscured or prejudiced by the uncompromising hostility of the Opposition.

Certainly this Amendment does cover a grievance put forward during previous discussions on this particular subject by the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs, and I am sure we are all free to congratulate him on the cause of his absence. He attacked the policy of the Government as applied to the border parishes on rather unexpected ground. He attacked it because it excluded from the operation of the Bill a parish in the diocese of St. Asaph, but wholly in England, which was in sentiment and tradition largely a Welsh parish. I hope that he and those who think with him on that subject are still of the same mind. If they are, I shall certainly claim them as supporters of my Amendment. After all our object should be, broadly speaking, to apply this Bill where it is wanted, that is to say, to cases where there is an overwhelming and sustained demand on the part of the Welsh democracy for this measure. I cannot see myself that we are bound, I cannot see the particular necessity to apply it inconsiderately to border parishes which may be Anglicised, which may be thoroughly of English sentiment, character, and tradition, which are attached to English dioceses, and which only in the most purely geographical sense can be called Welsh. In that connection I should like to refer the House to the parishes which answer to this description in the diocese of Hereford. There are seven or eight parishes of that nature in the diocese of Hereford, and I observe in the letter which the Bishop of Hereford addressed to the "Times" the other day—I trust all hon. Members on this side will take that into consideration—he said:—

"They are not Welsh speaking, and so far as I know there are no Welsh services held in them; they are in fact thoroughly Anglicised, and all their associations and traditions connect them immemorially with the diocese of Hereford."

It is in these parishes that people regard this paragraph in the Clause with particular alarm and anxiety. It severs them from a diocese to which they have been attached perhaps for generations, and it is impossible, I think, if we put ourselves in the position of the parishioners, not to have some sympathy for them. Take the words of the rector of New Radnor, which I venture to offer to the House. He says:

"There is a deep resentment among my parishioners against being forcibly severed from the diocese of Hereford. One generation after another has looked to Hereford Cathedral as the Mother Church. Such an association is held sacred. Hereford is twenty-six miles distant. St. David's, the proposed new religious centre, is close upon a hundred miles.'

1.0 P.M.

I would put it to the Government that when they ask hon. Members on this side of the House, Established Churchmen on this side of the House, to take away a parish which is so Anglicised, which for generations has been attached to the diocese, the religious centre of which is only twenty-six miles away, and attach it to a religious centre which is a hundred miles away, they are asking Members on this side of the House to do more than they ought or can do. Take again, the parish of Montgomery. This paragraph as it now stands does affect the feelings and traditions of that parish. I am told that since 1282 that parish has had an uninterrupted connection with the diocese of Hereford. I am told that before that day there is no evidence that it was ever incorporated in the Welsh diocese. There is no evidence that it was ever claimed by the Welsh bishops, although other parishes not very far off were claimed by them. I do not want to labour these instances too far, but I might go on to show that the natural formation of the country cuts off these parishes from the rest of Wales. I would prefer, however, to leave that point to be made by hon. Members who are better acquainted with that part of the country than I am. I am sorry to bore the House with particular details, but it is necessary to give instances to vindicate my Amendment. I will take two instances in my own county of Flint. There is a geographically peculiar little island in Flintshire which lies quite isolated from its parent county in the joint embrace of Shropshire and Cheshire. Within that island there are at least two parishes which are excellent examples of parishes which have become Anglicised, which are an English diocese, and which for some time have been wholly English or almost English in sentiment and tradition and character, and which only in the purely geographical sense can be said to be Welsh. The two parishes I refer to are the parishes of Whitewell and Penley. I do not think that anyone will maintain that the parish of Whitewell is not Anglicised, and little wonder that it is. It is part of the island which is a small outpost of Wales situated between the two English counties, and it is inevitable and manifest that it cannot be affected by its geographical position.

Whitewell is English in an economic sense; it is English in its market town, which is Whitchurch in Shropshire, and in respect of local government it has been admitted to be English as it is in the union of Whitchurch. Its diocese is Chester, and its endowments are possibly of a unique description because it derives tithe to the extent of over £100 per year from three Cheshire townships. It is not so long since it was cut off from the Cheshire parish of Morpeth. If that had not occurred it would have come in under the option given to parishes partially within and partially without the border of Wales. I do not think the case is really less strong for the other parish of Penley, which was formed out of the ancient parish of Elsmere. Its Church was a Chapel of Ease or Mission Church to Elsmere, and was served by the Elsmere clergy, and the patron of the living is the Vicar of Elsmere. In character its people are Shropshire people, and, as is occasionally found on the borders between two countries, the people actually resent being thought other than English, and of that resentment I could, if necessary, speak from personal experience. No Welsh, I am told, is spoken or taught in this parish, and it is in the diocese of Lichfield. Having regard to instances like those, I make bold to say it was not to include such parishes that this Bill was conceived or brought in, nor is it from those parishes that the overwhelming demand from the Welsh people comes for this Bill.

To my mind parishes like those prove conclusively that the geographical boundary, as it stands without further modification, is not a full or sufficiently satisfactory boundary for the purposes of this Bill. The line of demarkation, in my opinion, should rather run between where there is and where there is not a preponderance of Welsh sentiment and Welsh sympathy. That, I submit, is the idea boundary for this Bill. If I am told that my Amendment does not make the boundary coincide with the boundary of Welsh sentiment, I can only frankly and fully admit that it does not go the whole way, but, at the same time, I do feel that it goes some distance, and that it takes a very important step in that direction, having regard, as this Amendment does, to the parishes which will, if this Amendment is not accepted, suffer what appears to them the greatest hardship under this Bill. I want to make it clear we do not desire to substitute a new boundary and to abandon the geographical boundary of Wales. But we do say there is good reason for modifying it a little further in respect of parishes which are wholly in one country and yet in the diocese of the other country. I think it ought to be remembered that the boundary between England and Wales, fixed I do not know how long ago, no longer divides what is Welsh from what is English either satisfactorily or accurately. There have been inroads on the boundary at different times and places. England has crossed the frontier and invaded Wales and has not been altogether repulsed, while at other places Wales has retaliated. If the geographical boundary of Wales is chosen without further modification as the boundary of this Bill, what will happen is this: Parts of the country wholly English in sentiment and only in a pure geographical sense Welsh will be cut off from English dioceses and forced into an atmosphere and an ecclesiastical organisation which is wholly uncongenial and unsympathetic too, and, however convinced we may be that Disestablishment and Disendowment, even within limits, is right, I submit that we do not want, unless we are compelled to do so by the circumstances of the case, or the locality, or because we otherwise endanger the success of the whole scheme, to force this measure upon small sections of the country which still view it with disapproval.

Likewise the parts of the country which may be Welsh in sentiment will, by the Bill as it now stands, be cut off and forced into an atmosphere wholly uncongenial to them. I really do not know which will be worse, the part of the country which is Welsh in sentiment forced into the Established Church, or the part of the country English in s6ntiment forced into the Established Church or the part know which will be more deplorable, but I think that the result is sufficiently serious to induce the Government to see that there is something to be said for making some further modification in the boundary as it now stands. That, I venture to submit, will be the result of taking the geographical boundary for this Bill. Of course it will produce disturbance and, on the whole, reasonable irritation in places where it could have been avoided, and where it could have been avoided in the worst and most distinct places by the acceptance of this Amendment. If I were asked to name the particular reason why I most desire to press the merits of this Amendment, I would say without hesitation that otherwise the Bill will hinder the work of the Disestablished Church in Wales in future. Her chance of real and greater success in the future lies, in my judgment, in shaking off English influences and making itself thoroughly and wholly Welsh and national. I say that the more Anglicised portions you include in the Welsh Church in the Disestablished Church, the more you will hinder that process of nationalisation through which the Disestablished Church in Wales will have to go if it is to attain that record of greater success which I feel sure is wished for by every hon. Member in this House.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out. the words "or whereof the whole is situate in England but forms part of a Welsh diocese."

I think we all agree that we have heard a very eloquent appeal on behalf of the Amendment by the hon. Member who has moved it. I hope that appeal will carry all the more weight with his own party as it comes from the name he bears, and also because it is brought in by the Bishop of the diocese which is affected by this Amendment, who is, like the Mover of the Amendment, a strong Liberal and in favour of the general principle of this Bill. Many of the arguments of the hon. Member might, I think, have been used against the Bill itself if you substituted the word "diocese" for the word "parish," and "the province of Canterbury" for the word "diocese."

I agree cordially with that part of his speech in which the hon. Member emphasised the undesirability of transferring to the operation of this Bill those parishes on the borders of Wales which are prepondcratingly English. I mean in the religious sense; I do not wish to deny any pride they may possess in being Welshmen. I notice that the hon. Member did not devote much of his speech to that portion of the Amendment which seeks to include within the scope of the measure certain English parishes which are not now in the Bill. The Amendment originally on the Paper did not touch those parishes at all, and I presume it is only in deference to opinion on that side of the House that the hon. Member has added the latter portion of the Amendment. As the hon. Member has been allowed to move the Amendment, I understand that it is in order, but I should have thought there was some doubt on the subject, as it is difficult to see at first sight how you can include fourteen parishes wholly in England within the scope of a Bill entitled the Established Church (Wales) Bill.

I do not feel any great enthusiasm in supporting the Amendment, because I do not care about bringing more parishes within the machinery of this Clause—machinery which at the best is thoroughly, vague. No one can understand it; no one knows what the legal definition of the word "parishioner" is; no one knows who are to be the Welsh Commissioners. The definition as regards these matters seems to depend on the Welsh Commissioners, whose names are being withheld from us until the Bill has passed through the House. But I am ready to support the Amendment, because I look upon it as a lesser evil that this complicated and vague machinery should be applied to these parishes rather than the absolute fate of Disestablishment and Disendowment. I should prefer the Amendment in the form in which I have placed it upon the Paper, and therefore I shall move to omit the latter part. I hoped from his speech on the previous Amendment that the Home Secretary might have looked more favourably on this proposal than he is evidently inclined to do. When you are bringing in a drastic change of this sort would it not be more generous at any rate, and more in accordance with English principles, to leave those parishes untouched which are not definitely in Wales? Supposing on this point it was conceivable that there should be an even division and you had to give a casting vote, I should expect to find that vote gievn in favour of the status quo. I should have thought that that might well have been the attitude of the Government if they had any desire to meet opinion on this side of the House, and to deal generously with those parishes which are not wholly Welsh, and which therefore might be considered as deserving of separate treatment. While agreeing generally with the Amendment, I beg to move the omission of the words to which I have referred.

Any proposal coming from the hon. Gentleman who moved the original Amendment would, I am sure, be listened to in every part of the House both with respect and with sympathy. But the very fact that the moment a proposal of this kind is made there comes an Amendment cutting it in half, which from the hon. Member's own point of view would deprive it of half its value; shows at once the difficulty of in any way departing from the original plan of the Government as set forth in the Bill. There are four kinds of parishes dealt with under this particular Clause, namely, parishes partly in England and partly in Wales belonging to a Welsh diocese: parishes partly in England and partly in Wales belonging to an English diocese; parishes wholly in Wales belonging to an English diocese; and parishes wholly in England belonging to a Welsh diocese. The plan of the Bill is to leave the last two classes of parishes untouched, and to depute to the Welsh Commissioners, in the case of parishes which overlap geographically, the duty of allotting those parishes, after consulting the people concerned, either to the Disestablished Church in Wales or to the Established Church in England. When earlier in these Debates it was proposed to confine the Disestablishment proposals of the Government to the four Welsh dioceses and not to the area of Wales and Monmouthshire, so impressed was the whole Committee by the difficulty of departing from the geographical area that the proposal was with- drawn and the Amendment not further pursued. Therefore, the House has from the commencement set its seal upon the division which we propose, namely, that Disestablishment should be confined to the geographical area of Wales, and that the question of dioceses should be left out entirely.

This Amendment has been moved and supported largely in the interests of the Church, but, as a matter of fact, it might not serve the interests of the Church at all. There are, I think, twenty-four parishes which spiritually are divided between Welsh and English dioceses. The greater number of them are in England geographically, but belong to Welsh dioceses, and they might out of attachment to their present bishops or organisation follow them into Disestablishment; while the smaller number, ten, I believe, moved by the same impulses, might decide to join the Establishment in England. Once you attempt either to abandon or to modify the geographical area, see what difficulties you get into. The last Amendment turned upon the question of local option, and it was repudiated with a good deal of indignation and force by both the speakers on the other side of the House. Supposing you were to apply local option to certain English parishes, are you to stop only at those parishes which are connected with Wales at present? It is conceivable that a parish in England, wishing to quit its present connection with Hereford or Chester, might desire, for the purpose of getting rid of the Establishment, to attach itself to one of the Welsh Disestablished dioceses. From my individual point of view, not speaking on behalf of the Government, I should welcome such a proposal, because I have always been in favour of Disestablishment, not merely for the Church of England in Wales, but for the whole of the Church of England. But that is not the proposal here. For the reasons I have given, the Government cannot accept the Amendment. We think that it would be of no advantage to the Church, but it would be a very serious inconvenience to the working of the Bill.

I am not surprised at the rejection of the Amendment by the Government, but I trust that there are some Liberal Churchmen present who heard the very enthusiastic speech in which the hon. Member for Saffron Walden affirmed with great vehemence the immense belief of the Liberal party in the principle of local option and the principle of parishioners having a voice in the affairs of the Church. Those who heard and cheered that speech must be very surprised that the Government when confronted with the principle in so strong a case as the present, absolutely refuse to recognise it. I am not, personally, in favour of the parishioners of a parish having an unqualified vote upon the affairs of the whole Church, but I have been for many years a great supporter of the principle of parishioners having more voice than they have at present in the local affairs of the parish. How can that principle be resisted here. The right hon. Gentleman has not given us any reason whatever. In an eloquent speech the Mover of the Amendment pointed out the enormous hardships that will arise. He is supported by the Bishop of Hereford and the bishop of the diocese affected, both of whom are strong supporters of this Bill and convinced Disestablishers and Disendowers. Yet, although there are cases in which parishes have become completely Anglicised, parishes which belong and wish to belong to an English diocese, and actually detest the idea of being considered Welsh, even in such cases these democrats on the other side refuse the application of what they call a democratic principle, and decline to allow parishioners to have a say in the matter. I am sorry that the Member for Saffron Walden is not present. Anything more effective as a demonstration of the absolute want of sympathy of the Liberal party, or those who represent it in the Government, with his view and with what he thinks a democratic principle could not possibly be afforded than by the rejection of this Amendment. I must guard myself in supporting this Amendment by saying that at present we have had no explanation whatever, although a most distinct request has been made for such explanation on this side of the House, in regard to the machinery by which this local option shall be made effective. It is confiding on the part of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock, although, of course, he is a supporter of the Government, to say that he thoroughly believes in any machinery set up, although he does not in the least know what that machinery is. I am afraid I am not so confiding.

Machinery which is perfectly capable of being presented and described clearly on the face of a Statute ought to be so described, and there must be some reason for not so describing it. You have at the present time Welsh Commissioners whose names are unknown, and about whom we know nothing. They are to make decisions in reference to the general opinion of the parishioners. Nobody has explained what these words mean. I must, in supporting this Amendment, and the further Amendment of my hon. Friend behind me, put in this caveat: I reserve to myself complete freedom of action in regard to the machinery which is to be imposed by this Bill. I think it is very unsatisfactory that it is so vague. With regard to that part of the Section which deals with appeals to the Privy Council, everybody who has the slightest knowledge on these points must regard it as perfectly ludicrous. I cannot understand why a Government that professes to be democratic could have introduced such a Clause as this. No one can possibly defend it. Subject to these observations, I do think the Amendment is thoroughly worthy of support, so qualified as it is by the Amendment of my hon. Friend behind me, and I shall certainly, if necessary, support it in the Lobby.

Since the Chancellor of the Duchy sat down I have been trying to think what are the reasons on which he asks the Committee to reject this Amendment. He asks the Committee to do so for all the reasons he has given. In thinking over what these are, I can only find one, and that seems to be loyalty to the draftsmen of the Bill. He did not answer a single one of the points made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock Burghs. He did not meet the case quoted of that portion of Flintshire which is undoubtedly surrounded by Shropshire and Cheshire, and which has no part or lot in Wales, either in history, language, or aspirations. He did not meet any of these cases. He did not meet the case of the parish given us that is twenty-six miles from the Cathedral of Hereford and more than 100 miles from St. David's. He said that the House on a previous occasion had felt the difficulty they would be in if we dealt with the four Welsh dioceses instead of the Bill as it is proposed. That really is only an argument derived from laziness, and nothing else. A real injustice and difficulty has been pointed out, and the Chancellor of the Duchy says, "Do not let us deal with it, for we shall get into some difficulty. See what difficulty you get into if you begin to try and remedy what the Bill proposes." What we say is, "See what difficulty you are already in." In addition to that, see what injustice you are already intending to impose upon a number of parishes which have no lot or part with Wales, and ought not to be dealt with at all by the Bill.

What is the Amendment proposed by hon. Member for Kilmarnock Burghs? He proposes that the same machinery which is provided in other difficult cases shall be adopted in the particular cases under this Amendment. That is to say, where there are a certain number of parishes belonging to a diocese in England but situated geographically in Wales or in Monmouthshire, the same operation should be gone through, and they should have the same opportunity of appearing before the Commissioners who are going to deal with the other cases summarised by the Chancellor of the Duchy. That is a very simple proposal. It is a proposal which will mitigate some of the difficulties which are felt at the present time, and it is a proposal which would certainly meet the wishes of, and give the opportunity to, a number of parishes which no doubt do feel that the Bill as at present drawn imposes a hardship upon them, giving them no opportunity of placing their individual cases before the tribunal, which ought to come to a decision after ascertaining what is called the general wishes of the parishioners ! Are we to say that there is to be no Amendment made in this Bill because you are going to get into further difficulties? Or will you want to have further Amendments later in the Bill? If that is so, we might as well drop the Committee stage. Surely the Committee stage is for the purpose of pointing out cases where the shoe pinches, and, if possible, of moderating the Bill in order to make good the points which have possibly been overlooked when the matter was looked at as a whole, and not in detail. The proposal which has been made has been moved in a very moderate and temperate speech, by an hon. Member who explained that he is a friend of the Bill, and who has given a number of illustrations where the present proposals of the Bill are both unfair and work harshly. All that we ask is that the opportunity mentioned should be given to those parishes in particular cases where there is serious difficulty; that in those cases they should have the opportunity of enjoying the same machinery provided in the other cases in other Sub-sections. No answer of any sort really has been given, and no reason, from the Front Bench in answer to the speech of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock Burghs. I hope the Committee will on this occasion support the Amendment, and not say that out of mere lethargy we are not prepared to deal with the real difficulties of the case so ably presented by the hon. Member.

The only reason apparently assigned by the hon. Member who moved this Amendment for parishes which are in Wales having the right to contract out of Disestablishment was the extract from a letter he quoted from the rector of New Radnor. He suggested on the strength of that letter that New Radnor, twenty-six miles from Hereford, and 100 miles from St. David's, should have the right of contracting out. If that were so, it would apply to a great number of parishes. The hon. Member laid down a general principle, however, to which from personal knowledge of New Radnor I will bring its case to the test. He said that it would be well for the Bill, and for future peace in Wales, that only those parishes should be Disestablished where there was a preponderance of Welsh feeling, sentiment, and sympathy. I have no hesitation whatever in saying that the parish of New Radnor which is in Radnorshire, possesses Welsh sympathy and sentiment which is quite preponderating. Applying the general test I should pick out New Radnor as one of the parishes of Radnorshire which has become least Anglicised, except perhaps certain parishes on the Cardiganshire and Breckonshire borders. Cases of English parishes in England which are connected with Welsh dioceses I do not desire to deal with, but I do say that certain evil effects would follow if this proposal were carried. One of them is this: Under the general scheme of Disendowment the Endowments of the parishes are to be given to certain public purposes. Amongst other purposes they are to be given to educational purposes, probably in Radnorshire. You would then have this extraordinary position, if this Amendment were carried, that New Radnor, remaining attached to the Establishment in England, would retain its Endowment, while on the educational side its parishioners, and the children of its parishioners, would be enjoying the Endowments that have been taken from other parishes and administered for educational purposes in Radnorshire. That would undoubtedly lead to a good deal of jealousy, to a good deal of feeling, and friction. I think that the Government in this matter are entirely right in ignoring ecclesiastical lines of demarkation and in adhering to the national line of demarkation. Apparently the principle of contracting out, as instanced in the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down, has really run riot in the Unionist ranks. First of all we have a proposal that a province in Ireland shall be contracted out of the National Scheme of the Government. Now "the principle is so sacred that any parish is to be allowed to contract out of any scheme of the Government, or law, which is good enough for the remaining counties and parishes in the country. I am quite certain of this—to return again to the instance of New Radnor -that the people in Radnorshire, who by returning a Member here are pledged to Disestablishment, would very strongly resent the suggestion that the