In moving the Instruction of which I have given notice, I shall endeavour as far as possible to avoid all controversial matters, and try to approach the subject with a sincere desire not to treat it as a mere political contest, to be turned to the advantage of this or that Party, but to deal with it in the interests of those classes for whom so many on both sides of the House are conscientiously striving, and with a wish to contribute towards a settlement of the allotments question. Now, I am very glad to gather from what has fallen from the First Lord of the Treasury that the President of the Local Government Board in all probability will not move the Amendment of which he has given notice; and I sincerely believe that, if he does not move it, he will contribute towards our getting through the business of the day, and I may assure him, not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of others, that if this Amendment is not moved no advantage will be taken of it.

Perhaps I may be allowed to say that after what you, Mr. Speaker, have said, I shall not move the Amendment.

I am glad to find that the Instruction which I put down on the Notice Paper, without any knowledge that any other Instruction was going to be put down—I never saw the other notices until they actually appeared on the Paper— I am very glad to see now that the terms of my notice are so wide in their scope that they include the objects sought to be attained by the other notices. My Instruction, it will be observed, treats of two distinct matters. First, I propose that the Committee shall be instructed to create popularly elected Local Authorities in smaller areas than the present areas of Sanitary Authorities, and of course I need not say that I point to Parish Councils. Then, secondly, I propose to confer on these authorities larger powers than the present Sanitary Au- thorities now have for acquiring and managing land for the purposes of allotments. I am very anxious in my remarks to put with perfect clearness the issue I wish to raise. I shall, of course, go to a Division on my Motion, that is if I do not persuade the Government to agree to it, which I hope I may succeed in doing; but if the House goes to a Division, the issue before hon. Members will be perfectly clear. Those who vote for my Instruction will vote in favour of Parish Councils having power to acquire land for allotments, and those who vote against me will be expressing an opinion that it is better that Parish Councils should not have that power. Now a few words on the first part of my Instruction, as to what Local Authority is to have the power of acquiring land for allotments. I think everyone will agree, whether they agree with other remarks I may make or not, that the success of an allotment system mainly depends upon the authority which is to put that system into force. It seems to me, with regard to the Bill which the Government have introduced, that we do not want so much to have an appeal from the authority which is admitted to be an inefficient authority, but we want to have an efficient authority to administer the Act in such a way that there shall be no occasion for any appeal from its decisions. Now to come to the question, which is the question after all, what is the best authority to exercise power in regard to allotments? I remember very well when the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board brought in the Allotments Bill in 1887—in July I think it was—he said—"We think that the area of the county is too large;" he was speaking of the area over which the authority which was to have control of allotments ought to rule; that was, of course, before County Councils were inaugurated. Now, I agree absolutely with the right hon. Gentleman in that remark. But what do the Government now propose? The right hon. Gentleman in the first Amendment which he put down to my Instruction said that the whole scope of the Bill now before the House was to provide an appeal from the Sanitary Authority. Now I think that is hardly so. It seems to me that the scope of the Bill, at all events in certain cases where the Sani- tary Authorities fails to carry oat their duty, goes beyond this. The Bill is an admission that in certain cases there are failures of duty on the part of Sanitary Authorities, but then it does not simply provide that there shall be an appeal to the County Council, in the sense in which we generally understand an appeal, namely, to correct the failure of the Sanitary Authority, and to compel that authority to do its duty; but it actually hands over in these cases all powers of every description, and all authority under the Allotments Act of 1887 to the County Council. In fact, in these cases, the Bill dissolves the smaller authority. [Cries of "No."] Yes, it is so. The Sanitary Authority is dissolved for the purposes of the Allotments Act, and its powers under that Act are given to the County Council. It comes to this: that the Authority is driven away, ousted from the smaller area, and transferred to the County Council, whose powers extend over the whole county, which is admitted by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to be too large an area for the purposes of the Allotments Act. This, in fact, is not an appeal Bill, but a Bill for creating a new Allotments Authority altogether, and that in an area which the right hon. Gentleman recognises as too large for the purpose. Then the question arises, what is the proper authority for the purpose, and within what area should it exercise control? The Government have admitted that the Sanitary Authority — in rural districts the Board of Guardians — is not a satisfactory authority. The right hon. Gentleman the other night, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said he had never pretended that the Sanitary Authority was an entirely satisfactory authority; and I think there is no Member on this or the other side, who has any knowledge of local administration in the rural districts, who does not know that the right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying this. Go into any village and ask any man, from the artisan and labouring classes whether the Board of Guardians does its duty in that village, and I am afraid that in 19 cases out of 20 the reply will be very unsatisfactory. Further, even if the people had confidence in the Board of Guardians, which I say they have not upon the whole; if Boards of Guardians were really anxious and willing, which I am afraid in too many cases they are not—in fact, the very introduction of this Bill shows that in some cases they are not— they are absolutely unfitted for the carrying out of the powers under the Allotments Act, because they are acting in too large an area. The reason is obvious. Guardians come from different parishes, and those coming from one parish may be absolutely ignorant, and often, in my own experience, are absolutely ignorant, of the wants and wishes of the people in another parish. A Guardian, as a rule, knows nothing of the local requirements of any parish in the Union except his own. Now, the scheme of the Allotments Act of 1887 in rural districts is that separate allotments shall be provided for each separate parish; and not only that, but that the rents of those allotments are to be paid in each parish by the men in the parish; and that if there is any excess of expenditure, if the rents are not sufficient to pay the cost of the allotments, then the extra cost is borne not by the whole county or Union, but by the parish in which those allotments are situated. Surely then, this being so, and the provision of allotments being regarded under the Act as an absolutely local parochial matter, why in the world is the parish not to be the area for allotments, and why are not Parish Councils to possess authority to acquire land for allotments and to manage them 2 Of course, when I refer to Parish Councils, I mean—and this goes without saying—Councils popularly elected on the one man one vote principle, and under the protection of the Ballot. What objection, I ask, have the Government to Parish Councils? In July, 1887, when the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Allotments Bill, I remember he gave us, so far as I was able to understand his speech, and so far as I can understand it from reading the speech again, two objections to the parish, and they were these: He said he thought, in regard to the acquisition of allotments, that the organisation of the parish was not efficient. That was his first objection. His second objection was that there was such a large number of very small parishes. Now, everyone who looks into the subject must admit the force of both of these objections. I admit it myself. The right hon. Gentleman emphasised the expression of his view in another interesting speech in August, 1887, upon another stage of the Bill. He said then, speaking of Parish Vestries (and Parish Councils would, I imagine, be elected by the Vestries), that under its present organisation the Parish Vestry was the most likely Body to be open to the influence of landowners, and he gave as his reason that in the Vestry there was plural voting and there was not the protection of the Ballot. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman so far. But we have never asked that Parish Councils should be elected under plural voting and without the Ballot. My Instruction, which I am now moving, refers to a popularly-elected Body, and, of course, one of the first things to do is to reform the Vestry and make it a really popular Body. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman, in the following month, in September 1887, promised us that at the earliest possible date a Bill would be introduced placing all Local Government on a more popular basis, and he was very particular in saying that he did not at all confine his remarks to County Councils, but to every Authority in rural districts, and, of course, that would include Parish Vestries. One word in reference to the smallness of parishes. We know what an immense number of very small parishes there are. I forget the number, but I know there are scores of parishes with not more than 25 inhabitants, and including not more than five or six ratepayers. Of course, I agree that it would be ludicrous in a parish of this sort to have a Parish Council; but these cases could be easily met by a provision for adding such minute parishes to the adjoining parishes, and providing some minimum population, say 200 or 300 inhabitants, which is a matter for discussion and arrangement. So far as I can see, the two objections raised by the right hon. Gentleman in 1887 can be easily met under my Instruction. I should like to know why the Government seem so afraid of Parish Councils. The Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot be afraid of them, because we all remember the Bill which he introduced, if I remember rightly, in 1869, when he was a Member of the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, and in his speech upon that Bill no one could have praised the parish more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer did. Over and over again he said he considered the parish was the proper unit for Local Government, and he spoke of the chief men in the parish and other matters to which I need not now refer. Again, when the right hon. Gentleman was candidate for Edinburgh in 1885 he confirmed the view he had expressed in 1869, and in much stronger language. Of course, I know what the answer to me will be. The President of the Local Government Board will say that this is all very well, but that it involves a large reform, and will require a large Bill. Now, my experience in this House has not been long, and I do not presume to say that my opinion is valuable; but I can say, after giving much attention to this subject, that I believe that if at this stage my Instruction is accepted and the Committee sets to work to amend the Bill, giving to Parish Councils authority over allotments, giving them power to acquire land and to manage allotments, I say I believe that in the long run an immense deal of time will be saved, because obviously in the end we must come to what I am now proposing. Now, I may be allowed a few more words in order to show how important this matter is. It has progressed very fast in the last few years. It stands in a very different position now to that which it occupied in 1885, when agricultural labourers had the vote given to them by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. It has gone forward not only in the last five years, but a good deal within the last three years, aye in the last two years, and even within the last twelve months. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian is in favour of the proposals which I now make, and expressed his approval in plain language in his speech at Manchester last December. The leaders of the Liberal Party are in favour of it, as appears from the speeches of Lord Rosebery and of the right hon. Members for Derby and Newcastle (Sir W. Harcourt and Mr. Morley). The principle is also approved by a statesman who is not now in this House, but who knows I suppose everybody will admit, more perhaps about Local Government than any other man in the country—I mean Sir Charles Dilke. In 1885, in his celebrated speech, which no doubt is in the memory of nearly everyone in the House, the speech delivered in Halifax in October of that year Sir Charles Dilke distinctly expressed and advocated the view that the parish should have the power to acquire land compulsorily for allotments and to carry out all the powers in the Bill then before the House, and which was introduced by the hon. Gentleman who sits beside me (Mr. Jesse Ceilings). Further, I may quote the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), because in a speech which, if I remember aright, he made the day after Sir Charles Dilke spoke at Halifax— a very forcible speech — one of the many speeches which he made in 1885, and which I admit to the full did an immense deal to press on the question of allotments—in the speech I refer to the right hon. Gentleman in so many words adopted Sir Charles Dilke's scheme in every detail, and used words which I will read to the House. I am quoting from the authorised edition, edited by Mr. Lucy, of the Unauthorised Programme [Mr. JESSE COLLINGS: Hear, hear!] My hon. Friend says "Hear, hear," and I agree with him. The effect of this speech upon me is just the same to-day as it was in 1885, and I have just as much respect for the sentiments it contains, and I may add that many of us liked those sentiments none the less because they formed part of an Unauthorised Programme. The words the right hon. Gentleman used were these:

"I will only say briefly of them (alluding to Sir Charles Dilke's proposals) in a sentence that they comprise the idea of a thoroughly popular Local Government in every village, in every Union, in every county, which shall be given the largest powers and widest discretion, by which the local affairs of the people shall be conducted without supervision 6r interference."

Now, we say that not only are allotments not free from supervision and interference, but that there is a great deal too much supervision and interference. From the Instructions and the Amendments which the hon. Member for Hornsey has given notice of, and which might almost have been copied from the Bill which I introduced in 1887, I am glad, also, to find that there is a strong opinion on the other side of the House that Parish Councils or Committees must be the Local Authority to deal with allotments I may mention another Authority, whom I daresay some hon. Members on the other side may not care to accept, but who, undoubtedly, is acquainted with the wants and wishes of agricultural labourers. I mean Mr. Joseph Arch, and his opinion shortly expressed in a letter to myself is that—

"Any Allotments Act to really benefit the labourers must place the acquisition of land in the hands of Parish Councils elected by the ratepayers."

It is notorious to every hon. Member who has had the opportunity of getting the opinion of artisans and labourers at public meetings that this is also their view. I gather from what was said on the Second Reading that the Government seem to point to District Councils as the Local Authority to deal with allotments, but let me say at once that the same objection applies to this as to Sanitary Authorities and Boards of Guardians as respects area. Why, as a rule, is the work of the Guardians not well done, and why are they unpopular? Mainly because in dealing with any particular pariah, from want of local knowledge, most of them are ignorant of the subject before them. Upon this point the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian spoke at Manchester in December last. In speaking of allotments, he said—

"Perhaps not even the County Council can know the exact circumstances of every portion of the county. The members of District Councils might not be minutely acquainted with them. You must go to the doors of the men who are immediately concerned. You must get from them and from their immediate neighbours the fullest advantage of local knowledge."

But now a few words on the second part of my Instruction, as to granting larger powers. That necessarily includes not only giving the Local Authority additional powers, but also the simplification of, and removing restrictions from, the powers they now possess. I am not going to deal with this large question at any length, because I feel that I shall be touching on subjects that are raised by the Instructions of other Members. It will be found that other Gentlemen have taken action on this matter since the passing of the Allotments Act of 1887. For instance, after I introduced my Amendment Bill in 1888, a Bill was introduced by the hon. Member for South Essex, and it is backed by several hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. It meets a great many difficulties which we on this side raised in the Amendments which we proposed to the Allotments Bill of 1887. It would have been better if some of those Amendments had been carried —such as the one providing that no Act of Parliament should be required to con firm the Provisional Order, such as that extending the size of allotments, and such as that providing that there should be no payment of rent in advance. But there is one power—and I think probably it is the most important power—which is contained in two of the Instructions put down on this Bill, and that is the power proposed to be given to the Sanitary Authority or the Parish Council of leasing land compulsorily for the purposes of allotments. It is obvious that would be a much cheaper operation, if it could be adopted, than the purchasing of land. It would avoid considerable expense, and the less the expense the less the rent the allotment holder will be liable to pay. I want to know, and I have never yet been able to understand, so I shall be obliged personally if the President of the Local Government Board will explain why it is that he is so much afraid of this compulsory leasing power. There is nothing new in it. It is included in the Irish Labourers' Amendment Act, 1885, the authorities under which possess compulsory leasing powers. In 1887 we on this side proposed Amendments to give this power, and in 1888 I included it in my Allotments Amendment Bill. I cannot understand why the Government should not put in a clause giving the Local Authority power to acquire land compulsorily by lease. Of course, I cannot expect the right hon. Gentleman to adopt my advice; but I know he has great respect for County Councils, and it happens that in the county a part of which I have the honour to represent there is an active County Council. A member of that Council is a gentleman who has devoted more time than most of the members to the question of allotments. I refer to Mr. Darlington. He is a Conservative, and I had the honour of being opposed by him at the election of 1885, but he paid me the high compliment of adopting the principle which I am advocating, and which I had previously included in my Bill of 1888, in a resolution which he proposed and carried at the Warwickshire County Council in favour of compulsory leasing. I beg to press upon the right hon. Gentleman to meet us on this point, if he cannot on any other. I put it to the Government that this Bill will not settle the Allotments Question, but if my Instruction be adopted, it will go a long way towards securing that settlement. I believe the Allotments Question will never be settled until the powers are put into the hands of a Parish Council. I think it will not be finally settled until we do away with the individual relations between landlord and tenant as to allotments, and until, in every case, the allotment holder is the tenant of an authority in the election of which he himself has a voice. I appeal—whether hopelessly or not remains to be seen—to the Government to accept this Instruction. If they will do so, I can say for myself, and I believe I may say it for my hon. Friends on this side of the House, that we will do everything in our power to forward the measure, which will be accepted, if so enlarged, with gratitude all over the country. If the Government will not accept the Instruction, we have a perfectly plain issue before us, and we shall divide upon it.

I rise for the purpose of seconding the Instruction moved by the hon. Member for the Rugby Division. I should like, in the first place, to accentuate still further the point that it will be necessary to enlarge the powers of acquisition, and among them the compulsory powers of leasing. There is nothing new in the suggestion; it was embodied in an Irish measure in L885 and in the Scotch Crofters' Act of 188G. Anyone who is acquainted with the rural districts knows it is much easier, simpler, and more expeditions to acquire land by compulsory hiring than by purchase, which involves to a greater extent the intervention of lawyers. The most effective manner of amending the Allotments Act would be to enlarge its powers. Now, what is to be the nature of the authority to which the Government propose there shall be an appeal from the Sanitary Authority? It is the County Council. That, no doubt, is a step in advance, inasmuch as it is an appeal from an authority not elected upon a popular basis to an authority which is. But the improvement is not so great as at first sight appears, because the County Council cannot have all the knowledge which is required for dealing with local questions effectively. In Suffolk there are two County Councils, one for East and one for West Suffolk. They have made inquiries each in a different way. The West Suffolk Council made inquiries through the instrumentality of the members of the Council, each member conducting the inquiry in the Division he represented. In some cases the investigation was thorough, because the member was energetic; in other cases there was practically no result at all. In the case of East Suffolk the inquiry was made by means of letters addressed to public officers in each parish, and here, again, the result was not satisfactory, owing to the great uncertainty as to the nature of the inquiry. In some cases the officers got the information asked for, in other cases they were either unable or unwilling to get it. But in the case of neither Division was the result satisfactory; because, though they may have got some knowledge of the number of allotments which are held, there was no possibility of obtaining adequate information as to the demand for them. The moral is that County Councils as now constituted are too large to make inquiries in the way in which inquiries should be conducted. The solution which commends itself to many minds is that every parish should be entrusted with powers for dealing with its own affairs, and there is no point on which keener interest is felt than that of dealing with allotments. Of course, as has been pointed out, it will be necessary to differentiate between the parishes, as some may be too small. In some they might be left to manage their own affairs by means of Vestry meetings held at an hour when the labourers can attend, and at which the voting shall be by ballot, and polls taken when necessary on the "one man one vote" principle. And then, when we come to the larger parishes, I think there could be no better authority than Parochial Councils elected by ballot. There is a growing conviction on the part of those interested in this matter that it will be absolutely impossible to settle the allotments difficulty until you have conferred upon those most concerned the management of public affairs. I trust the Government will make the acquisition of allotments more easy and will not confine this Bill to the creation of a power of appeal. I think it is incumbent on the Government to do something in order to meet this difficulty of the non-government of parishes at the present time.

This is not the first time this question has come before the House, and I have endeavoured to discover on what new grounds the formation of these Parish Councils is recommended. In certain parishes no doubt a Parish Authority might be constituted, and could deal with the Allotments Question, but there are very few of those parishes. If I could see a way to the practical solution of this difficulty, I should be in favour of the formation of Parish Councils. But I have failed to find out what the work is that the Parish Councils are to perform. Hon. Members have spoken as if the formation of these Councils would be easy and certain of success. But some parishes are too small.

I suggested that very small parishes should be added to larger adjoining ones.

And the last parishes which should be grouped together are those which adjoin, as in many cases there are feuds between the inhabitants which have been carried on for generations, and I have in my mind's eye several parishes where it would be a positive folly to try and group them. What machinery has a parish at present, or what is it likely to have, for carrying out the Act? It would be necessary to create the machinery and to appoint public officers, and the expense of that would fall on the parish alone. At present the preliminary stages of the Act are carried out by the Local Sanitary Authority, which cannot take a step without the authority of the parish, because the expense has to be borne by the last-named Body. An Authority would not ignore an application for allotments without giving reasons for so doing; they hold an inquiry on the spot, and no step is taken without the authority and co-operation of the parish. It is only natural that it should be so.

I can give an instance where it has not been so.

I know of no case in which the Sanitary Authority has taken the responsibility without first consulting the area immediately interested. As usual, several hon. Gentlemen have abused the Guardians; but I consider it is unfair and ungenerous on the part of hon. Members with no experience of Boards of Guardians themselves to bring such charges against men who do both good and hard work. An hon. Member has said that he is looking forward to the time when all allotments will be held under a Public Authority. But will he bear in mind the difference in the position of tenants under a Public Board and those under private individuals? A man may have a bad year, his crops may fail and his animals die; consequently he cannot pay his rent. If he holds under a Public Board, that rent must be paid punctually on the day it is due; no leniency can be shown. But if he holds his allotment under a private landowner, he may have time given him to recover himself and many ways may offer to enable him to discharge his debt. I think that this Bill is an improvement, and will be considered to be so by the country, and I hope the House will see the necessity of passing it. The Bill will go a long way towards meeting the requirements which are felt, and improving the present Act, which in a great many cases is thought to be a vast boon, and is greatly appreciated.

May I point out that there are two kinds of parishes in the country —close parishes, which are in the hands of one or two large landowners, and in which there is no difficulty about allotments; and what are called open parishes, in which there are a large number of small owners and occupiers? Here there is considerable difficulty in getting allotments, although there is plenty of land on the outskirts of the parish which is of no use at all. I think it will be generally agreed that allotments are of no use to a labourer unless situated within easy reach of his own home. But in these open parishes the land in the centre is probably let in small holdings of 15, 20, or 25 acres to men not very far removed from the position of labourers, and who would think it very hard to have the holdings reduced 10 or 11 acres in order to supply allotments. It is very little consolation to Naboth when you take away his vineyard to say that you do so for a good purpose. We are accustomed to have Boards of Guardians abused in Debates in this House; but I believe they have, as a rule, done their duty well in connection with allotments. I know several gentlemen who have spent days and even weeks driving about the country persuading, cajoling, and even threatening farmers and landowners to give up land which was desired for allotment purposes. Of course, there is considerable difficulty in carrying out the Act, because there is a certain amount of unpopularity attaching to the enforcement of it. The burden should, therefore, be placed on the shoulders of a pretty strong Body. I am anxious not to overburden County Councils, but I do not think there is danger of that in the Government proposal. I think the Council will have no difficulty in doing the work, and as to their not having sufficient local knowledge, of course they will appoint a sub-Committee to make all necessary local inquiry, and upon the information gathered the Council will be able to bring the whole affair to a satisfactory conclusion. I cannot support the Instruction, because I regard it as a movement in a retrograde rather than a for ward direction.

I have no wish to shorten discussion unduly, but I hope the House will not consider it necessary that the discussion of this Instruction should be of a lengthened character. I further hope the House will support the Government in the position they propose to take up, which is that this is a Bill of a very simple character, with one object of a practical kind. That object is the setting up of a Court of Appeal over the existing Sanitary Authority, and I have every hope that whatever may be the proposals made, and whatever arguments may be used, the House will not be drawn away from that object to any other suggested amendments of the original Act. If every time a small amendment of an Act is proposed the House allows its attention to be directed to other proposed amendments of the original measure, a blow will be struck against small amending Bills when experience shows an amendment to be extremely desirable, useful, and necessary. Unquestionably, the hon. Member for the Rugby Division has raised a very large number of extremely important questions in connection with the Instruction he has moved. He desires, in the first place, to substitute for the existing authority, Parish Councils; and he acknowledges himself that if Parish Councils be adopted it is essential that the variations in the size of parishes should bo taken into account, and that there must be division of the larger parishes, and amalgamation of the smaller ones. Now, anyone who knows what the existing feeling in parishes is, will thoroughly understand the enormous difficulty in connection with this subject. I am not at all prepared to deny that when we come to deal with District Councils and the whole question of local administration, it may be possible and, in fact, desirable to deal with this difficult question of parishes; but to raise the question now and deal with it on this Motion is a very unsatisfactory way of dealing with part of a large subject. If Parish Councils are to be set up no one will be content that they should only have the duty of dealing with allotments, and, therefore, the House would have to consider many other powers, which the hon. Member and his friends may desire to confer upon these Councils. I am not here to argue against Parish Councils generally; it is not necessary to do so, and it would not be right or proper, on this narrow issue, to argue the whole question. I hope the House will see that it would be entering an arena of a large and extensive character, and it would occupy very considerable time to discuss at length the proposals embraced in the Instruction of the hon. Member, and the other Instructions of which notice has been given. Take, for instance, one proposal—that power should be given to increase the size of allotments. That raises the whole question of small holdings, and whether or not they should be placed on the same footing as allotments. Then, again, among other things, it is further proposed that these Parish Councils should have the power of acquiring land compulsorily, which will involve rating powers. [Cries of "No, no!]"Surely if power is given to compulsorily acquire land for the purpose of allotments that entails rating powers, or I do not know what does. The hon. Member not only proposes that this authority should have power to acquire land compulsorily, but that they should exercise this power without coming to Parliament at all. Now, this opens one of the largest questions it is possible to conceive in connection with local administration, whether or not the existing law, with reference to the acquisition of land compulsorily, and which provides for Parliamentary sanction for every such application, for any object, public or private, for which land can be acquired, shall be set aside in the case of allotments under powers expressly given to Parish Councils. Now, this proposition involves the possibility of a tremendous change in the law, and yet this is what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby asks us to consider on a Bill which proposes merely to set up the means of an appeal to a popularly elected body against the authority which, in the opinion of some, does not on all occasions perform its duty as it should. No one objects to the proposal of the Government so far as it goes.

Well, then, one hon. Member objects ["And others"], but, as far as I understand, the principle that there should be an appeal to a popularly elected body is not generally objected to, even by hon. Members on the other side. If the proposal of the hon. Member for Rugby were accepted I say at once, without hesitation, that it would compel the Government to abandon the Bill, because the Instruction would open up so many subjects, for the consideration of which it would be impossible to find time this Session. That is my objection to the proposal of the hon. Member. I hope I shall not be considered as being guilty of any want of courtesy if I do not enter into the merits of the proposal. My objection simply is that the Instruction would enlarge so greatly the scope of the Bill that the acceptance of it would be a death blow to the Bill. As I am the father of the Bill, I object to my offspring being destroyed in such a manner. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. Llewellyn) in his remarks upon Boards of Guardians, and I take strong exception to the observations of the hon. Member for Rugby, which he seemed to imply were generally applicable to Boards of Guardians, that they perform their duties badly. I do not deny that there have been some who have not performed their duty in a satisfactory manner, as there are also Municipal Councils who do not always do their duty; but I cannot condemn all Boards of Guardians any more than I would condemn Municipal Councils for the faults of one or two. But the hon. Member for Rugby knows perfectly well we did not create Boards of Guardians in order to constitute them the Local Authorities for this purpose, and in making them the Local Authorities under the Act, we acknowledged that they were not as suitable as could be desired, but they were the most suitable that could be obtained at the time; and we undertook, and I undertake again, that when we come to the constitution of District Councils one of the duties that will have to be thrown upon them will be the administration of the Allotments Act. It must not be supposed that because I am not prepared to assent to this Motion and do not now go into the whole argument—pro and con it must not be supposed that the question of parishes is entirely lost sight of in the mind of the Government. It must not be assumed that because I decline to accept the Instruction now, that when the time comes to deal with the question of Local Government in smaller areas within the county, and to set up authorities for dealing with allotments, among other purposes, it must not be imagined that this question of parochial administration is one we decline altogether to consider. For the reason I have given that this is simply an Appeal Bill, I ask the House not to go one jot or tittle beyond its purpose, for if they do it will lead us too far afield, and we shall embark on a course which will lead to the destruction of the Bill.

The right hon. Gentleman has met your suggestion, Sir, in such a handsome way, declaring that he will not move his Amendment, that, so far as we are concerned, we can assure him that he need be under no apprehension that this discussion will be carried beyond the present Sitting, and I think he will hardly grudge us a discussion to that extent upon a subject in which we take a genuine interest, and an interest which should be above the suspicion of obstruction to the passing if the measure. We did not obstruct the measure before, and have no disposition to do so now. The number of notices on the Paper are not evidence of any such desire, but rather an indication of the deep interest Members feel and desire to express, and this I maintain, the sceptical smile of the leader of the House notwithstanding. Before attending to the remarks of the President of the Local Government Board, I wish to refer to a statement by the hon. Member for Rugby, against which, I understand, the right hon. Gen-leman protested, though he did not deal with it in his speech. The hon. Member for Rugby said the acceptance of the appeal would oust the control of the Sanitary Authority in the district, and I understood the right hon. Gentleman to object to the accuracy of the statement. I believe the objection is founded on the 3rd clause, but if, as I understand, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to omit this clause in Committee, then the objection will no longer apply, unless it should apply to any Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. I must not go into Committee Amendments now, but I may point out that the clause would certainly oust the Sanitary Authority so far as allotments are concerned. The right hon. Gentleman has said quite truly that it is not a fitting or a just thing that we should, if we ever do, attack generally or in general terms the conduct and the administration of the Poor Law and of the Sanitary Laws by Boards of Guardians in this country. I agree with him and having been Pre- sident of the Local Government Board, I I know something of the operations of Boards of Guardians, and have reason to understand and respect them. But the right hon. Gentleman has confessed that they are not the best authority to entrust with the administration of the Allotments Act, and this for simple reasons easily stated. In the first place, the area of their authority is too large and their functions too many. I do not think I am saying anything disrespectful to Boards of Guardians when I express my belief that they fulfil their duties as Poor Law administrators with far greater success, and with the sacrifice of more time and labour, than is the case with their administration of those Sanitary Laws, duties which I, myself, was instrumental in fixing upon them. It is natural that they should primarily have regard to the first functions entrusted to them, other duties taking a secondary place, and I think that some time we must relieve the Guardians of their sanitary functions and the powers in reference to allotments, transferring the control to authorities within smaller areas. There is another objection to which I refer, and it is not the fault of the Guardians that the method by which they are chosen is not a popular method; they are elected on the plural vote and without the protection of the Ballot. County Councils are elected on household suffrage and with the Ballot. The two systems cannot exist together, and if they come into contact you cannot prevent Boards of Guardians losing their status until they are elected on the same basis as County Councils. There is a third reason, and with that I approach the question of parishes, upon which I observe there is a natural division of opinion. I have never endeavoured to be absolute in the expression of ray opinion, but this I do believe; that it is essential for the perfection, for the development of Local Government—for the training of the people for Local Government—that it should be, as far as possible, brought home to the doors of the humblest, and, therefore, I agree in thinking that Parochial Councils or Vestries, with power to appoint Committees, are essential in the future. I do not say you must take the parish as a unit; undoubtedly, you will have, in some cases, to group parishes, and this may be attempted by the right hon. Gentleman or a successor. Whatever the unit of Local Government may be, upon that unit must be imposed the duties fitted for that particular area in which they exist. That area may be called the parish of the future. Though the hon. Member for Rugby has spoken largely, and with enthusiastic conviction, of the creation of Parochial Councils, his Motion is not exactly worded in this way, and affords a margin for variations of opinion as to the best method of carrying out his proposal—

"That the Committee should have power to insert clauses creating by popular election Local Authorities in smaller areas than those of the Sanitary Authorities, and to confer upon them larger powers for acquiring and managing land for allotments."

That this is a perfectly sound view it is difficult to gainsay. Under the existing Act, even when amended by this Bill, the machinery is cumbrous, costly, tedious, and uncertain. I do not think you will do any good whatever, even with smaller areas, until you simplify the machinery. You cannot prevent this being a parish question to whatever authority you give the power to deal with it. I share the opinion of the hon. Member that it is impossible to take any further step towards enlarging local powers until yon have created these smaller units. The hon. Member has spoken of larger powers, but I will not go into that subject. I think there ought to be larger powers in whatever authority deals with allotments and most important, in my view, is the power of compulsory purchase at fair market value. Anyone who looks back at the history in recent years of all attempts to improve the sanitary condition of our towns, by pulling down unsanitary houses and erecting sanitary-dwellings, must know the immense difficulty always has been the cost arising from the fact that the owner of the unsanitary property, who has no right to any profit at all upon dwellings in such a condition, is allowed to have an extra profit on that account. He gets more for the property than if it was in a sanitary condition, besides exacting an extra 10 per cent. because of the compulsory sale. The moment it is admitted that it is for the public benefit that the land should be taken, then I maintain the owner should be required to sell it at the fair market value. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham, who has had great experience in public improvements in the city which he represents, said in June, 1886, that the ratepayers of Birmingham had been mulcted in 15 to 50 per cent. more than the real value on property purchased for public improvements, and that, in his opinion, a fair value only should be paid for land bought for public purposes. I entirely adopt that principle. I hope the President of the Local Government Board will understand that this Instruction is not moved from any want of respect for him, or want of belief in his intentions, for I believe in his intentions, but those who support the proposal desire to take this opportunity of putting on record their view in the terms of the Instruction which I feel it my duty to support.

Things are so absolutely bad in regard to allotments in the Division I represent, that I feel strongly tempted to support this Resolution. Under the Rural Sanitary Authority in South-East Essex, with rent at £1 an acre, under cultivation, whenever we can get a tenant, which is an exceptional tiling with us, when land is going out of cultivation wholesale, and with three derelict farms within 100 yards of my own house—under these circumstances we find it impossible to get land for allotments under 40s. an acre, and we have great difficulty in getting it at that. Under the circumstances, one is almost tempted to clutch even at the straw held out by the hon. Member for Rugby. I cannot, however, help thinking, after what the President of the Local Government Board has said, that it would be better to let the Government deal with the question when they see a chance, always under the supposition that the Parish Council is the ultimate solution of the allotments question. I regret that the Resolution of the right hon. Member for Bradford cannot be taken, because it embodies the provisions of a Bill I have introduced on the subject.

The Instruction of the hon. Member for Rugby is in two parts, the first having reference to the setting up of a new authority, and the second the enlargement of the power of the authority to acquire land. It appears to me that this second part practically carries out the Instruction of which I gave notice. I am glad to hear the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down say he would have been prepared to support my Instruction. I may say that I referred to the measure of the hon. and gallant Member merely by way of explanation, and that it was through misunderstanding the clerk's reply that I inserted the specific reference to the Bill. It seems to mo very unfortunate that, having before us this Bill dealing with allotments, we should not have power to deal with questions relating to that subject upon which every Member in the House seems to be agreed. At all events, I trust the right hon. Gentleman will agree to the second part of the Instruction. When the present Act was passing through the House, two years ago, we predicted that it would not have the effect expected by the right hon. Gentleman, and although it has had some indirect effect in inducing landlords to give allotments, which we always expected, it has had little or no effect in inducing Local Authorities to buy land compulsorily. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, even now, to accept the half of the Instruction of the hon. Member for Rugby Division, and, to allow the House to go into these important matters.

The hon. Member for Rugby has put before the President of the Local Government Board a task before which he may well quail, in the construction of Parish Councils for the special purposes of this Bill. The machinery which I propose to employ is very different from that proposed by the hon. Member for Rugby. Instead of Parish Councils I propose that we should make use of the long established and most successful Local Authority which we possess—namely, the ancient Vestries of our parishes. Speaking of the Act of 1887, the hon. Member for North Somerset said—

"The Rural Sanitary Authority dare not carry out the Act. It must wait until it is instructed by the parish, so it is quite clear the ordinary operation of affairs by natural selection has marked out the parishes as the proper bodies to be entrusted with this duty."

The cry about the difficulty of small parishes is a mere bugbear. Out of 15,000 parishes in this country there are only 773 which have a population of under 50 parsons. The hon. Member for Rugby proposes to entrust compulsory powers to the Parish Council. It is quite impossible for parishes, as parishes, to give effect to compulsory powers. It may be regarded as a singular opinion, but I think that the transaction of local affairs by heaping them pell-mell upon a few men and withdrawing them from the great body of ratepayers is not a wise or a salutary mode of conducting local affairs. We are asked at the periodical time to vote for certain persons. Into their charge everything is entrusted, and it matters not how much opposed the ratepayers are to the way in which their affairs are administered, they are for a long term completely helpless. In many parishes there are now Ratepayers' Associations. What can be more absurd than that the ratepayers should elect a Local Board, and immediately afterwards proceed to elect another Board, called the Ratepayers' Association, to watch, defeat, and obstruct the Local Board? I prefer the ancient mode of Local Government in England by which all the ratepayers are brought into and kept in local knowledge, and their interest sustained in business in which they all share. If the business is merely done by a few persons it may be too late when an election comes round to undo what has been done against the wishes of the electors. As to this Bill, I fear that, as it stands, instead of curing, it will intensify the suspicion with which our legislation is already regarded. There is no disputing the failure of the Act of 1887, and what we ought to do is to try and detect the causes of failure which are contained in that Act, so as to avoid them in the legislation which we are now considering. I do not think that these causes have been recognised with sufficient precision, and the very nature of the Bill now before the House shows it. I take it that the causes of failure of the Act of 1887 are the large area of the authority and the remoteness of the meeting place. Only a few persons can serve as Guardians; indeed, people have to be coaxed to become Guardians. You may say it is very desirable that an allotment holder should be on the Allotment Committee or Authority. Of course it is, but it is absurd to suppose that an allotment holder can drive five or six miles and be at the place of meeting by 11 o'clock in the morning. A third cause is the want of intimate local knowledge and the apathy consequent upon it. It is hard to accuse the Sanitary Authorities in this respect; it is their misfortune, and not their fault. I have had a very varied experience in almost every form of local administration. I have been a Guardian for many years, and I confess I know hardly anything of the parishes excepting the one I represent. To some of them I have never been. It seems to me that this Bill is taking a still deeper plunge into the very same cause of failure. The area will be far larger, the meeting place will be still more remote, and the local knowledge will be much less. I believe that the Standing Committee proposed will be useless in operation, and I contend that it would be far better for the attainment of the object in view to build up from below, where knowledge and interest in the matter lie, than to break down from above by cutting up the County Council and making a Standing Committee. The working of this Bill will mean officialism, thorough and almost unchecked. First you have your local inquiry, your inspector and your lawyer, and, of course, enormous expense. The labouring man will see all this, and he will turn away from the Bill. On every ground it is desirable to allow the ratepayers of the parish to take the matter into their own hands, and, if possible, to acquire land for allotments by voluntary agreement among themselves. They are on the spot, and know all the circumstances, and there can be no stronger inducement to economy and prudence than for people to know that the money they are spending is their own and for their own purposes. By adopting this course, too, we shall promote the development of parochial action, whereas the Bill will have a contrary effect, and will lead to friction, unnecessary expense, and dissatisfaction. Allotments are intended to benefit the condition of the labouring poor, but I maintain that this object cannot be fully attained unless the people are enabled to share in the work themselves. I hope that on this side, at any rate, we may share in this work, because I do not think anyone can doubt that there is no more Conservative thing we can do than quicken the parochial life of the country.

I promise not to detain the House long; I rise for the purpose of addressing myself mainly to two points. In the first place, however, I wish to say that I think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board took rather a narrow view of the scope of this Bill. He said it was simply a measure to provide an appeal to the County Councils, but I have read it, and I find that, in addition to that, it will give the County Councils power to administer the Allotments Act—to become, in fact, an Allotments Authority—enabling them, amongst other things, to acquire land by compulsory purchase. The two points I desire to refer to are these: the principles of compulsorily leasing land for the purposes of allotments, and the principle of cheapening the present method of acquiring land by compulsory purchase; they come within the scope of the Bill, and I sincerely hope that when the measure is in Committee the President of the Local Government Board will introduce provisions dealing with these two points. It has been admitted that the Act docs not work well. In answer to a question some days ago the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board stated that 1,800 allotments had been provided under it, and as there were, according to the last census, about 550,000 agricultural labourers in the country, that will give only one allotment to about every 300 labourers, a proof that the Act has not been very effective.] will give the right hon. Gentleman a piece of my own personal experience in this matter. A short time ago some 25 labourers came to me and asked for allotments. I said I should be glad to give them allotments, but was anxious to test the operation of the right hon. Gentleman's Act, and I suggested that they should apply to the Sanitary Authority in order that a properly constituted Allotments Authority should be set up. These labourers west away, and in a month's time they came back to me and said they had been to the Sanitary Authority, but found that so much expense and difficulty would be involved that they would prefer taking the allotments from me, and if this difficulty occurs in the case of a willing landlord, those which must be faced in the case of an unwilling landlord must be almost insuperable. The figures quoted by the right hon. Gentleman show that I am correct in this. One of the reasons why the Act does not work is the cost of acquiring the power to obtain land by compulsory purchase through a Provisional Order, and I will give three instances in illustration, taken from the Return which was granted on my motion in 1888, and issued last year, selecting those cases only in which there are only one owner and one occupier. In the first case it cost the City of Bath £80 to acquire the power to obtain possession of only three poles of land for street improvements; in the second case it cost the Bridlington Local Authority £388 in respect to 21 acres required for a public walk; and in the third case the Rural Sanitary Authority of Newport paid £220 for the power to obtain three acres and one rood of land required for the construction of a reservoir. In these cases the cost merely of obtaining the necessary power exceeded, many times, I presume, the value of the laud itself. Now, I sincerely trust that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board will see his way when the Bill is in Committee to introduce a cheaper mode of acquiring land for allotments; otherwise I am confident that failure will attend this Bill also. As to compulsory powers, the Amendment that stands on the Paper in my name is a very simple one, and is intended to give Local Authorities power to hire land compulsorily on equitable terms as to rent and length of lease. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman does not see his way to introduce clauses in the Bill to carry out this object. I drew attention to this when last we had the subject of allotments before us, and I was largely-supported in my view—amongst other Members by the Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings). My proposal is one which must commend itself both to the Local Authority, which has to obtain the land, and to the landowner. The Local Authority would be relieved of the necessity of raising money by loan for the purchase of allotments, and the landowner would be benefited, as it would save him from the necessity of parting with, say, the fee simple of a field in the middle of his estate which ho might desire to retain possession of, but might not object to let on lease. I beg to disclaim the slightest intention of in any way obstructing the Bill. My Amendment is a simple one, supported on both sides of the House, and I do trust the right hon. Gentleman will sec his way to accept it when the Bill is in Committee.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman opposite who has complained of the failure of Boards of Guardians to put this Bill into operation that in my part of the world the Boards of Guardians try to do their duty to the best of their ability, not only so far as the Poor Law is concerned, but so far as the powers of this Act are concerned. As to the statement of the hon. Member who last spoke about labourers going to him, and not being able to get allotments from the Rural Sanitary Authority, if be is not a Guardian—and I presume he is not, from the tone of his remarks—I would advise him to get himself elected, when he would be in a position to enforce the case of his friends on the attention of the Local Authority. I can give my experience of two Boards of Guardians in connection with the Allotments Act. There have been several applications for allotments before us, and in each case there has not been the slightest trouble experienced by the labourers in obtaining what they wanted at a very fair rate. I only mention this because so many hon. Members on the opposite side of the House hold that the Allotments Act has been inoperative. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey, speaking from his experience as a Guardian, says that he knows no more about "neighbouring parishes" than he does about a foreign country. Well, all I can say is that that is not my experience. I am familiar, not only with neighbouring parishes, but with every road and every cottage and almost every field within a radius of 20 miles of my own house. No doubt it would be a very nice thing if we could have these proposed Parish Councils; but, according to my experience, it is always a most difficult thing to collect people to attend even vestry meetings. When we have vestry meetings, either for the purpose of electing Churchwardens or Guardians, we always experience the greatest difficulty in getting half a dozen people to attend them; and if, in addition to the vestries, we are to have another parish authority, you will be overburdening the people with elections. I do not think the people want elections of this sort. They already have elections for Members of Parliament and for County Councils, and now you wish to add to their burdens by giving them elections for Parish Councils. This is not called for, at any rate in my part of the country. I do not know what may be the state of things in other parts of the country, but in Hampshire the Boards of Guardians do all that is necessary; and I believe that even without an appeal to the County Council allotments will be given whenever they are required.

Under any circumstances, I do not think the Board of Guardians can be a satisfactory tribunal to the man desiring allotments, as the landowner may have six votes at their election whilst the labourer has but one. The tone of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board is extremely encouraging compared with what it was two years ago, because it shows that the question of the 2'arish is going to be one of the most important points in his next Local Government Bill. I would venture to ask him whether this question of Parish Councils is to be an integral part of his District Councils Bill—which he has told us is already prepared—and will be introduced when we make way for it? The part that the parish will have to play in the future will be a very important one; and the sooner the right hon. Gentleman grapples with that part of the subject of Local Government the better it will be. The only way in which an interest in Local Government can be developed in the mind of the agricultural labourer is to bring the Local Authority near his own home, and thus to educate him for exercising the new responsibility which has been thrown upon him.

We have had a very interesting discussion on the main points of Local Government, but there has been very little said about this Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. H. C. Stephens) in his desire to revive the parish life.

I must remind the hon. Member that it is not the Bill, but the Instruction which is now before the House.

Let us see how the matter stands with reference to the agricultural labourer and his present position. The Act of 1887 has been said to have been in operative. ["Hear, hear!"] I do not know whether that "hear, hear" means that it has had no operation, or that it has had an insufficient operation. Over 8,000 men have received allotments by the direct and indirect operation of the Act of 1887. Hon. Members seem to think an indirect operation is of no use. Let me call attention to a case in a Midland parish where we brought before the landlord the existence of this Act, the provisions of which he was not aware of. The landlord said, "If it is the law of the land that allotments are to be provided I will provide them," and the result of our application to him was that we got as much laud as was wanted at 10s. an acre, and the men are very well satisfied. This is what I call an indirect operation of the Act. I quite agree with those Members who say that the Boards of Guardians have not been altogether a satisfactory body to administer this Act. Some of them, however, have acted in a most satisfactory way. At Kingsclere the Local Authorities have been most assiduous in supplying all the wants of the men. In one case they positively went out of their way to secure a solitary allotment for a man who lived by himself a long way off the other labourers in the parish. I could give hundreds of similar cases. At the same time, there are some Boards of Guardians who have refused to do anything. We have always been told that the great defect of the Act of 1887 is that the Local Authorities can refuse to act if they choose, and that there is no Court of Appeal. Well, this Bill will provide a Court of Appeal in a cheap and easy way. Shortly after the Bill was introduced the Labourers' Chronicle stated that it entirely did away with the defects of the Act of 1887 in this respect—although I admit it has since changed its tone. Now, Sir, why cannot we provide this remedy? I have a long list of cases in which men would be supplied with allotments immediately if a Court of Appeal were provided. I should be very glad to see a measure passed in the direction indicated in the proposed Instruction; but it seems a monstrous claim that the Government should take it bodily and put it into their Bill. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Cobb) says the issue of the vote we are about to take is for or against Parish Councils.

What I said was for or against Parish Councils being the authority for dealing with allotments.

To my mind the real issue upon which we are going to vote is, whether we are or are not to defeat the Allotments Bill. It is evident, from what the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has said, that if these Instructions are carried there is an end to the Bill, I cannot help sympathising with the Government in this matter. They have given us an Allotments Act, which they are now about to amend, and I have not heard any hon. Member speak against the Bill as far as it goes. The hon. Member for Rugby, as I understand, does not suggest that if his Instruction were adopted, it would not be necessary to re-arrange parishes in some way. The parish of Sutton, in his own county, contains 13,000 acres, whilst there are other parishes with about 500 acres. I know a parish in my county with as many as 60,000 acres, and, quite near it, a parish with 700 acres. The enormous amount of detail, and the enormous labour that would be involved in carrying out a measure of that character, afford good reason for the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, that it would be an absolute impossibility to get the Bill through this Session. Are the labourers to wait for another 12 months before they have the remedy which is now offered to them, and which the adoption of the Instruction would take out of their hands? I did not understand whether the hon. Member wished to give these Councils rating powers, in order that they might have funds for the purchase of the land, or whether they are simply to manage the allotments. If he means to give them rating powers the intricacy would be much increased; whilst if they are only to manage the allotments the system will not be much-better than that which will be constituted under this Bill. I say, then, do not bring forward these proposals at the present time when their effect will be to delay a measure which hon. Members cannot deny supplies a great want, and will be for the great benefit of the labourers. IE these Instructions are carried, as I have already said, you kill the Bill. Is that a prospect hon. Members like to contemplate? I do not like to contemplate such a prospect. I know of no legislation in this country which has not been built up step by step; and I hope my hon. Friends are not going to prevent the taking of such a tremendous step forward as this Bill will enable us to make. I think it would be better, and that it would be more consistent with all our views, if we assisted the Government in this matter. I do beg hon. Members not to persist in a proposal the effect of which will be to smother a measure which clearly tends to benefit the class we all seek to serve. To my knowledge there are some scores of labouring men who cannot get allotments now, and who will be able to get them under this Bill if it be allowed to pass into law.

I have to ask the House to consider in what position we stand, and in what position the Government stand, in reference to this Instruction, and also what are the objects of the Instruction. As I understand it, its object is to declare that the Bill as introduced by Her Majesty's Government—not that it is bad in itself—would be improved by being enlarged. That is the declaration of the Instruction. Now, Sir, who is the person who gets up and denies that proposition? It is my hon. Friend the Member for the Bordesley Division (Mr. J. Collings). The hon. Gentleman has himself an Allotment Bill (No. 2) on the Order Paper, the only justification for which is that it contains a great many things which are not in the Government Bill, and yet the hon. Gentleman gets up and says the Government Bill ought not to be enlarged. That, to my mind, is a most extraordinary position. It is as much as to say that although there are a number of things which require to be amended or enlarged, he will, nevertheless, take every opportunity of preventing their being dealt with. Well, Sir, our position is a very difficult one. We say, by this Instruction, not that we desire to throw out the Bill, but that we admit there is a necessity for such a measure, and we wish to add 'something to it. Now, I suppose I must take the mind of Her Majesty's Government from what is done by the hon. Member for Bordesley. He, in fact, is the interpreter of the mind of Her Majesty's Government. He says, "For Heaven's sake don't enlarge this Bill, because anything that is added to it will destroy it."

I simply repeated the words of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board.

The eloquence of the hon. Member simply consists in repeating the sentences of Her Majesty's Government, not only on this question, but upon all other questions. Whatever Her Majesty's Government say the hon. Member for Bordesley repeats, and probably he thinks that that repetition adds a strength and force to what the Government say that otherwise it would not possess. No doubt we perfectly understand the position of the hon. Member for Bordesley, and I think it is also thoroughly understood by the people outside this House. For my part, I think Her Majesty's Government are more reasonable and intelligible on this subject than the hon. Member for Bordesley gives them credit for being; and I believe there are hon. Gentlemen on their own side of the House who would also desire that this Bill should, if possible, be extended, and that things should be inserted in it which are not in it. I believe, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford(Mr. Shaw Lefevre), that this Instruction may be divided into two parts. The first part of it enables the election of the Local Authority to be 'incorporated in the Bill, and that, undoubtedly, is an important matter, and would require extensive and distinct machinery, and I daresay that the adoption of this Instruction would lead to a very interesting discussion as to the character of the Local Authority. I listened with some interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Hornsey, who stated that the Parish Authority would be a most appropriate authority for dealing with the objects of this Bill, while the present Sanitary Authority or the County Councils would be altogether inappropriate. I also listened to the speech of the hon. Member for North Hampshire in glorification of the Boards of Guardians. I do not wish to disparage those Boards, but I must say that they are bodies who know very little indeed about the parishes, and of whom the parishes themselves know nothing at all. I can cite my own experience of Hampshire, in which I reside. I remember that when the Local Government Bill was under discussion I happened to be down in that county at Easter, and I thought I would go to the vestry meeting. I found there three farmers and a clergyman, and I was informed that the rate had been increased. I suggested that it might be well to inquire why the rate had been increased, and that proposition was received with acquiescence. I said, Would it not be better to look a little into the accounts? but they said, We have not any accounts; and I think they added that for eight or nine years no accounts had been published by the Board of Guardians in reference to the administration of the rate. That was my first introduction to the mode of administering relief by the Boards of Guardians. An hon. Member opposite has said, How is it possible that the Sanitary Authorities should go against the wishes of the parishes?

That was not my argument at all.

The hon. Member referred to the case of the Parish of Cottenham, the details of which I do not propose to go into. But I may state that letters were addressed to the Local Board on the subject of the refusal of the Local Authority to make allotments there, when the matter was discussed at some length. I have here a letter from the Chairman of the Sanitary Authority, who says that the whole matter was gone into, and the Sanitary Authority would do nothing in it. The Chairman also said he knew nothing about Cottonham. That is the statement made by the Chairman of a body which would have the management of allotments in the Parish of Cottenham. Well, I think it would be wise to introduce provisions into this Bill which would have the effect of amending such a state of things! The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has said that this question would arise when we dealt with District Councils. For my part I cannot understand why he is not dealing with District Councils this year. As it is, the matter is to be postponed until we come to deal with that subject. I think that this discussion has shown how unfit the Sanitary Authorities or Boards of Guardians are to deal with matters of this description. The Instruction now before the House would confer further powers for acquiring and managing allotments. Well, is the House or are the Government opposed to that? Is the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley opposed to it? At any rate, the House ought distinctly to understand that the issue we are about to divide upon is whether or not larger powers for this purpose should be given by this Bill. Do not let there be any mistake about that. The Instruction does not compel anything; it merely enables the Committee to consider this matter, so that when we consider the Bill in Committee we may propose a new area of Local Government. If hon. Members approve of this Instruction let them vote for it. Do not let there be any hoodwinking in reference to this question. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has said that he would rather drop the Bill than introduce provisions which would be too heavy to be carried into the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have said that they desire to see larger powers given. Well, then, let them vote for this Instruction. If they do not desire to see larger powers given, let them vote against the instruction. Well, then, they say that the Government will drop the Bill. Why should they do so, when clauses can be introduced in Committee, and the Committee can decide whether they should be adopted or not. I would vote against clauses which I thought would destroy the Bill. I do not want to destroy, but to enlarge the Bill; and I do not want to enlarge it in a manner which would overweight it. I want to introduce into it such useful provisions as it could properly bear. I admit the weight of the argument of the President of the Local Government Board. I do not think we could frame a new and complete system of Local Government in this Bill. But there are several things I should like to put into it; for instance, the power of hiring instead of buying land. It is unreasonable for the Government to say—"If you agree to that we will drop the Bill." Do you mean to confine the amendment of the Allotments Act within the four corners of this Bill or do you not? In my opinion, you act unwisely simply to confine your Bill to the establishment of an Appeal Court. If the Boards of Guardians have failed to act, the County Councils are not likely to act. In one or two cases you might get something done; but the proposal is not going to give a vitality to this legislation which it does not possess already. The constitution of the County Council is utterly inappropriate for this sort of work. How could the County Council deal with the acquirement of little bits of land for the purposes of allotments perhaps 50 miles away? It is not done by Boards of Guardians; it is geographically impossible. The County Council can no doubt deal effectually with main roads, county bridges, asylums, and police management; but to suppose that it could take charge of the management of allotments is entirely to misconceive the whole character of the business. What we really want to do is to give larger powers, and clauses might be proposed in order to see whether or not any of them could be adopted. The President of the Local Government Board has pleaded in favour of his own child. That is a very proper parental sentiment. The apology that he has made for that child is the old apology—"It is such a very little one." We want to feed up his little child into a promising bantling-. That is really the object of this Instruction. I can assure him that we have not the smallest disposition to destroy his child, but we would rather have seen twins. I hope the Government will not regard this Instruction as hostile to their Bill. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no desire to press clauses that might not reasonably be accepted. Why not take this opportunity? Why not open the door to useful amendment? If you Say "No, we consider our Bill so perfect that we exclude from it everything else," we cannot accept that condition. We desire to enlarge and improve it, and it is upon that ground that we divide in support of the Motion.

Sir, I do not intend to follow the right hon. Gentleman through the course of his speech. He referred to the apology of my right hon. Friend as a very old one. I think we may say much the same of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. It is a very old speech, and it consisted chiefly of offering the Government some advice which the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to offer us in a previous occasion. We much regret that we were unable to accept the right hon. Gentleman's advice then, and we are in much the same position now. I can well understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby would be very glad to induce the Government to accept his advice so as to embarrass their business, and he would be equally ready to turn round and abuse them for not properly conducting the affairs of the country. The right hon. Gentleman has attempted with all his wonted charms and seductions to win us over; but we will not fall into the trap laid for us, and we will manage our own affairs in our own way. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Seale-Hayne) waxed very eloquent over the vast expenditure that would be incurred in obtaining Provisional Orders for the purposes of allotments. The hon. Gentleman has ignored the provisions of the Allotments Act under which a Provisional Order is put in a Confirming Bill brought into this House and taken before the Committee upstairs. If the Bill is opposed, the Committee have the power, if they think that the expenditure caused by the opposition has been improperly brought about, to lay the costs upon the opponents. That power does not exist with regard to other Provisional Orders, and it is manifestly unfair to compare the case of a Provisional Order for the purposes of allotments with the Provisional Orders for other and wholly different purposes.

The cases which I cited were unopposed.

The hon. Member quoted cases, so far as I remember, from certain towns in reference to their improvements and other matters. I hope before very long we shall be able to tell the hon. Gentleman what is the actual cost of obtaining Provisional Orders for allotment purposes. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey spoke of the necessity for lawyers and surveyors. I can assure the House that under the provisions of the Allotments Acts there is no need for the services of lawyers and surveyors, and it is quite possible for the land to be obtained at an agreed price, and then to obtain a Provisional Order at a very small price indeed. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) made a suggestion with reference to the price paid for land taken compulsorily, and said that by the working of the Sanitary Laws there had been great difficulty in securing the removal of unsanitary buildings owing to the cost. He suggested that the cost might well be reduced. That is all very well where an individual has allowed his property to become unsanitary; but where a man is not in such default, I do not think the House would say that he should be punished by having his land and property taken on just the same terms that ho would have received had he boon in default. The right hon. Gentleman told us the Bill was going to be a failure because it gives these powers to the County Council; but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is aware that County Councils have expressed a desire to have these powers and their readiness to use them. I am convinced that they will carry out the Bill. The issue is a very simple one: it is the carrying of an amending Bill, which will remove existing difficulties, or the consideration of proposals which it is impossible to carry out. The discussion has been very full and complete, and I hope we may now be allowed to get the Speaker out of the Chair and the Bill into Committee.

Mr. Speaker, for the third time in this House I rise to move:—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the Church of Scotland ought to be disestablished and disendowed."

On the two former occasions the Motion was defeated, but only by an English majority. It was supported by a large majority of the Scotch Members. In 1886 the majority of Scotch votes in its favour was three to two, and in 1888 they were as two to one. In 1888, 38 Scottish Members voted, and two paired, in support of my Resolution, and only 20 voted against. And, to show the direction in which public opinion is running in Scotland, I may add that the bye-elections which have taken place since the constitution of the present Parliament have resulted in the return of an even greater proportion of Members supporting my views. In 1877 the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington), when leader of the Liberal Party, and when the pass- ing of the Patronage Act had made Disestablishment a prominent question in Scotland, said, speaking in Glasgow—

"All I can say is that whenever Scottish opinion, or even Scottish Liberal opinion, is fully formed on the subject, I think I may venture to say on behalf of the Liberal Party as a whole that they will be prepared to deal with the question as a whole without regard to other considerations."

I am sorry the noble Lord is not in his place. I think it must he held that Scottish opinion is fully proved on this subject when, 13 years after the noble Lord's utterance, the total vote at two successive elections of all sections of Liberal Members from Scotland, including that over which the noble Marquess himself presides, was on the first occasion as four to one, on the second five to one in favour of my Motion. Not only so, but the bye-elections since 1886 show that out of 12 Liberals, orthodox and heterodox, returned to this House by Scotch constituencies, 11 support the Disestablishment of the Church of Scotland. The noble Lord has such a reputation for courage and straightforwardness that I am certain, when these facts are brought to his notice, I may rely upon him for his support. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, at the time to which I refer, was not the official leader of the Liberal Party; but since he has resumed his natural position as its leader he has always expressed his adhesion to the doctrine laid down in the words of the noble Lord. Very recently he made a speech at St. Austell, and from what he said in that speech I think I may confidently rely upon his support. Then there is another statesman in this House—one of eminence I refer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the last Parliament he sat for a Division of Edinburgh, and he was naturally cross-examined as to his views upon this question. His replies on the occasion were oracularly ambiguous. But time has unriddled the oracle, and I now claim his vote. I do not want to misrepresent his position, and, therefore, I will describe it not in my own, but the words of one of his supporters—Lord Wemyss—who thus spoke of it in a meeting which he addressed at Glasgow, in October, 1885. After paying a high tribute to him, and speaking of him as one to whom Cross-Bench men looked forward with hope, the noble Lord went on to say—

"Mr. Goschen came to be heckled and collared on the question of Disestablishment, and what was his answer—not in a speech. In a speech a man says 50 things which he would rather not see in print. But when you come to be heckled you have time to think what you are going to say, and you answer carefully. Well, what was Mr. Goschen's careful answer to this question of the Established Church? 'My convictions.' Well, what are his convictions? I read it in the Daily Review, so I suppose it must be all right, 'My convictions,' replied Mr. Goschen, 'are the wishes of the people of Scotland.'"

["Hear, hear!"] An hon. Member says, "Hear, hear!" So say I, when the Scottish Members in two successive Parliaments have twice expressed the wishes of the Scottish people upon my Motion in the only manner in which those wishes can be unequivocally and constitutionally expressed, namely, by an overwhelming majority of their votes in support of my proposition. Knowing that the right hon. Gentleman's convictions are the wishes of the Scottish people I have a right to claim his support. I only regret that he no longer occupies a seat for a Scottish constituency, so that greater local weight might attach to the expression of his opinions in the shape in which events have at length consolidated them. But though the enormous preponderance of the Scottish vote ought, in my opinion, to be sufficient to convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale it has not been sufficient to convince my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Glasgow, whose views of everything which concerns the Church of Scotland are cast-iron and adamantine, and proof alike against the teachings of experience and the logic of facts. That the hon. Member for Particle and the hon. Baronet the Member for Ipswich have adopted his words, speaks more for the heartiness of their approval than for the fertility of their resources. These hon. Gentlemen declare that there is no reason, either as regards the present position of the Church of Scotland, or the position of the people of Scotland, why a proposal should be entertained for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of that Church. The Representatives of the people of Scotland, selected in successive Parliaments under the widest franchise, and with the protection of the Ballot, may record their votes as they please; the bye-elections can afford what additional indication they may of the feelings of Scotland, but to the impenetrably armour-clad mind of my hon. Friend, these facts afford not the smallest reason why any attention should be paid to the matter. There is, according to him, absolutely no reason, so far as regards the wishes of the people of Scotland, why the proposal should be entertained, not even after the results of the bye-elections, and the unequivocal expression of opinion by the large majority of Members in this House. Such a position seems to me so obviously to constitute either a libel upon, or a treason to, our whole system of Parliamentary representation, and I do not think it is necessary to waste further time in endeavouring to refute it. I can only express my astonishment that a doctrine which is so utterly subversive of the whole of the fundamental principles of our Constitution should be advanced in identical terms by three Members, who claim to belong to the Constitutional Party, without calling for condign and summary reproof and repudiation from their Colleagues. But, says the hon. Member for the Glasgow University and his supporters, there is no reason, as regards the present position of the Church of Scotland, why the proposal should be entertained. He does not qualify his assertion. He does not say there is no adequate reason. He says, "There is absolutely no reason whatever." That is an assertion which, I venture to say, is as unblushingly audacious and untenable as that which I have just characterised. What is the position of the Church of Scotland? Now, Sir, prior to the disruption of 1843, the Established Church embraced the majority of the population of Scotland. At various dates, comparatively small bodies had lived off from it, but prior to the Disruption the Established Church of Scotland embraced the vast majority of the Presbyterian population. Between 1832 and 1842 the Established Church of Scotland entered into a historical and momentous struggle with the Civil Courts of the country. The struggle arose out of the rights of patrons to intrude unacceptable ministers on unwilling congregations; but in the course of the struggle a number of most important points of ecclesiastical polity evolved them selves on which the decisions of the Civil Courts were at direct variance with the most cherished doctrines of the Church of Scotland. To give one single example. One of the most cherished doctrines of the Church is the headship of Christ—that is to say, that the Church derives its spiritual jurisdiction direct from our Saviour. In one of his judgments the President of the Court of Session, referring to the doctrine, said—

"That our Saviour is the head of the Kirk of Scotland in any temporal or judicial sense, is a position which I can dignify by no other name than absurdity."

Now, Sir, the result of this long struggle was that, in the year 1842, the strain between Church and State became very great, and the General Assembly of the Established Church drew up a protest and claim of right. In that document 12 principles were laid down, which the Established Church considered of most vital importance, but which, in their opinion, had been contravened by the decisions of the Civil Courts, which, to quote the words of the protest, in determining these points against the Church—

"Had exercised powers not conferred on them by the Constitution—had invaded the jurisdiction of the Courts of the Church, had subverted its Government in opposition to God's Word, in violation of the Constitution, and in disregard of divers express enactments of the Legislature."

The General Assembly drew up this protest and claim of rights for submission to the Sovereign and the Legislature, and wound up with an appeal to all office-bearers and people of the Church who were willing to surfer for their adorable King and Head, to stand by the Church, and to unite in supplication that He would turn the hearts of their rulers to redress their grievances, "or otherwise"—I ask the House to note these words—

"Or otherwise that He would give strength to this Church, office-bearers and people, to endure resignedly the loss of the temporal benefits of the establishment and the personal sufferings and sacrifices to which they may be called, and would inspire them with zeal and energy to promote the advancement of His Son's Kingdom in whatever condition it may be His will to place them."

Well, here we have formulated by the entire Established Church of Scotland a number of points in which the law, as interpreted by the Civil Courts, was sub versive of the doctrines of that Church. You have a demand made for the redress of these grievances by legislation, and the position taken up was that unless the grievances were remedied there was no alternative but to shake off the trammels imposed by State connection, and, at whatever cost, to assert the spiritual freedom of the Church. That protest came before the Government, and the Legislature, and the Church was informed that its claims were incompatible with the position of the Established Church. And, thereupon, those of its people who adhered to the doctrines of the National Church as laid down in its solemn protest—those men in whose mouths the words "suffering" and "sacrifice" were more than idle wind proceeding from the teeth outward—those who were willing to undergo suffering and sacrifice for conscience sake—these men went forth from the Establishment claiming that they were the rightful Representatives and heirs of the traditions of the Church of Scotland, which they said, and rightly said, was national, not because it was established, but because it was free. Now, those who were thus driven forth from the National Church did not at once demand Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church of Scotland, but when they did make the demand, the circumstances under which it was made rendered it vastly more weighty. They did not make it, as might have been expected, when smarting under a sense of injustice and embittered by the sacrifices they had to make. They endured those things patiently. They worked on for something like 40 years, during which, at the cost of incredible labour and sacrifice, in many instances, in the face of every obstacle which bigotry and intolerance could suggest, at the cost of a pecuniary expenditure of close on 11 millions sterling, they reared an ecclesiastical system which extended over Scotland, and which rivalled the Establishment in its influence and importance. During those 40 years nothing was done to remedy their grievances or to render possible the return to the Establishment of those who had gone forth from it, until, at length, at the instance of the supporters of the Establishment, Mr. Disraeli brought in and carried his Patronage Act; not with the object of re-incorporating the Free Church, but for the purpose of inducing desertions from other Scotch Churches by which the Establishment might be strengthened. There was no pretence that the Act would lead to a re-union of the Church. "I have always said," stated the Duke of Argyll, "there is no hope whatever for the re-union of the Free and Established Churches except on the ground of Disestablishment." The object of the Act was to induce large numbers of lay members of the other Churches to return to the Establishment under the pretext that the most substantial of the grievances that had been alleged should be redressed. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) described it was "an attempt to steal back piece-meal what had been driven forth wholesale," and resented accordingly. Under these circumstances the Free Church was at length compelled to admit that an Establishment so identified with a policy of antagonism and aggression, backed up in that policy by a powerful political Party and State Endowment, constituted a standing menace to its usefulness in the great sphere of Christian work which, at such great cost, it had opened up. The Free Church was at length compelled to admit that under the altered circumstances the maintenance of the Establishment was unjust and inexpedient, and since then, by constantly increasing majorities, the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland has voted in favour of the proposition now before the House. And yet the hon. Member for Glasgow University sees no reason why this proposal should be as much as entertained. Why, in reply to an argument of the hon. Gentleman himself it was pointed out, in 1886, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, that there was not another example in Christendom of a Church enjoying the advantages of State Endowment and State Establishment existing alongside two other Churches of almost equally numerous membership, adhering to the same doctrine, more strict in the enforcement of its discipline than the Established Church, which, having been driven forth from the Establishment, in consequence of their uncompromising adhesion to its principles, now found themselves subjected to the disadvantage of State prestige and State Endowments being used by the Estab- lishment as a lever for their disintegration. There is no reason, forsooth, in the present condition of the Church in Scotland! It is admittedly the Church of the minority of the Scottish people. It does not claim more than 46½ per cent. of the people of Scotland, and we altogether repudiate that claim; still we will take it at their own figure as 46½ per cent. They do not, on their own figures, embrace more than 56½ per cent. of the Presbyterians of Scotland. That leaves 43½ per cent. of the Presbyterians belonging to other Churches. Is that a minority which can be utterly disregarded in the discussion of a question of this sort? The number of Established churches, although there was some quibble about mission stations—is less than the number of other Presbyterian places of worship; and there can be no question that the attendance at the dissenting Churches is greater than at the Established Church. Its revenues are less than half the revenues of the other Presbyterian Churches. What right, then, has this one portion of the Presbyterian Church to exclusive privileges—to exclusive State support—especially when those advantages are used for aggression against the other Presbyterian Churches? I do not complain of the Established Church being aggressive. If it were not aggressive it would show a lack of vitality; but I ask why should the State aid one portion of the Presbyterian Church, and enable it to extend its bounds at the expense of the Presbyterian and other Churches, which are as pure and as zealous in the work they have to perform? We used to have the Act of Union thrown at us, and to be told that the Established Church was guaranteed by that Act; but hardly was the ink dry on the Act, than its most important provision with regard to the freedom of the Scottish Church was thrown overboard by the passing of the Patronage Act of Queen Anne. Only last year, too, the provision which exacted a theological test from every Professor in a Scottish University was swept away. That, perhaps, explains why the old stalking-horse of the Union did not appear in the Amendment to his Motion. We are told that the Established Church of Scotland is doing good work. Will hon. Gentlemen deny that the other Churches are doing equally good work? We are told that without State aid the spiritual wants of the poor of Scotland must be neglected. I hold that to be a libel on all the other Churches of Scotland. The Free Church provides almost exclusively for the wants of the poor in the Highlands of Scotland, and the United Presbyterian Church in Orkney and Shetland. In many of the Highland parishes the position of the Established Church is almost as great a scandal as almost anything that could be picked out of the history of the old Irish Establishment. In a statement which has been distributed amongst hon. Members will be found a list of 13 Highland parishes, embracing a population of over 13,000 souls, and in not one of the parishes are there to be found more than 10 Communicants of the Established Church, whilst in the whole of them that Church claims only 63 Communicants. I could quote scores of instances of the same kind. Even in counties like Caithness, or Ross and Cromarty, where the State subsidy amounts to £6 or even £10 per head of the Communicants, the position of the Established Church is most wretched and deplorable. We are told that the Established Church is rapidly enlarging its boundaries. We claim that the other Churches are doing the same. But if it is increasing more rapidly than the other Churches in Scotland it must be in consequence of the legislation which has been undertaken by this House against the vote of the vast majority of the Scotch Representatives. If any disproportionate increase has taken place in the Established Church, it must have been at the expense of the sister Churches. But we do not admit that the Patronage Act, or the policy since pursued, has in any way strengthened the Established Church. On the contrary, we believe it has been a source of weakness to her by embittering the relations between the Established Church and the other Presbyterian Bodies, and it has convinced a large majority of the people of Scotland that the continued maintenance under present circumstances of the Establishment, so far from being a boon to their religion is a curse. The endowments of the Established Church amount to about £350,000 or £400,000. This, it is said, is the patrimony of that Church, but it is not the patrimony of a Church. It is the patrimony simply of the Ecclesiastical Establishment for the time being-. The endowments are the remnant of the patrimony of the old Roman Catholic Establishment—the patrimony of the Episcopal Establishment. Then they formed the patrimony of the pre-Disruption Presbyterian Establishment, and then of the post-Disruption Erastian Establishment. They are as much the patrimony of the Establishment as the property of the Board of Works or the Post Office may be said to be the patrimony of those Departments, and they are as much the property of the nation as that property. In their history and origin they are infinitely more clearly the property of the nation than certain educational endowments, the destination of which has recently been altered with such ruthless hands by a Royal Commission, of which the hon. Member for Glasgow University (Mr. J. A. Campbell) and Lord Balfour of Burleigh were prominent Members. I say it comes with a very bad grace from that hon. Gentleman and that noble Lord to accuse us of spoliation after the very active part they have taken in putting in force, on much more debate-able ground than we propose to invade, the doctrines we advocate, and especially when, as in the case of the Madras College, St. Andrews, they have sometimes carried out their policy with a cruel disregard of the vested rights of individuals, who had earned those rights by life-long service of the public, and who, owing to the decrees of the Commission, have been thrown upon the world to live as best they may. An attempt has been made to drag a red herring across the trail by suggesting that the endowments should be distributed amongst the Presbyterian Bodies. That proposal has had no practical support and has already been denounced by the leading Representatives of the Free Church and the United Presbyterian Church. The hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay), when he, a few years ago, introduced a scheme for the re-union of the different Churches, spoke of bringing in a subsequent Bill dealing with this branch of the subject, but nothing more has been heard of it, probably owing to the difficulty being recognised of making this suggested adjustment of the endowments. But it is no scheme of that kind that the people of Scotland want. What, through their Representatives in this House they have twice decided that they want is not any more tinkering with the Establishment. What is wanted is the severance of all connection between Church and State, perfect religious equality among the people, and the appropriation of the endowments, now monopolised by one sect, to public uses, careful regard being had to all vested interests. And, Sir, with the view of again testing the feelings of this House, and especially of the Scottish Members, on that question, I beg to move the Resolution that stands in my name.

I rise with some diffidence to second the Resolution which has just been moved by the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow. It is not to some of us a new subject. It so happens I was one of a deputation which waited on the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (The Marquess of Hartington) when he visited Scotland and made the first official declaration in regard to Disestablishment, and it may not be out of place that, as the proposer represents one of the largest cities in Scotland, the seconder should be the Representative of one of the largest counties. Now, I claim to approach this subject very dispassionately. It so happens that in my own constituency there is a large majority of electors belonging to the Church of Scotland, and it is quite a mistake to believe that the feeling in the Church of Scotland is unanimous against Disestablishment. I have the honour to have among my strongest supporters elders and office-bearers of the Church of Scotland. But although we approach this subject dispassionately, we approach it none the less earnestly. It is not my intention to go into statistics. Were we to go into statistics, and were we to prove that there is in Scotland a large majority in favour of religious inequality, it would, in my opinion, be a stronger argument against that majority imposing on the minority their religion, or any liabilities in regard to it. I have all my life belonged to a denomination which dates back 150 years, and has always held that the religious vitality of the Church itself is a perfect security for its temporalities. We can depend, and do depend, on outmost resolute faith in the goodwill and feelings of the people to maintain the Christian communities to which they are attached. On the present occasion we are asked to make merely a pious declaration of our opinions, and are not entering upon legislation. But, in our view, that is both necessary and right. A subject of this kind ought to be approached with caution. We ought to look at the interests of all concerned, and I believe it would be in the interests both of those in favour and those against Disestablishment that we should have the fullest and freest discussion of this subject before we come to legislation. It is to some of us a matter of very great interest that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, to whom we look as a Scottish Member to give us some declaration on the subject, has already in the Parliament of 1885 given it as his opinion that at that time this subject was not ripe for legislation. But that is no reason why we should not discuss it at the present time, in prospect of legislation in the future. Now, although we have several Amendments on the Paper they are all the same in substance. The Member for the Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities declares in his Amendment that there is no reason, as regards either the present position of the Church of Scotland or the wishes of the people of Scotland, which calls for our interference. I put this proposition to my hon. Friend: that it is not for us to show that there is any call on our part to interfere; but it is for my hon. Friend to show that a minority of the people of Scotland should have for their own disposal large funds which belong to the whole people. There is one 'thing to which I think attention should be called. Before the Disruption the Church of Scotland came to the Legislature and called their atten- tion to the growing population in the cities, for which there was no temporal provision made in that Church. The Legislature said to them, even so long ago as 1838, that they were not prepared to extend these ecclesiastical privileges in Scotland. Having this stated to them, it was necessary that provision should be made for those for whom the Church of Scotland in the disposal of her endowments made no provision; and when the Church of Scotland send out their statistics —as they are doing now—they always conceal from the public the important fact that where there have been two or three Chapels of Ease or quoad sacra churches established, the central churches have never gone the length of what they declare to be their own convictions, and which I think they would do if they had their own convictions as deeply as they profess to have. If it is essential for the cause of religion in Scotland that the parish churches should be endowed, why does not the Church recognise the principle of distributing the endowment with the other Churches, belonging to their own denomination? The hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Thorburn) brings forward a somewhat different Amendment, in which he says that—

"As the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church of Scotland has not been put before the people of Scotland as a test question, this House declines fundamentally to disturb the present ecclesiastical arrangements in that country."

Now, what does my hon. Friend mean by that? Do the upholders of the Scottish Establishment really seriously propose to this House that any other means should be taken to ascertain the wishes of the people of Scotland than by going to the ballot-box? If seems to me if our friends are prepared to say that we should take some exceptional plebiscite different from the ballot-box, they give up their whole case because they fear the tribunal. I do not propose to follow the arguments used in the Amendments any further; but I do notice that it is being constantly stated, and those who favour Disestablishment are reproached by being told, that we have no mandate from our constituents. ["Hear, hear!"] In response to the feeble cheers I hear from the benches opposite, I would ask, have the Party opposite any mandate? What is the mandate? Was it not the whole argument at the recent Election that this matter should be left alone during the present Parliament? ["Yes"and "No"from the Ministerial Benches.] There seems to be a difference of opinion on the point among the supporters of the Establishment, which I leave them to settle among themselves. Who is to blame for breaking the truce? The hon. Member for Inverness was the first to introduce a Bill on this subject, while the hon. Member for the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen is every year bringing in fresh legislation. What right, then, have our friends to say that those who now favour Disestablishment disturb the peace of Scotland and break the solemn promise given at the last Election? I claim, however, some consideration for the hon. Member for the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen, whom I have frequently followed into the Lobby on educational questions. My hon. Friend was elected by the University vote: and although the ministers of the Church of Scotland are constantly telling us that they approach this subject from no Party point of view, out of 310 clerical votes only 15 were given for the Liberal candidate. Does my hon. Friend ask that the endowment and establishment of the Church ought to continue on the ground of its being the Church of the majority? If that is the argument, what have we to say to the Roman Catholics in Ireland, who are in a majority in that country? If we are not to take the numerical strength, are we to take the purity and true religion of the Church? If so, who are to be the judges? Is the House of Commons to be the dictator, and, if so, where is the spiritual independence which has been the glory of the Presbyterian Church in ages past? Now, take another argument. Our opponents say if there is no endowed Church the people in certain districts will be destitute of religion. What is the ground for saying that? The poorest districts of Scotland are the Highlands. Voluntary churches support the whole of the Highlands almost, and the Church of Scotland spend £40,000 a year on congregations, the average membership of which is 5½. It is not true that those who want the Disestablishment of the Church desire to divert the endowments. The claim is that the money belongs to the Church, and that the Church is the Church of the people. The Established Church is upheld by Parliament out of public funds, and every one is agreed that not a penny of that money should be diverted. All we want is that the money shall be applied to some universal purpose, of which all parties may partake alike. On a previous occasion the Lord Advocate said that the question was merely one of envy and personal jealousy. I am not sure upon what foundation this statement is based by the right hon. Gentleman, because our claim is that the envy and jealousy is largely created by the disunion which exists in the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland, and the only means of uniting that Church is by the Disendowment and Disestablishment of the Established Church. Instead of this attitude being assumed in a spirit of jealousy and envy, I claim that it is assumed in the interest of true union, and to put an end to all feeling of jealousy. The learned Lord Advocate made another statement, which was very remarkable. He said the temporalities of the Church of Scotland were "an increment of spiritual means." I confess I have not been able to come to any conclusion as to the meaning of that statement. I have got it from Hansard, and' if the right hon. Gentleman has been misreported I shall be glad to hear any correction. Dr. Chalmers, in a remarkable utterance, has said that the Church might cease to be an Establishment, but that in all the high matters of sacred and spiritual jurisdiction she would be the same as before. I put the opinion of the great leader formerly of the Church of Scotland, and later of the Free Church, against the opinion of the Lord Advocate on this point. We are asked whether Disestablishment would promote union. We are aware that two proposals have-been made—one of levelling up, and the other of levelling down. The first proposal has been found to be impracticable, and union on that basis has been declared impossible. It is, therefore, left to us to seek union on the basis of Disestablishment and Disendowment. I appeal to the House to give serious consideration to a subject which is causing great irritation and great injustice in Scotland. I would ask whether the present is not a great opportunity of effecting Christian union among the religious denominations of Scotland. At no previous period has there been such a disposition to meet the Church of Scotland fairly, and to consider her great history and her good work. We are ready to meet the Church of Scotland on any terms which may be considered fair and just in the interests of Scotland, and I beseech hon. Gentlemen opposite who have been bound so long to the temporalities of that Church to trust to the free-will offerings of the people, having no fear that the Church will not maintain its cause without State connection and without State or patronage endowment. I have great pleasure in seconding the Motion.

I must oppose the Motion just moved and seconded. I recognise the friendly spirit in which my Friends opposite have referred to me; and I hope that, though I shall be obliged to speak somewhat decidedly on the opposite side, I shall not be less friendly in my remarks than they have been. I must demur altogether to the account given by the Mover of the Motion of the nature and causes of the Disruption movement in 1843. The controversy at that time was not as to whether there was or was not a spiritual Headship of Christ, but whether or not it had been invaded by the Courts of Law; and the position taken up by the majority of the Church was confirmed by decisions in the Courts of Law afterwards in quieter times, which fully established the spiritual independence of the Church within its own province. Then my hon. Friend gave a somewhat fanciful account of the nature of the Church's action in regard to the passing of the Act for the abolition of patronage. That Act was not passed for the purpose of inducing desertions from the Free Church, but in order to relieve the Church of Scotland from a defect under which it had long suffered. The Church had always protested against the system of patronage. The controversy was not as to whether there should be patronage, but how patronage was to be modified or got rid of. Parliament never said that the Church, in passing what was called the Veto Act, had done a thing that was in itself wrong or inexpedient or objectionable, but simply that it had done a thing it had no power to do. I claim that the Church of Scotland has never said anything against the work of its neighbours, or attempted to interfere with that work or refused to recognise the good work of its neighbours. My hon. Friends have both twitted me—["No!"] —well, they have referred in a facetious and not altogether flattering manner to what they regard as inconsistency on my part in two different lines of action—firstly, in opposing this Motion; and secondly, in carrying through the work of the Educational Endowments Commission. With regard to extending the benefits of her endowments, the Church of Scotland has repeatedly and in the most generous and decided manner invited the other Churches to suggest some way in which they might unite with her, consistently with her character as a National Church, to share in the work of the National Church, and share in the endowments of the National Church. My hon. Friend said that the Educational Endowment Commissioners have interfered with existing arrangements, and introduced new systems We did so because we were commissioned to reorganise the endowments, so as to carry out better the intentions of the founders and to make the endowments more useful considering the changed circumstances of the time. On the same principle the Church has also sought to make her endowments more useful; but if she gives up the principle of a National Church, she will be going directly in the teeth of the intentions of the pious founders of these endowments. My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Esslemont) has asked me whether I would continue the endowment and establishment of the Church of Scot-laud on the ground of it being the Church of the majority of the people, and if so, whether I would extend the same principle to Ireland and other places. The Church of Scotland has come to us with obligations with regard to her and in connection with the other parts of the Kingdom. We have in the Church of Scotland a branch of the same great Protestant Church as the Church of England. We have in Scotland a Church not out of sympathy with the Church of the majority in England, but representing in Scotland the same sentiment as the latter represents in England. ["Oh, oh!"] I mean the Christian Protestant sentiment of the great majority of the people. The hon. Member (Dr. Cameron) has quoted the opinion of Dr. Chalmers four or five years before the Disruption. I will quote a sentence uttered by Dr. Chalmers four years after the Disruption. "I can afford," said Dr. Chalmers, a few days before his death in 1847,

"To say no more than that my hopes of an extended Christianity from the efforts of voluntaryism alone have not been brightened by my experience since the Disruption. We rejoice, therefore, in the testimony of the Free Church for the principle of a national Establishment, and most sincerely do we hope that she will never fall away from it."

I do not wish to tax the attention of the House any more than is necessary with statistics; but, at the same time, it may be inevitable that some statistics should be referred to. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the College Division (Dr. Cameron) is a serious proposal. It is one which will, if carried, involve a greater change than has been experienced in Scotland since the Union. He referred by anticipation to the objections that might be adduced on the ground of the Treaty of Union. I will not dwell on the Treaty of Union. No doubt it has been interfered with in many respects, but I do not know that on that account anything that is a prominent feature of the Treaty of Union is not deserving of serious consideration. The maintenance of the Church as by law established is a prominent provision of the Treaty of Union. It has a prominent place in the Coronation Oath of the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, and I say that any proposal to abolish the Church as an Established Church under such circumstances ought to be approached with consideration and care. I hold that to justify this Motion there ought to be distinct proof that the people of Scotland wish the Church to be Disestablished and Disendowed, and that there is something in the position of the Church to justify such a wish. I deny that there is any proof of either. As to the wish of the people of Scotland, we had an indication of it a few years ago, when shoals of Petitions were sent in to this House against Mr. Dick Peddie's Disestablishment Bill. There has been no change of sentiment in Scotland since that time. I may also refer to the very significant declaration made by the electors of Mid Lothian, who, to the number of 67 per cent., signed a declara- tion that they were opposed to the Disestablishment of the Church of Scotland. The Disestablishment Council of Scotland have circulated, to some extent, a printed statement in this House. Neither I nor any of my Friends received a copy of it, and it was only through the courtesy of an hon. Friend opposite that I now have a copy of it. That document states that, "The people of Scotland have long demanded redress," from having an Established Church. When and where have the people of Scotland spoken to that effect? Proofs are adduced in the statement, but they are from ecclesiastical and political sources alone. The Synod of the United Presbyterian Church and the General Assembly of the Free Church are cited as having passed resolutions in favour of Disestablishment, but these Church Courts are not the people of Scotland. Nor do they represent all the members of their Churches. We know that many Free Churchmen are strongly opposed to Disestablishment; and as to the United Presbyterian Church, although votes have been carried unanimously in its Synod, those who have personal acquaintance with its ministers and members have been aware that there are many in that denomination who have no sympathy with the Disestablishment movement. We now have proof of this, for on the 16th ult. a large and influential meeting of lay members of the United Presbyterian Church was held at Glasgow to memorialise the Synod against the existence and action of the Synod's Committee on Disestablishment and Disendowment. It was declared at that meeting that the Memorialists held "various opinions," as by the constitution of their Church they were at liberty to do "as to the wisdom of the policy of Disestablishment and Disendowment; but that they were "at one in the belief that agitation in support of that policy by a Committee acting under ecclesiastical authority" was "inexpedient." Another proof given in the printed statement that the people wish for Disestablishment, is that at a meeting of 400 Home Rule Liberal delegates, held in Glasgow in November last, it was agreed that Disestablishment Scotland "must be kept in the front rank of the Liberal Programme." There has thus been a resolution in favour of Disestablishment by a certain political organisation and by certain Church Courts. But these are not "the people of Scotland." To say so is an error of the same nature, though not of the same degree, as that of the historical tailors of Tooley Street, who represented themselves as the people of England. I would ask, where have there been any public meetings in Scotland in favour of Disestablishment, for, say, the last five years? But as to the wishes of the people of Scotland, what do we know? Last year the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, speaking at St. Austell, expressed himself to the effect that "The sense of Scotland had now been sufficiently and unequivocally declared" by two votes in this House. But what had the right hon. Gentleman previously said? In November, 1885, addressing his constituents in answer to a question "whether he would would take the vote on the Resolution of the Member for the College Division as indicative of the state of Scottish opinion," he said—

"If I am right in saying that every Liberal voter ought to support a competent Liberal candidate, whatever be his opinions on the Church question, then, of course, it follows that no such resolution can be accepted as conclusive, because, as I said, the men were elected on the general grounds of Liberalism and were not elected on the Church question."

So much for the Parliament then sitting. What of the present Parliament? It was elected on the question of the government of Ireland and not on the Church question. At the elections in Scotland the Church question was scarcely mentioned. It follows, therefore, that a vote on the Resolution of the hon. Member can no more be accepted in this Parliament than in last as conclusive of the opinions on this question of the people of Scotland. And what were these two votes? In 1886, out of 72 Scotch Members, 25 voted for the Motion, and in 1888 38 voted for it. On a subject upon which the Representatives had no mandate' from their constituents, the vote of a bare majority is held to be an unequivocal declaration of the sense of Scotland! But it seems to me we have a somewhat better criterion of the opinion of Scotland than can be got from any vote in this House taken in that way. I refer to what happened at the last two bye-elections, where the candidates who advocated Disestablishment were unsuccessful, and the candidates who were opposed to Disestablishment were returned. So far, then, as the evidence of elections goes, the most recent information gives the sense of Scotland against this Motion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, in addressing his constituents in 1879, put aside the idea that there was any danger of this question being disposed of without a fair trial and a full consideration of the case by the people of Scotland. Such a fair trial and full consideration is exactly what the Church demands. The Committee on Church Interests, who are authorised to speak for the Church in this matter, have said that they would acquiesce in any method in which a decision of the people could be taken on the question by fair and honourable means, and as a distinct and separate issue. The Disestablishment Council in their statement have objected by anticipation to a plebiscite. The Church is not afraid of a plebiscite. It has never asked for one. It does not demand any particular way of taking the decision. But it claims that if the opinion of the people is to be taken, it must be taken on this as a separate question, and not mixed up and entangled with questions of Party politics. As to the position of the Church, there is no warrant for such a Motion as this of the hon. Member for the College Division. The numerical strength of the Church is undoubtedly of some importance in a question of this kind, but it is not the only thing to be considered. The question is not how many members there are in the Church of Scotland, but what proportion of the people of Scotland have any wish that the Church should be disestablished. The Church has many ardent defenders who do not belong to its communion. The Petitions the other year to which I have already referred had the signatures of 150,000 persons who were not in the communion of the Church. Still, the number claiming the Church as theirs is a question of importance, and how is the information to be obtained? [An hon. MEMBER: "Census."] A Census would give us most valuable information on that point, and I hope it is not too late yet to have a column in the forthcoming Census giving religious denominations. But it is not the fault of the friends of the Church that such a Census was not taken on the last occasion. But in the absence of that, some approximation to precise information may be obtained from the statistics of the Registrar General. From these it appears that 47 per cent. of the marriages in Scotland are solemnised in connection with the Church of Scotland. Deducting Roman Catholic marriages and irregular marriages, the proportion of Protestant marriages solemnised by the Church of Scotland is 53 per cent. The communicants of the Church number 581,568, and those of all the other Protestant denominations 520, 730, showing a majority for the Church of Scotland of 60, 800. In the statement which they have issued, the Disestablishment Council venture to say that there are good grounds for calling in question the large membership claimed by the Established Church. This serious charge of misrepresentation is made upon the ground that taking the statistics of congregations of the churches in Perthshire, the numbers connected with the various churches would exceed the whole population of the county; and, coming to the conclusion that there must be a mistake somewhere, in the Church of Scotland or the Free Church or the United Presbyterian Church statistics, they assume that the fault must be with the Church of Scotland! The Church of Scotland challenges scrutiny of her statistics. The membership in the different parishes is published in the Year Book, and the accuracy of the figures can easily be inquired into; and as this case has been so directly mentioned in statements by our opponents, I, holding the position of Convener of the Church Committee on Statistics, undertake to make inquiry in any case where it is thought by any of our friends that explanation is required. The Disestablishment statement, which has been circulated, refers to the fact that the increase of Church membership, as reported last year, was not so great as in previous years; but no mention is made of the fact that this difference is due to stricter rules having been introduced in revising communion rolls. The statement compares the increase in the different Churches in the last year, but avoids the comparison of the last two or four years, which would have shown the following increase—for the last two years, for the Church of Scotland, 10,539; for the Free Church, 5,129; and for the United Presbyterian Church, 900; or for the last four years, for the Church of Scotland, 25,946; for the Free Church, 9,199; and for the United Presbyterian Church, 2,981. I may mention that the statistics which will shortly be published will show an increase for the Church of Scotland in the past 12 months of about 7,000. No one with any acquaintance with Scotland can doubt that the Established Church is steadily and, in many places, rapidly increasing throughout the country. The Disestablishment statement calls attention to its position in the Highlands, and gives statistics with reference to 12 parishes in which the Church membership is very small. Ever since the Disruption of 1843 the Church has been weak in some parts of the Gaelic Highlands, and the 12 parishes mentioned are the worst, that is, the weakest, of the weak places. Yet the case is not so bad as it is represented to be. Let it be remembered that these are 12 parishes out of 1,330. Then, they are all what are called Parliamentary Churches, in remote parts of the Highlands—churches for which it was very difficult for many years to get ministers, and several of them remained closed for some years after 1843. It must be remembered, too, that the figures quoted represent the number of communicants in each parish, not the number of the congregation. The significance of the distinction between communicants and congregation will be understood by all who know anything of Church life in the Gaelic Highlands. It must not be supposed that there is no Church work done where membership or even congregations are very small. The Church of Scotland is admittedly weak in numbers in the four northern counties. But even in those counties its position has been steadily improving for some years past. Turning again to the Registrar General's statistics, the marriages during the last year for which a Report is published, connected with the Church of Scotland in Caithness were 63 out of a total of 187, in Sutherland 26 out of 72, in Ross and Cromarty 44 out of 285, and in Inverness 112 out of 362. In Argyleshire and Perthshire the Church of Scotland is more influential and numerous than the Free Church. And it is to be remembered with respect to the Highlands that, however small the congregations of the Church of Scotland may still be in some places, there is no sympathy, or very little sympathy, in the Highlands with this movement for Disestablishment and Disendowment. The United Presbyterian Church, which claims to be the most thorough-going representative of the voluntary principle, has almost no place whatever in the Gaelic Highlands. I make out only six congregations in the North Highlands belonging to that Church. The Free Church is the strong Church in that district, but it is the Free Church as founded by Dr. Chalmers and others, holding the principle of National Establishment; and the Marquess of Lorne, when a Member of this House, presented a Petition signed by 51,000 persons belonging to the Free Church in the Highlands against Disestablishment and Disendowment. Now, to have done with this question of statistics, I must notice the extraordinary error, which is unaccountable in a paper emanating from a Council sitting in Edinburgh, as to the number of churches belonging to the various Religious Denominations. The Church of Scotland is represented as having only 1,325 churches; but the fact is that it has 1,330 parish churches alone, 174 non-parochial churches, and 146 mission stations, or a total of 1,650. Then this statement makes a more serious charge against the Church than any I have yet mentioned, with regard to the appropriation of money belonging to the poor. This charge refers to the ordinary church-door collections. These are now applied, since the Poor Law Act was passed, by the Kirk Sessions—the office-bearers of the different parishes—to aiding poor persons, so far as they see fit, and to the general expenses of the Parish Church, so far as not met by the assessment on heritors. A Report by each Kirk Session is annually sent to the Board of Supervision, as is required by statute, but the Board does not interfere with the discretion of Kirk Sessions. The congregations, who give the collections, know perfectly well how the money is expended by the Kirk Sessions, and we know that if it were ordered to be expended in the relief of the poor rate there would immediately be an end to the collections. There is no misappropriation of money where it is applied as the donors understand and intend. This "flagrant misappropriation," as the statement calls it, is a gigantic mare's nest. The Established Church is the Church of the poor. The parish minister is there for the purpose of giving his services to rich and poor alike, and the poorest in the congregation have the same claim upon him as the richest. Reference has been made to the public endowments of the Church, and the question has been raised as to whose patrimony these are. They are not the patrimony of the Church, but of the people, but for a particular purpose—for the maintenance of religious ordinances. They represent what has been saved of the endowments of the old pre-Reformation Church, and they are not given now at the expense of anyone. They almost all had their origin in private religious gifts, but they are now given at the cost of no one. The stipends are paid by the heritors not out of their own pockets, but from the teind, which is a burden upon their lands; and so also for the maintenance of the ecclesiastical buildings there is an assessment on the heritors, but it is no grievance to the heritors to pay this, for they inherited or bought their property subject to these burdens. It is the land which provides these endowments. These endowments are not the property of the country as a whole—they are the property of the several parishes; and it would be an injustice to propose to take the endowments of the different parishes and put them into a general fund. The endowments of a parish belong to that parish alone. But it has been asked by the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Esslemont) why have not the holders of these endowments—why have not the parish ministers — divided the endowments with the ministers of new churches built within their parishes? The answer is because the money is not sufficient; the old parish endowment is not more than is necessary for the support of one man. Instead of asking the parish minister to give assistance out of his stipend, the Church has erected new parishes and endowed them by voluntary subscription. Since 1843 there have been 366 parish churches added where they were needed. In most eases new churches have been built; but where there was a church already existing it had to be cleared from, all debt, and an endowment found for it. This the Church of Scotland has done by voluntary effort without one farthing of State assistance. It is said this is an argument for voluntaryism, but it is nothing of the kind. This liberality was evoked because of the establishment and endowment principle; because these churches were to be in connection with the Established Church they were founded, and subscribers bestowed their favour on them, and they have given their favour in the form of permanent endowments. Aggression on the part of the Church, then, has been not aggression against its neighbours, but against irreligion. It is said that the Church Interests Committee under my noble Friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh is forcing Disestablishment to the front, but what the Church Interests Committee is doing is only to urge Churchmen to make sure of the sentiments of candidates on this particular question, whatever may be their position as to political parties. Is it not time to do this? Is it not necessary when Home Rule Liberal leaders have agreed that Disestablishment "must be kept in the front rank of the Liberal programme"? I suppose a reference to giving "a new lease of political life to the Tory Party" may account for this Paper not being circulated among hon. Members on this side of the House, and yet I suppose we must not say this is a political movement—this cry for Disestablishment! The plea of religious equality is put forward; and here we leave the field of Scotland for that of the wide world, and come upon really what is the main argument of the opponents of the Church—an argument which is aimed against having an Established Church anywhere. I hope our English friends will take note of this fact. Now, I grant that there cannot be absolute religious equality with an Established Church—because there is necessarily a distinction, whatever it may amount to, between a Church that is recognised and a Church that is not recognised by the State, as the Established Church. But this inequality, although it is inevitable, need not be serious or amount to a grievance to any one. It does not amount to a grievance to any one in Scotland. If there are privileges connected with the Church that press unfairly on non-Established Churches and amount to an injustice, let them be removed by all means; but I know of no such injustice in Scotland. The only thing in Scotland that is a grievance in connection with the Established Church which I can think of at the moment, is the incidence of the ecclesiastical assessment for Church and Manse buildings upon feuars. It is a grievance, because feuars did not expect to be made liable to the assessment. It is only by a comparatively recent decision it is found it must be so. An effort has been made to relieve them of that grievance, without injury to any one, but assistance has not been received from the Opposition. From the way in which the subject of religious equality is sometimes spoken of it would almost appear as if dissenters from the Established Church think it a hardship to be recognised as Dissenters. Now, I do not understand this. They dissent because they are more scrupulous than members of the Church, in their view of some points of doctrine or practice, and they ought not surely to object to this being known. They glory in their position, in one sense, and yet we find them sometimes resenting the re cognition of their position. But if we are to have absolute religious equality, a good deal more will have to be done than the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church of Scotland. We have a Protestant Monarchy and a Protestant Constitution. We recognise our National Protestantism as a guarantee to us of our civil and religious liberty. Even our Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen are protected in their liberties by our Protestantism. It is in their interest as well as in that of others that our Protestant Constitution be maintained. Our laws, our State, our public life are based on the recognition of the Christian religion; but all this will have to be surrendered if absolute religious equality is to be our guiding principle. If, then, we are not prepared to dispense with an Established Church as connecting the State with Christianity, how does the case stand in Scotland? I put aside, for the moment, all arguments connected with the past—with the historic past — and ask attention to present circumstances alone. This Church has the largest membership of any in Scotland. It represents, both as to religious creed and as to Church government; the opinions of some 80 per cent. of the Scottish people; and it enjoys the acquiescence and goodwill, in its position as an Established Church, of the great body of the people. It is, therefore, not a Church to be disestablished and disendowed. We have arrived this year at the bi-centenary of what is known in Scottish Church history as the Revolution Settlement; surely the occasion is not to be celebrated by passing-such a Resolution as the one now before the House!

The lion-Gentleman who has just sat down has thought it worth while to refer to a declaration of mine which I will presently allude to. He has already referred to a declaration made, as he stated, by the electors of Mid Lothian showing the majority of constituents in that county, which he stated at 67 per cent., to be adverse to the disestablishment of the Scotch Church. If my memory serves me, that declaration did not embrace all the parishes of the county; but certain of those parishes were left out on principles which no doubt approved themselves to the promoters of the declaration. I will not enter upon a discussion of that declaration, because an attempt to appreciate it with exactitude might lead me into invidious remarks. What I say, in answer to my hon. Friend, is that I shall be most happy to answer the electors of Mid Lothian for my conduct in respect to that declaration, and for the vote I am about to give to-night; and not only so, but I shall be thankful to Her Majesty's Government, and to the hon. Member if he uses his influence with Her Majesty's Government in that direction, if they will give me that opportunity at the earliest possible moment. Then the hon. Gentleman will receive the fullest satisfaction, I have no doubt, at all events with regard to that portion of his speech. The speech of the hon. Member has suggested, to my mind, this question— Upon what ground of principle is the Established Church of Scotland defended? The whole of his speech has consisted of observations in detail, showing how respectable and creditable the Church of Scotland is, in the activity and devotion of its members, which no one will dispute, or showing that some particular piece of evidence alleged by the promoters of this Motion is of smaller value than they have esteemed it to be. In point of fact, the hon. Gentleman has not looked at the crop in the field, but at the gleanings he could pick up. Ho has endeavoured to construct a case out of almost infinitesimal particulars on which to justify the continuance of the national establishment. It was stated, I think well, by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire, that the burden of proof in a case of this kind rests with those who maintain the principle of establishment. ["Oh, oh."] Is it not so? ["No, no."] Is it not so? ["No."] Then it is contended that, when one religious body out of a number is invested with exclusive possession of national treasure for the purposes of religious worship, that one privileged religious body is under no obligation whatever to show reasons for the preference. That is the doctrine of those Gentlemen who cry "No." I am not saying whether they show reasons or not; but I am saying it is their duty to show reason. What are the reasons upon which the maintenance of a religious Establishment may be defended? I am not going to argue this question on abstract principles. Many Members of this House lay it down as a first principle of politics that in no case can the maintenance of a religious establishment be defended. I do not intend to argue the question upon that ground, and I leave that principle apart, without either affirming or denying it. I look at this case as a case to be decided upon its own merits with reference to the wants and the circumstances of Scotland. Now, Sir, I ask what are the grounds upon which the existence of a religious establishment can be pleaded? As far as I know they have always been these four—either that the religious establishment was performing some special religious work in the country—for instance, such as the care of the poor— which no other body could perform, or that it was testifying to the maintenance of certain truths and doctrines which no other religious body could so effectually maintain, or that it was the Church to which the decided majority of the people belonged, or, finally, that it was the Church to which either the decided majority of the people belonged, or, even without belonging to it, yet wished to maintain in the position of the National Church Establishment. Those are the arguments which have often been pleaded, and which possibly might prevail with a majority of this House for the maintenance of our interest in a religions establishment. But how can any of those four arguments be maintained in the case of the Church of Scotland? That is the question which I propose to try. It is idle to say that the Church of Scotland is doing good work. It is a body composed of men who, as far as the laity are concerned, may, I believe, bear a fair comparison with the members of other religious communions, and as far as their clergy are concerned, everybody acknowledges the merits of their devotion to their duties; hut those qualities the Church of Scotland shares with all the other religious bodies known to exist in Scotland, and consequently they are qualities which form no ground whatever for the preference of an exclusive position. As far as the poor are concerned, in my opinion it would be idle to contend that the Established Church of Scotland was concerned with the poor of that country in any sense except in that important sense in which every religious communion of the country is concerned with them by exercising a most beneficial influence, so that that ground for preference for the Established Church does not exist. Well, Sir, as regards the question of testimony to particular truths, which I refer to rather as what has been historically available in other times than as a topic which would very much avail at the present period. It was greatly urged in the case of the Church of Ireland that it was necessary to maintain it as a protest against the real or supposed influence or the possible influence of the Roman Catholic Church in that country. Now, Sir, is the Established Church of Scotland to be maintained upon the ground that it is the only and the e ential defender of the principles of the Presbyterian religion in Scotland? Why, Sir, it would be ludicrous to adopt such a plea in defence of the Established Church of Scotland. If there are in Scotland to be found those who in a peculiar and pre-eminent sense are the representatives of the Scottish Reformation and its principles, they are to be found, not in the Established Church of Scotland, but in the Free Church of Scotland and in the United Presbyterian body. These are the persons among whom the distinctive principles of the Scottish Reformation are maintained; and I was surprised when I heard the hon. Gentleman opposite quietly stating that the Church of Scotland was really in substantial correspondence with the Church of England as to the position it occupied in the religious world of that country. The hon. Member seems to blot out from his recollection everything that happened between the time of Mary, Queen of Scots, and the time of the Scottish Union. What were the relations between the Presbyterians of Scotland and the representatives of the English Church in Scotland during the reign of Charles II., at the period of the Revolution and at the period of the Union? Why, Sir, the history of this country — a highly honourable history in many respects of free and courageous assertion of conscientious convictions—utterly contradicts the statement of the hon. Gentleman, and testifies to the sharp antagonism which at that period prevailed between the representatives of the Church of England and the genuine and thoroughgoing Presbyterians of Scotland. I will not enter into the question whether in every case the existence of an Established Church is a grievance to those who do not belong to it; but I am inclined to think it is not altogether unreasonable if the members of the Free Church of Scotland and of the United Presbyterian body regard it as a grievance in Scotland; and on these two specific grounds. In the first place, it is they who went out into the desert, so to speak, relinquishing all the temporal advantages of Establishment, and undertaking all the responsibility at a moment's notice of provision for themselves, not because they differed from the historical basis of that Presbyterian Church, but because they were anxious to maintain it intact in its full force and integrity; and, secondly, because in 1874 a measure was passed in relation to Church patronage the whole effect of which could only be—and I am bound in honesty to say that in my belief the intention only was—to draw back piecemeal and man by man as far as possible from the Free Church and the United Presbyterian body—and from the Free Church particularly—those whom in 1843 they had compelled to undertake the responsibility of provision for themselves. According to modern principles, perhaps the fairest of these arguments to which I have referred for an Established Church is that it is the Church of the decided majority of the people of the country. But is the Presbyterian Church of Scotland the Church of the decided majority of the people?

Certainly.

Then you maintain that it is certainly the Church of the decided majority?

Yes.

I admire the boldness of that assertion. I hope the hon. Member will have an opportunity of producing his arguments and proofs; but what I have observed is this: that as we have heard of those who are more Royalist than the King and more Popish than the Pope, so here is a Gentleman, sitting on the benches of this House, who claims for the Established Church of Scotland, and who offers to prove a great deal more than the representatives of that Established Church claim for themselves.

The Presbyterian Church.

I beg your pardon, I said the Established Church. Surely no hon. Gentleman supposes I am saying the Presbyterian Church is not the Church of the majority. On the contrary, it has been urged that if you accede to the Motion of my hon. Friend you will lay the foundation for reuniting in one religious communion three-fourths of the people of Scotland. Then it is admitted that the Established Church of Scotland is in a minority. ["No."] If it is not admitted by hon. Gentlemen opposite it is admitted by the representatives of the Established Church, who have circulated among us for our information a statement which represents their case, as it was very natural they should represent it, in the most favourable form. What is that statement? It is a statement of the number of marriages according to the rites of the different religious communities in Scotland, and, according to that statement, the marriages performed according to the rites of the Established Church of Scotland are a trifle under 47 per cent. of the whole. I understand the hon. Gentleman to maintain that according to the laws of his arithmetic 47 per cent. is more than 53 per cent. Because, unless that is so, by the assertion of the champions of the Established Church it is the Church of the minority of the population. I am bound to say that, in my opinion, these statistics represent the case too favourably for the Established Church. If the same figures were taken for England I think you would find that between three-fourths and four-fifths of the population appeared by the marriage statistics to belong to the Established Church. Every one knows that marriage statistics represent on behalf of the Established Church more than is her due. It is admitted that the Established Church of Scotland is the Church of the minority. How is it with regard to the fourth of the grounds I have referred to—namely, that although it may not represent the religious convictions and associations of a majority of the population, yet it does represent the wish of a majority of the population that it should be maintained as the Established Church of the country? In my opinion, that is a question which we ought most carefully to examine and probe to the bottom. My noble Friend the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) was the leader of the Liberal party in 1877, when he used these words in this House, and was received with cheers when he used them:—

"All I can say is that whenever Scotch opinion, or even Scotch Liberal opinion, is fully formed on this subject I think I may venture to say on behalf of the Liberal Party as a whole, that they will be prepared to deal with the question."

After my noble Friend had made that declaration I took an early opportunity of expressing my full concurrence with him in the spirit of that declaration. In the spirit of that declaration I waited until the evidence in the case, according to the best of the powers I had of testing it, should come to be clear and conclusive. I think, Sir, we have now reached that point. I cannot doubt that the declarations of the people of Scotland on this question are sufficient to leave no doubt in the minds of Members of this House, if they believe in the Parliamentary representative system under which the country is governed. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down to refer to Petitions presented, and to pass by entirely the question what is the sense of the regularly chosen Representatives of the people of Scotland; but I contend that the greatest weight is due to the opinion of Scotland, Constitutionally expressed. It appears to me that whatever view Gentlemen may take of the movement, be it a great or a small one, that now exists in Scotland with the view of establishing what is termed Home Rule in that country, whatever may be the view each individual takes upon it, it ought not to bear upon, and hardly can have a bearing adverse to the Motion of my hon. Friend. If we are favourable to the establishment of Home Rule in Scotland we will vote for my hon. Friend, but if anyone be opposed to the establishment of Home Rule in Scotland, or if anyone desires to suspend his judgment, at any rate until he has full evidence, if he does not desire to stimulate unnaturally and fictitiously the progress of this Home Rule movement in Scotland, the wisest thing he can do is to give large scope and large weight and influence to the answer the Scotch people give in deciding Scotch questions. I am glad to see the Chief Secretary for Ireland in his place, because I wish to make an observation or two upon a speech he made upon this subject on a former occasion. He then brought forward and paraded before us what he thought would be a very effectual bugbear to deter us from the course we wished to pursue. He said—

"If you are prepared to urge that Scotch questions stall be decided according to Scotch opinion, you must be prepared to urge that English questions shall be decided according to English opinion. And if you act on that principle, where will you, the Liberal Party, be then? For since 1868, you have never had a Liberal majority in England."

Such is the statement of the right hon. Gentleman—a most imposing and terrifying statement, most effectual and admirable if it had had the slightest basis in fact. It is the practice of the right hon. Gentleman to assume to be true that which he wishes to be true, unless he happens to know it is false. This is entirely false. He paraded before us this most amazing proposition—that from 1868 onward there had been a majority of English Members opposed to the Liberal cause. How does that stand? It stands thus. Whenever we have had a Liberal majority in the aggregate, we have had a Liberal majority in England also. There have been five elections since that date. In three, there have been Liberal majorities; and in two, Tory majorities. In the Parliament of 1868 there was a Liberal majority, and there was a Liberal majority in England of 42 voices. In the Parliament of 1880 there was a Liberal majority, and there was a Liberal majority in England taken alone of 79 voices. In the Parliament of 1885 again, there was a Liberal majority, and there was a Liberal majority in England of 47 voices. Therefore, Sir, I may say two things. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman little knows the material of which the Liberal Party is made if he thinks that through fear of damage to their Party interests in England they are prepared to impose false principles on Scotland adverse to the fair consideration of their claims. This was an assertion which, if it had been a fact, would, no doubt, have been very telling, but it is pure fiction invented in the ingenious brain of the right hon Gentleman. Well, that was the case with regard to Liberal opinion in England. What is now the state and what has been the progress of recent opinion in Scotland? The hon. Member who has just sat down says that on account of two Divisions in this House I intend now to cease from the course of abstinence which I pursued in 1886 and 1888, and vote in favour of Disestablishment. It is quite true that I do so intend to vote, but it is not true that I look simply at the fact that there have been two Divisions in this House. Let me point out to the hon. Member that there is a great deal more in the circumstances before us than the mere occurrence of two Divisions. What were these two Divisions, and what are the other signs now before us as to the movement of opinion in Scotland? In the first place I will say it is quite true that, in 1885, a kind of truce was established, and it was understood in the Parliament of that year—so far, at least, as the Metropolis and the metropolitan county were concerned it was quite understood that the Returns that might be made were not to be taken, so far as some of us, at least, thought, as giving decisive indications in regard to the question of Disestablishment in Scotland. That truce was brought to an end, at least, in my judgment, and I believe in the judgment of many others, by the able action of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Inverness, who declined to recognise the status quo, and brought in a Bill regarded by us as of an aggressive character, thus entirely putting an end to any understanding of that kind. However that may be, with the Parliament of 1885 the whole matter passed away. Since then, it is true, we have had two Divisions, and are to have the third Division to-night. But have we nothing before us but the fact that there have been two Divisions? In the first place we have this—that in both those Divisions a majority of Scotch Members voted in favour of Disestablishment. How do the figures stand? They are capable of being presented shortly and simply. In the Division of 1886 the Scotch Members voting for Disestablishment wore 24, those voting against it 16, and 32 were absent. That is to say, that three to two of Scotch Members voted in favour of Disestablishment, and nearly one-half were absent from the Division. That is my case, because my point is this —not only that the opinion of the Constitutional Representatives of Scotland is in favour of Disestablishment, but that it is increasingly in favour of it; that there is a regular and steady movement in Scotland, the evidence of which cannot be mistaken, all tending in that direction. That was in 1886. What happened in 1888? There declared for Disestablishment in the Division of that year 40 Scotch Members, against it 20, and there were absent 12. Instead of there being three to two, the numbers voting in favour of Disestablishment were two to one, and instead af one-half, or nearly one-half, of the Scotch Members being absent, we had exactly only one-sixth of them absent. And then what was the case with the gross majority in this House, composed, I need not say, of English Members, voting down the sense impressed on behalf of Scotland, supported by Wales and by Ireland? The gross majority in 1886 was 112; in 1888 it sank to a majority of 52. Was there no other indication of opinion in Scotland at that time? We have seen that the Scottish majority increased, that the number of Scottish absentees diminished, and that the aggregate majority diminished. Are there no other indications? Yes, the current elections. The hon. Member says there were two elections in Scotland, and desires us from those two Divisions to understand what was the opinion of Scotland. Let him enlarge his vision. Instead of keeping in view the two elections which, as he truly says, have taken place in Scotland, let him take into view the 14 elections which, excluding one or two Ministerial re-elections, constitute, I believe, the whole of the Scottish elections since 1886. Out of these 14 elections, three persons have been returned to vote against Disestablishment and 11 to vote in favour of it, and not accidentally returned to vote in its favour, but when the question has been fully ventilated and discussed and brought in every possible and imaginable form before the Constituencies. I must own that it does appear to me that there is no doubt at all, either about the condition of opinion in Scotland, if we are to adopt the usual constitutional practice of ascertaining what that opinion is, or as to the direction in which that opinion is moving. I think it quite worth while to mention another indication which is to be drawn from the action of Her Majesty's Government themselves, or, at any rate, from the action of the body which the Government has appointed. It will be remembered that we made an endeavour last year to obtain in the Scotch Universities Bill a change in the law with respect to theological tests; that change in the law was refused by Her Majesty's Government, who, notwithstanding, so far recognised the circumstances of the time that they made an arrangement under which a Royal Commission was to be appointed for the consideration of the subject. That Royal Commission has sat, and I believe that it has taken the bulk of the evidence that it is to take. I believe I am not wrong in stating that in Scotland the confident anticipation prevails that the Commission will recommend the abolition or the essential alteration of the theological tests. I mention that, because I do not intend to quote prejudiced opinion on the subject. I only quote what I understand to be the general opinion in Scotland with respect to this question. I only mention that as another indication of the movement in Scotland and the state of Liberal conviction upon this subject. The hon. Gentleman says, "Oh, no, there ought to be a dissolution on the question. There ought to be a specific reference of this question, unmixed with other questions." Now, Sir, is that a rational statement? That is a demand for a dissolution of Parliament, and for an election at which the people are to consider nothing except the question of Establishment in Scotland; 40,000,000 of people inhabiting these islands are to elect a new Parliament and grant a new lease of power for seven years, in order to determine whether in a country in which the voluntary system is more perfectly organised than in any other country, except, perhaps, America, 18,000 people are or are not to continue to enjoy two or three hundred thousand a year! I do not think, when the hon. Gentleman sees his own proposal described in the light of fact, he can suppose it is to be entertained for a moment. We know perfectly well, Sir, what the opinion of the people in Scotland is; and if we believe in Parliamentary Government, if we believe in the representative system— and I do not think there can be any serious doubt as to the hon. Gentleman's belief in them—we must take, and can only take, the deliberate and repeated acts of the legitimately-chosen Representatives of the people as conclusively showing the conviction entertained by the people. I do not believe there ever was a country where the question of Disestablishment is so simple as in Scotland, or where it could be introduced so entirely without shock or serious trouble. The hon. Gentleman said it would be the greatest change since the Union. Now, Sir, I join issue with him on that point, and I claim his assent as a fair-minded man to this proposition—that it would not entail one-tenth of the violence of change that was entailed by the disruption of 1843; 700,000 people in the Church of Scotland, and the majority of ministers at that time, at once abandoned the advantages of Establishment, gave up their churches, gave up their schools, gave up their colleges and their manses that sheltered their wives and children, and walked out trusting in Providence to find a substitute for them where they could. What violence of change at all to be compared with that would take place in this instance? There may be differences of view as to the spirit in which changes of this kind should be carried into effect, and I have a very decided opinion that they ought to be carried into effect with a considerate and tender hand. I may refer here, I think, to the Disestablishment of the Irish Church. I do not refer to the Act of Disestablishment as it finally passed, because that Act contained concessions to the action of the House of Lords, which certainly upon their own merits I could not then pretend to justify; but I take the Act as it passed this House originally, and I say that that was an example of fair and considerate treatment; and I hope when the time comes, when in some other part of the United Kingdom the same principle may be applied, it may be applied in a similar temper and in a similar spirit. I think equity dictates that method of procedure, and I am quite sure that policy strongly and powerfully recommends it. It is easy to show in abstract argument that those enjoying an exceptional privilege do not derive from that enjoyment any claim for the future; but in this country we have acted in ecclesiastical matters and in all civil matters, in every detail of the Public Service, on the opposite principle, and the possessors of a privilege, when that privilege is recognised as unjust or impolitic, and when accordingly a legislative sentence has been pronounced upon it, have always been considerately and I generously treated. What is the case of the Church of Scotland? I believe there is no case so simple as the case of that Church. People talk of separating disestablishment and disendowment; but without disendowment, disestablishment would be an actual shadow. There is no secular power, there is nothing that can be grasped, belonging to the Church of Scotland except the advantages of stipend. I make no doubt that private endowment would be recognised. It would, perhaps, be a generous thing on the part of the Free Church and the United Presbyterians, if they consented to forego a share in the private endowments, given in great part by members of their own body before the Disruption. Although they might in argument make a very fair and legitimate claim to them. I nevertheless believe that the liberal and generous sentiments in favour of actual possession would remain. Then there is another question—the question of the manses and fabrics—and that question is the only one known to me with respect to which even the difficulty of a couple of hours' discussion would be entailed in order to determine what should be done. The House is aware that in Scotland the fee-simple of the manses and ecclesiastical fabrics does not lie with the corporation sole, the parish, or the cathedral. The heritors now possess them, but they can only use them for the purposes of the Church, and if you take them from the heritors it may fairly be said, I think, that the heritors would obtain an immediate and fortunate relief from the contingent demands which are made upon them from time to time for the enlargement of the parochial stipends. That would be a benefit to the heritors, and it might not be inequitable that they should be called upon to surrender their title to the manses and fabrics. If that were done, it might happen, I think, that the House would do in this case what was done in the case of Ireland, and award compensation for these ecclesiastical fabrics to the Church when disestablished, and with regard to the manses, at any rate, some fair and equitable provision should be adopted. There is no sign that a change of this kind would be attended with any difficulties. On the contrary, when it comes it will come through the recognition in this House of what is due to the claims of Scotland through the recognition of the principle laid down by my noble Friend near me, with regard to which I have no indication as to his intention to act upon it or to cast it behind him. On that subject I have no information, but the principle is a sound, just, and good principle, and I hold myself indebted to my noble Friend for having uttered it. J need only follow him on the path which he has opened for me, and, on the unquestionable evidence which has now been placed before us in the most Constitutional form, I shall be acting upon a moderate application of this principle both of good sense and of justice, to which we must look for the satisfaction and peace of the country and the permanence of its institutions.

It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of the stage which has now been reached in this question. The right hon. Gentleman has put an end to that long period of doubt and suspense during which it was thought possible to keep the peace between Radicals and good Churchmen. He has now put an end to that period of balanced ambiguity which was the state of the Liberal Party in the last 10 years. He has now taken a step which is irrevocable and irretrievable, and we shall hold him to it. This is no vague and rhetorical attachment to the principle of Disestablishment; he has shown that it is all cut and dried, and that we should be the most unreasonable people in the world if we thought that so plain-sailing a question required a dissolution. He said that those enormous masses of people had other things to deal with at an election than such easy operations as this. It is cut and dried, and he has told us that he has so far worked out the problem—worked it out in the dark— that it is a question which would take a couple of hours' discussion, and accordingly the people of Scotland have notice to-morrow morning that their affairs have been settled for them, and that this great question, which would require the most earnest consideration of the nation, is now merely to be put in train when that happy opportunity shall arise. The right hon. Gentleman has discussed the question of Scotch disestablishment for the first time for a great many years on its merits, and he proceeds to call upon the supporters of Scotch Establishment to show cause for the continuance of its existence. Why was not that method of argument adopted until to-night? He has put a number of questions as to whether the Scotch Establishment occupies a peculiar position as to the care of the poor, as to whether it bears testimony to particular truths, and as to whether it is the Church of the majority. All these are old-standing questions. They were present in the General Election in 1880, in which he took so large a part; they were again present in 1885, and not once was this aspect of the question mooted. But, further, the right hon. Gentleman has had occasions for telling the people of Scotland what his views were as to his duty and their duty on the subject. In 1885 he went down to Scotland, and with the greatest amplitude and exactness he defined his position, and I must recall his attention to what he said on that occasion in reference to the man date which the Parliament of 1885 was to receive on the subject. He says now that he founds upon the legitimate and responsible position of Parliament as constitutionally representing the people of this counntry on all subjects. But in 1885 he told the people of Scotland that they were safe in sending supporters of Disestablishment to Parliament, because Disestablishment was not to count in Parliament. In those days the "Liberal Churchmen took serious alarm, and so many opponents of the Church were being accepted as Liberal candidates that there was a serious revolt in the Church. The right hon. Gentleman went down to Edinburgh and announced that his errand was to procure union in the Liberal Party, and pro- ceeded to point out that there was no reason for the supporters of the Church to feel apprehension on account of the supporters of Disestablishment getting into Parliament, because it was part of the contract that that question would not come on in that Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman said that a Liberal Churchman need not feel that in voting for a Liberal candidate he was in any way voting for the Disestablishment of the Church; and accordingly the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for having taken away the authority of that Parliament upon this particular question, and he is responsible for having made it impossible to quote the opinion of that Parliament on the question of Scotch Disestablishment as showing the wish of the people. But this was no abstract thesis, because that speech of the 11th of November. 1885, is practically a manual of the ethics and rationale of Disestablishment. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to discuss the question of abstract Resolutions, and to discuss, if I may use the paradoxical expression, the concrete case of the present abstract Resolution. He said that in this Parliament, which was thus to be packed with persons who, being themselves Disestablishment Members, were at the same time to represent the Church, he must protest against the idea that he could support an abstract Resolution in a Parliament so constructed, and would repeat the words which he had applied on another occasion to this question of abstract Resolutions —

"Until I am prepared with a plan, and until I see public opinion reach such a point that I can make myself responsible for the plan proposed, and support that plan, I decline to raise false expectations by committing myself to an abstract Resolution."

[Cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite applaud that sentiment. Do they appreciate the point of it? The very reasons which show the importance and significance of supporting an abstract Resolution precluded the right hon. Gentleman and his friends from having anything to do with an abstract Resolution in that Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman says that the state of truce and suspense came to an end with the Parliament of 1885. That is a most astounding proposition. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that any of his candidates in the election of 1886 stood upon the question of Disestablishment? If so, let him name them. But he has not only said that the aspect of affairs was altered in the Parliament of 1886 from what it was in 1885. He has put his finger on an extraordinary reason. He says that when the hon. and learned Member for Inverness brought in a Bill dealing with the spiritual independence of the Established Church of Scotland, that terminated the truce and set free the forces of Disestablishment. The right hon. Gentleman has himself referred—and I make no apology for again referring to it—to the remarkable representation which came from the constituency ho honours by representing. The electors of Mid Lothian—I shall not cavil as to whether the percentage was 57 or 67—approached the right hon. Gentleman in 1885 and memorialised him against Disestablishment. He went down for election in 1886 by these men. Did he tell them that the Bill of the Member for Inverness had put an end to his obligation? Never was there a whisper in the County of Mid Lothian, or in any part of Scotland, of that most extravagant and too subtle theory. Why, if I am right, therefore, in saying that no change has taken place in 1886 in the relations of Parliamentary Representatives to their constituents, am I not right, again, in saying that this Parliament stands, in point of authority in respect to Scottish Disestablishment, precisely as its predecessor did? But I go a little further. As a matter of fact, I have defied any Gentleman to point out that he stood in 1886, as contra-distinguished from 1885, on the principle of Establishment.

I did, Sir.

Well, the exception, I almost think, in this case will prove the rule. But my challenge is this. Were the constituencies apprised that the great event brought about by the hon. and learned Member for Inverness had altered the relation of Members to their constituencies; and, if so, can any meeting or demonstration be pointed to where that was brought home to the intelligence of the country? There is another reason which I should like, although it may seems invidious, to press on the attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite. In 1886 I did not think it was likely that any fresh test or any fresh trial would be required of the faithfulness or credulity of the constituencies. I think in 1886 it was quite enough that they had their work cut out for them to conciliate opinion in Scotland without adding this further crux of insisting on Disestablishment. But I turn from the consideration of those facts to the position which the right hon. Gentleman has now taken up. He says that he proceeds upon the clear and unequivocal declaration of opinion by the Scottish people which he has now derived. My answer, so far as that goes on the two Divisions in this House, is contained in what I have said. Neither the Parliament of 1885, nor that of 1886, had any authority to pronounce upon that question. Nay, the right hon. Gentleman himself deprived them of that authority. But the right hon Gentleman says he does not go only on these two Divisions. Look at the other evidence. It is of the most microscopic character. He says the Parliamentary majority has increased. I will tell you why. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government and his Friends did not vote in 1886. Accordingly, the absentees of 1886, released in 1888, to a large extent account for the change. If we are going to examine all this so closely let mo point to a significant part of the increased majority. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire voted against Disestablishment in 1886, but for it in 1888. It was thought by the wicked and sceptical that the right hon. Gentleman was a sort of pilot balloon sent up to indicate or ascertain the current of opinion, and, perhaps, to come down and be credited with its direction. The right hon. Gentleman also says, as a reason for the change—"Look at your own proceedings about religious tests in the Act of last year." The hon. Member for the College Divi- sion of Glasgow must have heard that with a pang, because one of his complaints was that, by reason of the tests, adherents of the Church of Scotland enjoyed a monopoly, and now the right hon. Gentleman, who hears on good authority that they are to be done away with, says "Here is another reason for the change of my opinion." The right hon. Gentleman has made another statement which deserves the serious consideration of the people of Scotland. He has said that a dissolution is not required for the determination of questions of this kind. I would like to ask what is the reason for the passing of an abstract Resolution if there is not going to be action taken upon it. Is this question intended to have precedence of the Irish question? Are the people of Scotland who have pronounced in its favour to be deprived of its benefit until the Irish question is settled? If so, how long is that to take? Does he think he can do it without a dissolution, beyond the one to which ha is looking so anxiously? I protest against political methods which have entangled the people of Scotland into the election of men warranted not to touch this question of Disestablishment, and I protest against the opinion of Scotland being derived from men whose only right as Members is to express their own opinion on this question, and not the opinion of their constituents. Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has discussed this question on its merits. May I ask the House what impression the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman have made upon those who have considered this question time out of mind, and who want to know whether anything new has occurred to warrant this great proposed change in the State? Take any date you like. I will take that which the right hon. Gentleman has so often referred to, namely, the date of the Disruption in 1843. If ever the Church of Scotland was weakened to a point at which its continued existence as an Establishment might well be questioned, that was the time. But every decade has added to its strength and popularity. Reference has been made to the Highland counties, and figures, often before paraded, have once more done duty to show the small-ness of the congregations of the Establish ment in those districts. But in these counties there is no grievance, because the people are all in favour of the Establishment, and resist and resent proposals such as are being made to-night. Moreover, these counties do not represent the main current of life and energy in Scotland. In the places to which you would turn for the tests and signs of national preference —places such as Glasgow and the towns around it—you find the Established Church accommodating itself to the requirements of the people, enjoying their confidence, and obtaining their increased support. Let me raise another test. What is the attitude of the Established Church towards other Religious Bodies, and the attitude of the people generally towards the Church? The ministers of the Established Church are popular and leading men, well received by their coadjutors in the Dissenting Bodies, and it must be a keen nose for jealousy and ecclesiastical rivalry which would discover in Scotland anything like a standing grievance arising from the usefulness or influence of the ministers of the Established Church. These are all subjects upon which it would be easy to dilate. I do not think it necessary to do so, but I ask the House to consider one question which is of paramount importance. Hon. Gentlemen speak of money being confined to one denomination instead of being devoted to purposes of public utility. But what are the purposes of public utility which the people of Scotland would prefer to the present application of these funds? The Church never occupied a better position for defence than at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian is a profoundly experienced politician, and he, no doubt, knows what are the political interests and probable results of his present move, but if the Church of Scotland is to be made one of the objects of his threats like the educated class, or like those other enemies whom he has made for himself, then I think he will find a large and substantial decline from the sympathy and admiration which have hitherto been given to him. The people of Scotland have so high an opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that they think he may be safely trusted with a matter of Home Rule for Ireland, about which they know com- paratively little, but I do not believe that he will find in Scotland—and he has not found in his own constituency—people who are so credulous as to think that he knows more about the Church of Scotland than they do. That is one of the subjects upon which, as he has himself said, the people of Scotland have thought much and have their own strong opinions. He must take the consequence of the move which has been made to-night. So far as we are concerned, we shall welcome the opportunity of taking charge—now the sole charge—of the defence of the Church of Scotland. We shall be able to point out to the people of Scotland that if they choose to support the right hon. Gentleman and his candidates they are, with their eyes open, assisting in the destruction of their own Church. And the question which they will prefer, when it comes to that, is one that will be seen at the next election if the right hon. Gentleman will take great pains to employ as much of his eloquence and his energy in pressing that question upon the attention of the people of Scotland as he does the Irish question. As I have said, we will accept most cheerfully the defence of the Church of Scotland. We will do so not because it requires political or partisan support, but merely because in this instance we shall identify ourselves with one of the deepest and most permanent attachments of the Scottish people. For my own part, speaking not only to this House, but, as far as I can, to the people of Scotland, I denounce the manœuvre which we are witnessing as an attempt to destroy the Scottish Church behind the backs of the Scottish people.

I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate has in the least exaggerated what has taken place to-night. The gauntlet has been thrown down and it has been taken up, and the Lord Advocate will find at the next, General Election that when we come to fight this battle there will be no defection or division in the Liberal ranks. I will tell him what may explain the change in things which has occasioned him so much surprise. There has been a distinct advance in the position of the Liberal Party, because the Tory Party has made the question of the Establishment the stalking-horse on which to fight political battles. In Scotland the Tory Party and membership of the Established Church are by no means convertible terms. One of the most remarkable features in the history of the Scottish Church is that so many persons of the greatest social distinction have passed from the Church of their forefathers over to the alien creed of this country. In Scotland we know a good deal about each other. It is a small country, and we know that many of the most prominent defenders of the Established Church in the Conservative Party have nothing whatever to do with the Established Church. Rumour would even have it that in that ecclesiastical edifice of which the Lord Advocate to-night has proved himself so powerful a prop, even the right hon. Gentleman himself occupies the position of a buttress rather than of a pillar. The Lord Advocate laughs at the notion that the Bill of the hon. Member for Inverness has had anything to do with the change which has taken place in the action of Scotch Members on this question between 1885 and 1886. Well, I will give him an illustration with which I am most familiar. I will take the case of my own constituency—and I refer to it not because of anything striking or peculiar there, but because it illustrates the course I and the hon. Member for Lanarkshire found ourselves compelled to take in the election of 1886. In 1885 we of the Liberal Party were desirous to avoid raising this question, and to reserve our energies for other purposes. I, for one, stood as distinctly for Disestablishment as at the present time, but I was willing to accept the suggestion of the leader of my Party that the question should be put out of the range of practical politics for the time being. But I and other Members of the Party found that the Tory Party were pushing this question to the front. In Haddingtonshire there are 25 Established Church ministers. Of those I had the distinguished honour to receive the genuine opposition of 23 in 1885. In 1886 things had progressed. There were still 25 ministers of the Established Church there, but instead of having the determined opposition of 23 in this county, which embraces a large number of supporters of the Established Church, and is, or was, largely Liberal, I had the determined opposition of the whole 25. The constituency was still one in which there was a large Liberal majority. I found it was no use trying to keep this question out any longer. Therefore, I did what 20 others of my Colleagues did in Scotland, I declared that I would have no more parleyings about this question, and would stand as an out and out opponent to the principle of Establishment in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate asks what it was in the Parliament which was elected in 1885 and sat in 1886 which brought this question on. Does the right hon. Gentleman forget that in the debate during that Session, on the Motion of the hon. Member for the College Division, the action of the hon. Member for Inverness was alleged as a reason for raising the question? The change is due almost entirely to the exertions of the Tory Party, who have sought to make political capital out of a cause they have not really at heart. I do not desire to approach this question in any sense of hostility to the Church of Scotland. I come to debate it on general grounds. We sit in Parliament as politicians, and we are here to say whether or not, in the existing state of things in Scotland, there is a title to maintain the Established Church any longer. It is not enough to support the proposition with which the Lord Advocate has associated himself to-night, to show, as the hon. Members for the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen sought to show, that the Church of Scotland is in a prosperous and flourishing condition. It is not even enough to show that it has increased in its Membership and vitality, because it may well happen that there has been a change of mind amongst the people which makes an Establishment a thing which no longer requires to be maintained. There is a difference between different cases. There is no analogy between the circumstances of England and Scotland, because in Scotland the Established Church is after all but a sect; and the proposition which I maintain is, that there has been such an advance in the condition of affairs in Scotland, that there have been such changes in the circumstances of the country, that the Established Church is not only no longer needed there, but has become an anachronism. There are, at least, two other Religious Bodies in Scotland on the same level, socially, intellectually, and spiritually influential as the Church of Scotland—putting out of question the large and growing body of Episcopalians. There are the United Presbyterian and the Free Church denominations, which are in the same position as regards their ministers and members as the Established Church. No one knows Scotland better than the Lord Advocate, and I challenge him to rise and say whether there is a difference between the status of those who belong to the Established Church and those who belong to the other two Churches of Scotland? Take the case of Glasgow. There the wealthiest citizens are United Presbyterians. In Edinburgh a large proportion of influential citizens are members of the Free Church. Then as to intellectual status, the United Presbyterian and Free Churches occupy positions in no way different from that of the Establishment; and we cannot forgot that they have had their Chalmers, Cunninghames, Candlishs, and hosts of other great men. You can match every great name in the Establishment, with one as great from either of the other two bodies. Men go indifferently into either of the three Churches, and it has been so for years past. Then, as to the spiritual question, does anyone who knows the work that the United Presbyterian and Free Churches are doing maintain that it is less spiritual than that of the Establishment? There is, at least, as great earnestness in what are technically the Dissenting Bodies of Scotland as in the Established Church. We have been told we ought to lay great stress on the fact that numerically the strength of the Established Church is greater than that of the other bodies. Deducting the Highland population, and that very large and fluctuating body of persons who belong to the Established Church because it is more convenient to call themselves something than to call themselves nothing, there is no numerical majority of the Church of Scotland. I say that in the circumstances which exist in Scotland there is nothing to warrant the continuance of the present state of things. We are asked to take some plebiscite of the people of Scotland. I know nothing of plebiscites, and they are un-Constitutional. We have heard to-night from the lips of the leader of the Liberal Party what are the proper means to be pursued to ascertain the wishes of the people of Scotland. This question, we have been told, will be put in the fore front of the programme of the Liberal Party, and by that declaration we mean to stand or fall.

Perhaps, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) has referred to a declaration which I made on this subject, and given some prominence to it, I may be allowed to say a few words. I entirely concur with previous speakers that it is very difficult to overrate the importance of the declaration which has been made this evening. I look upon it as important from many points of view, and not, perhaps, as most important from the point of view of the future position of the Scotch Church. Although the question has entered to-night on a new phase, I think that, as far as the fortunes of the Scotch Church are concerned, it will be extremely probable that many years may elapse and many Parliaments may come and go before the Liberal Party, committed as it has been to-night by the majority of the Liberal Party to the principle of Disestablishment, will find their time sufficiently unoccupied to permit them to deal with the question. But although I do not, therefore, think it is a matter of very urgent and pressing importance as regards the future of the Scottish Church, it is, no doubt, a matter of much more urgent importance concerning the position of a considerable number of Scotch Members. And, although, no doubt, the Party managers of the majority of the Liberal Party have charitably supposed that this change of front will place the Liberal Unionist Party in a most embarrassing position, still, from information which has reached me, I do not think it is altogether impossible that even some Members belonging to the majority of the Liberal Party representing Scottish counties may find their own position somewhat more embarrassing. Therefore, it is not altogether exclusively from a Party point of view that I regret the new position which has been taken up in this matter by my right hon. Friend. During the short period when I had the honour of being the leader, or, at all events, the nominal leader, of the Liberal Party, although I gratefully acknowledge the kind and generous and abundant assistance which on many occasions I received from my right hon. friend, it cannot be any matter of surprise that occasionally upon some subjects I found him a somewhat unruly follower. On some questions of considerable importance, such as the question of Foreign Policy which arose at that time, we sometimes found some difficulty in reconciling our opinions, but upon this question of Disestablishment in Scotland up to the present moment I have found my right hon. Friend the most exemplary follower. The statement which I publicly made, now, I think, 12 years ago, and which has been repeated to-night with perfect accuracy by my right hon. Friend, has been found by the Liberal Party in Scotland to be a most convenient declaration. I must admit it was somewhat wanting in completeness, because when we professed, as we did honestly profess, that our sole desire was to be guided in this matter by the opinion of a majority of the Scottish people, we did not accurately define how the opinion of that majority was to be ascertained. I have always thought myself, and I think that up to a very recent time my right hon. Friend agreed with me, that if a large Scottish majority formed a very strong and decisive and resolute opinion upon this subject they would find in some manner or another the means of expressing that opinion, and of communicating it to a British Parliament. Those means have not been found, and if it is still a subject for discussion, a subject open to doubt or even to argument, whether the majority of the Scottish people are, or are not, in favour of the principle of disestablishment, I think, that fact in itself shows that up to the present time there is no strong opinion on the part of a large majority urgently demanding the Disestablishment of the Scottish Church. My right hon. Friend has told us to-night that he has found the answer to the question as to the opinion of the Scottish people in the votes given from time to time upon this Resolution by the Members for Scottish constituencies.

And otherwise.

Well, the main test has been the votes given on this Resolution. I admit that is one test, but it is not altogether a completely satisfactory test, and could not be under any circumstances. Above all, it could not be a satisfactory test unless the hon. Members who gave their votes were elected—I will not say exclusively, but to a very considerable extent —with a view to the consideration of this question. I do not say that it was necessary that the elections should have turned exclusively upon the question of the Disestablishment of the Church, but what I do say is that to render the test of any value whatever it is necessary that this question should have been distinctly and prominently placed before the constituencies when the hon. Members whose opinions are to influence the judgment of this House were elected. The right hon. Gentleman has done the very utmost that lay in his power to prevent this question from being placed in a definite manner before the people of Scotland, so as to render their votes at the last election a test with regard to it. Reference has been made to-night to the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman in the Mid Lothian campaign. I have referred to them myself to-day, and I find in them the most passionate appeals to the Liberal portion of the Scotch constituencies not to permit this question of Disestablishment to exercise any prominent influence on the decision which they were going to form but that Liberal candidates should be elected altogether irrespective of the opinions for or against Disestablishment. If that be the case, and if the advice of the right hon. Gentleman had any effect, as I suppose it had, on the election of 1885, can it be argued that the election of 1886 turned more than that of 1885 upon the subject which we are now discussing? We know that in 1886 there was one subject brought prominently before the constituencies of England, Scotland, and Ireland, to the exclusion of any other, and it is idle to suppose that the advice given to the electors by the right hon. Gentleman in 1885 was absolutely disregarded in 1886 in the face of the more pressing and important question that was placed before them. I do not find, therefore, in either of the elections, or in any of the votes that have been given in this House upon this question any satisfactory reason why we should suddenly abandon the position which I ventured to take up more than 10 years ago, when I was supported by my right hon. Friends near me, as, indeed, I was only five years ago. I do not pretend to have any strong opinion upon this question myself. I do not profess to have even a superficial acquaintance with the most elementary of the arguments which can be used upon the subject on its merits, because I have not given it any careful attention, but I am as ready now as I was 12 years ago to do the best I can to carry into effect the strong wishes, plainly expressed, of the majority of the Scotch people, whenever we can ascer- tain authoritatively what those wishes are. It has seemed to me, however, from the very slight attention that I have been able to give to the subject, that the difference between the various divisions of the Churches in Scotland are so comparatively slight, that the attachment felt to the Established Church of Scotland is so strong, and that the conscientious objections which are felt to endowment or to State connection are in comparison so weak, that it is a some what extraordinary thing that some method has not yet been discovered by which a re-construction and reform of the Scotch Established Church might be devised, which might bring together all the sections of the Scotch Religious Bodies without resorting to the extreme method of Disestablishment. Bearing in mind the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, which has been referred to to-night, with regard to abstract Resolutions, we are bound to assume that the right hon. Gentleman, before expressing the opinion which he has expressed to-night, has not only satisfied himself that the majority of the Scotch people are ardently in favour of Disestablishment, but has also satisfied himself as to the means by which that Disestablishment is to be carried out, and also that he has satisfied himself that no other method of reform and re-construction is possible short of the extreme method of Disestablishment. Well, Sir, my right hon. Friend has satisfied himself of all these things, but we do not know by what process he has arrived at his opinion; we do not know in detail what are the conclusions at which he has arrived. We have only been told tonight that the Disestablishment of the Scotch Church is a comparatively simple matter, and there is only one question that would give rise to any protracted consideration; but I venture to say that there are very few Members on this side of the House who have the slightest conception what would be the lines on which a measure of Disestablishment and Disendowment would be framed. Before we are asked to commit ourselves finally to a policy of Disestablishment and Disendowment I say it would be decent, at all events, that we should know upon what lines a measure is to be framed. Perhaps my right hon. Friend takes a somewhat less exalted view of the character of an abstract Resolution than he did a few years ago. Perhaps these abstract Resolutions, after all, are only a mode of arriving at that which we all want to know—namely, the opinion of the Scotch constituencies. They have been so used on the occasion of two previous Divisions. This Division will probably be another proof of the growing opinion of Scotland upon this subject. If that is the view we are to take of the votes given upon these abstract Resolutions, what is the position of my right hon. Friend in that case? These abstract Resolutions, we are told, are a means of arriving at the opinions of Scotch constituencies. What, I ask, is the opinion of Mid Lothian? The opinion of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian has been given to-night, not on account of any knowledge which he has of the opinions of the voters of Mid Lothian, but because, he has told us so himself tonight, a majority of Scotch Members for other constituencies have on previous occasions voted for this Resolution. It has been said to-night, and I have heard it previously, that a requisition was presented—[Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE: No, not a requisition"] —well, that a representation, signed by a considerable number—I have been told by a majority—of the constituents of my right hon. Friend, was presented to him begging him not to vote for the Resolution of the hon. Member for Glasgow. Has my right hon. Friend arrived at any opinion, formed any judgment—has he been able to form any judgment whether the opinion of his Mid Lothian constituents has changed on this subject? If the opinion of the Member for Mid Lothian carries no more authoritative representation of the views of his constituents than it has been shown to do, on what grounds are we to assume that the votes of other Scotch Members indicate the views of their constituents? I will only say that in the vote I shall give to-night, and which I believe some of my friends will give, we shall not be asserting that, in our opinion, the Scotch Church requires neither re-construction nor reform. Many of us believe that it does eminently require reform, and some of us believe that a re-construction of the Scotch Church, which should include other sections that are now outside its pale, is not beyond the limits of possibility. We shall certainly not be voting that an indefinite continuance of the present state of things is either requisite or desirable. We shall not be voting against a reform of the Scotch Establishment, and above all we shall not be asserting that it is necessary permanently to maintain the Scotch Establishment if it should be found that reform of that Establishment and re-construction of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland is an impossibility, and that no other solution will satisfy the settled desires and wants of the majority of the Scottish people.

(who was received with loud cries of "Order, order!"): I rise to say a few words on this question, which may be of no importance to hon. Members who sit below the Gangway [Cries of "Divide!"] When I rise to say a few words upon a question which is of supreme importance to the Scottish people I am met with the jeers of hon. Members. I mean, however, to protest, not merely against the decision that is to be arrived at, but also against the method in which the decision is being arrived at. At the last General Election in Scotland the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian declared over and over again that the question of Scottish Disestablishment was hardly ripe for Parliamentary discussion; but now he comes down to the House and supports the Resolution of my hon. Friend (Dr. Cameron). [Cries of "Divide!"] I am determined to have my say on this question. I am here as a Scottish Member entitled to take part in this Debate. I maintain that the manner in which the subject has been brought forward shows that no consideration has been paid to public opinion in Scotland. Hon. Members are invited to arrive at a momentous decision upon a matter which if taken in hand at all ought to be taken in hand by a responsible Minister, and to arrive at such a decision upon an Amendment to the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair. The question has not been discussed by anything like a proper number of Scottish Members; and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian says that the feeling of the Scottish people is in favour of Disestablishment, and when he founds that statement upon the fact that on one occasion in this House a Resolution in favour of Disestablishment was carried, I ask him to consider his own remarks in reference to the weight attaching to that very Resolution. In November, 1885, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Resolution then proposed, which was the same as that now brought forward by the hon. Member for the College Division, would not be accepted as conclusive with regard to the possible opinion of the people of Scotland on the question. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that a long series of such Resolutions would be necessary, and yet he now supports the proposal on Party grounds and without discussing its merits. Liberals in Scotland have in the past been decided on this question, and they will remain decided. Many people in Scotland who a few years ago were in favour of Disestablishment are now animated by a desire to re-construct and reform the Church for the benefit of the Scottish people.