On behalf of my hon. and learned Friend Mr. T. M. Healy (Longford, N.), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what has been done by the Congested Districts Board in any of the congested districts, and how often has it met since the passing of the Act; and if he can explain why, although the Act transferred from the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries and the Board of Works the money available for fishing loans under the Irish Reproductive Loan and the Sea Coast Fisheries Funds to the Congested Districts Board, the two former bodies are still administering these funds in the name of the Congested Districts Board?

Since the passing of the Act I am informed that the members of the Congested Districts Board have met on 45 occasions; nine times at Board meetings, and 36 times in committee meetings. Several schemes for the development of sea fisheries, and the improvement in the breed of horses, live stock, and poultry, involving an expenditure of about £8,400, have been approved, and are being carried out. The Board are also engaged in making local inquiries respecting the condition of the congested districts. The arrangements whereby the Irish Reproductive Loan and Sea Coast Fishery Funds have continued to be administered by the Inspectors of Fisheries and the Board of Works, on behalf of the Congested Districts Board, is merely a temporary one, pending the necessary legal arrangements connected with the transfer, which are now almost concluded.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, is it necessary that the Board should sit in private? There is great public interest taken in its proceedings; could not representatives of the Press be admitted, or, failing that, could a summary of the proceedings at each meeting be supplied to the Press?

I should not like to answer that question without consideration. I think it will be obvious that if a decision is come to by the Board, or by a committee, to take certain action which may involve certain expenditure, it is not desirable to make that known until it is actually carried out. But I do not think there would be any objection to a communication being made by the secretary, possibly conveying information for publication, but I will mention the question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say for what districts have the sums sanctioned been appropriated?

I have no details; but, of course, as the hon. Member is aware, the Board is divided into committees for dealing with certain proposals, and, of course, these proposals may apply to the whole of the districts.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the attention of the Irish Government has been called to reports which appeared in public newspapers describing an alleged attempt to wreck a train by which the hon. Member for South Tyrone was travelling from Fintona to Omagh on the 27th inst; whether he is aware that the matter has since been investigated before a Petty Sessions Court, and information against the person accused (a child of eight years) refused by the Magistrates; and if the Sessional Crown Solicitor who appeared for the Railway Company is correctly reported as having said—

"That the Railway Company had investigated the matter very carefully, and had come to the conclusion the offence was not the result of a deliberate act, and that they were now fully satisfied that the first report was an erroneous one"?

I understand the facts appear to be substantially as stated in the question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the passages in the Report of the Royal Commission on Irish Public Works (1887) as to the necessity for a railway connecting Castlecomer and the Kilkenny coal-fields generally with the surrounding railways, and the public advantages likely to result from such a line; whether he is aware that the output of those coal-fields, though capable of indefinite expansion, is now limited to the production of purely local supplies, owing to the want of facilities for carriage; and whether, in view of the fact that the Board of Inland Navigation in the year 1801 offered to grant a sum of £40,000, out of moneys voted for the purpose by the Irish Parliament, to construct a canal intended to develop these coal-fields, the Government will now grant a similar sum to induce the Great Southern and Western Railway to construct and work such a line of railway as that suggested?

Yes; I have seen the passage in the Report referred to. I have no specific information on the subject-matter of the second paragraph of the question. With regard to the subject generally, I may say that seven years ago a scheme was proposed for a railway to connect Castlecomer with the Kilkenny coal-fields under the Tramways Act of 1883. This came before the Committee of the Privy Council; and it was decided that the evidence did not warrant a recommendation of the scheme, inasmuch as, though it might be useful to the collieries, it was really a matter for private enterprise, and its general importance was not such as to warrant the taxing of a whole barony, no money being available from Imperial sources for such a purpose.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he could state why Battery Sergeant Major Webster, discharged on the 24th April, 1883, has only received a pension of 1s. 5½d. instead of 2s. 1½d.; and was he not entitled to a pension calculated as follows: seven years' continuous service as sergeant, Class III., 1s. 9d.; promotion after 21 years, 3d.; four years over-time, 4d.; less five years' service under age, 2½d., giving a total of 2s. 1½d.?

Battery Sergeant Major Webster was not entitled to the rates of pension as stated in the question. He received all that could be awarded to him under the Warrant in force at the time he was pensioned; but there are peculiarities in his case, and I am prepared to give it further consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what number of applications have been made for special pensions to aged and distressed soldiers who served in the Crimean and Indian Mutiny Campaigns, what number of these special pensions have been granted, and what will be their aggregate annual amount; whether the conditions laid down by the Chelsea Hospital are found to exclude many urgent and deserving cases; and whether it is intended to relax them in any way?

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the fairness of granting pensions, irrespective of length of service, to men who have served in the Crimea and elsewhere, and who have become permanently disabled in and by their service?

It is not for me alone to consider that, but I shall be very glad to give it consideration, in connection with other matters.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say when he will make a definite statement on this subject?

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when he proposes to prescribe regulations for the issue of county stock, in accordance with Section 70 of "The Local Government Act, 1888," and also to prescribe the form of accounts of the receipts and expenditure of County Councils, as provided for in section 71 of the same Act?

Regulations as regards the issue of county stock in accordance with Section 70 of the Local Government Act, 1888, were issued in July 1891, and were confirmed by an Order in Council in September last. The Local Government Board have not yet prescribed forms of accounts for the receipt and expenditure of County Councils. At the time when the County Councils were constituted it was found that there was great diversity of practice as to the mode of keeping the accounts, but some greater approach to uniformity has been obtained through the suggestions of the District Auditors when engaged on their audits. As yet, however, the Board think that it is desirable that further experience should be obtained before prescribing one form of account for all the counties.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether Mr. Timothy Smith is the postmaster at Harlesden, in Middlesex; and, if not, upon what day he resigned his post; who is now the postmaster at Harlesden, and upon what day the appointment was made; whether he is aware that Mr. Smith still lives at the Harlesden post office, and is now a candidate for the Middlesex County Council, and that a large number of bills are pasted on the windows of the post office, which is Mr. Smith's property, calling upon the electors to "Vote for Timothy Smith," and generally in support of his candidature; and whether this is an infringement of the Regulations of the Post Office; and, if so, what. course will be taken?

The office at Harlesden is what is called a Receiving House or Sub-Post Office, kept by a tradesman under regulations. Mr. Smith resigned his appointment on the 3rd instant, with a view to becoming a candidate for the County Council; and his wife being recommended was appointed on the 12th and installed on the 22nd. There is no Post Office rule against a husband residing with his wife, although she is a sub-postmistress; but the exhibition of election bills in the post office window was contrary to regulation, and has now been discontinued.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to make further inquiry; because, as I am credibly informed, the resignation of the postmaster was a mere colourable device to avoid disqualification as a candidate for the County Council, and the late postmaster does practically discharge the duties of the office in his wife's name?

I am not prepared to make inquiry into the truth of a general allegation, but I will inquire into any specific allegation the hon. Member desires inquiry made into. As I have said, there is no impropriety in a man resigning the appointment in favour of his wife, and there are many precedents for the course followed in this case.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty how many of the Queen's ships, of all classes, stationed at Naval stations on the South and West Coasts of Ireland, have been refitted, overhauled, or repaired during the past five years; what was the nature of such overhauling or repairs; where were these repairs effected; and what was the cost, in each case, of such works?

Fourteen of Her Majesty's ships, including coastguard cruisers, have been stationed off the South and West Coasts of Ireland at various times during the period in question, on all of which, with two exceptions, certain expenditure has been incurred for repairs, &c. In nearly every case the amount so expended has been comparatively small, the exception being in the case of the Shannon. The details are somewhat minute, and it is hardly possible to compress them within the limits of a Parliamentary answer, but if the hon. Gentleman desires the full information, I will give him the whole Return; the names of the ships, the nature of the repairs, and where these were done. The Return is as follows:—Revenge, £271, and Triumph, £617, Queenstown and Passage Docks Company, Haulbowline, and Devonport; Shannon, £10,580, Devonport and Portsmouth; Banterer, £1,473, Devonport, Sheerness, Haulbowline, and Queenstown and Passage Docks Company; Britomart, £648; Orwell, £190, and Argus, £2,358, Devonport, Haulbowline, and Queenstown and Passage Docks Company; Shamrock, £30, Queenstown and Passage Docks Company and Haulbowline; Gipsy, £9, Haulbowline; Victoria, £874, Devonport, Plymouth, and Dartmouth; Stag, £922, Londonderry, Devonport, Sheerness, Haulbowline, and Queenstown and Passage Docks Company; and Fly, £453, Devonport.

But were any of the repairs carried out at Haulbowline?

Well, I think the hon. Member had better wait until he can see the Return. Some of the repairs were done at Haulbowline.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether an order for 30,000 Martini-Henry carbines has been given to the Henry Barrel Company; and whether the cost will be more than the cost of the last order executed at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield?

An order for Martini-Henry carbines, required by the Government of India, has been given to the Henry Barrel Company, at a price above the cost of those last produced at the Small Arms Factory. Apart from some mechanical difficulties in executing the order at Enfield, consequent on alterations in the machinery for the purposes of the Lee-Metford rifle, this course has been taken in fulfilment of my pledge that a fair share of production shall be given to the private trade of the country.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state the difference in cost as between the Small Arms Factory and the Company?

My recollection is that the difference was as between 42s. and 60s.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will in the present Session give such early notice for striking the Committee on Financial Relations (England, Scotland, and Ireland), as will obviate its falling through in consequence of blocking Notices, as happened in the two last Sessions of Parliament?

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends this Session to ask the House to re-appoint the Select Committee on the Financial Relations between England, Scotland, and Ireland, which met towards the close of the Session before last?

I am in communication with my right hon. Friend the Member for the St. Augustine's Division (Mr. Akers Douglas) with regard to this Committee, and I trust he will soon be able to put down a notice for the appointment of the Committee.

Will the opportunity be given to discuss the question raised by Welsh Members and others?

I must consult my right hon. Friend the First Lord; but I do hope that we shall be able to come to such an arrangement that hon. Members will abstain from blocking the Motion for the appointment of the Committee.

Has the right hon. Gentleman made up his mind not to put the notice on the Paper to be taken at such a time when it could not be blocked?

No; I have not made up my mind upon that, but I will confer with my right hon. Friend as to whether the Government have any time for the purpose when a blocking notice would have no effect.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what was the nature of the answer returned by His Excellency to the memorial signed by over 100 ratepayers asking for the removal of the police protection hut at Glashkinleen. Newmarket, County Cork, which was presented to him some months ago; and whether, in view of the facts referred to by the memorialists, namely, the peaceful state of the locality, and the heavy cost of the extra police upon the ratepayers (amounting to 3s. in the £1 upon the valuation), he will advise the removal of the police hut? Mr. FLYNN had notice also of the following questions: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cost to the ratepayers of the district of the police stationed in the protection hut at Glashkinleen, Newmarket, County Cork; how many police are there stationed, and what is the nature of their duties; and on what parish or districts does the burden of this extra police tax fall? To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a man named Cornelius Murphy, of Glashkinleen, Newmarket, County Cork, who is still under police protection, has been frequently charged with firing off his revolver on the public road, and on some occasions at unoffending parties; what action has been taken by the police authorities in regard to him; and whether police protection will be continued to him?

I will answer the three questions of the hon. Member together. The reply sent to the memorialists was to the effect that the police were required for the protection of a man named Murphy, and since then the constabulary report that continued police protection is necessary for the preservation of the peace of the district. The extra cost to the ratepayers is 1s. 11d.—not 3s.—in the £1, and the amount is £137 annually. The police, five in all, are employed in the special protection and in general police work, including patrol duty. Murphy appears to have been charged on three occasions with firing revolver shots in the public road, but the Magistrates had no conclusive evidence that he fired at any person. My reply to the last paragraph in the last question is in the affirmative.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the vicinity of the hut, or in the near neighbourhood, there are three police barracks; and is he aware that this man, who claims and receives police protection at this enormous cost to the ratepayers, has been convicted of firing off a revolver in the public road, and his revolver has been taken from him; and will police protection still be afforded to him?

Yes, Sir. I have given an answer to the question.

I will call attention to this matter in Committee of Supply.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the Commissioners of National Education, Ireland, whether the revision of the pension scheme (for teachers) has been made in the past every five years?

The Act establishing the National School Teachers' (Ireland) Pension Fund came into operation on 1st January, 1880. The first valuation was concluded in the middle of the year 1885, the revised rules resulting therefrom coming into operation from 1st January, 1886. The second valuation was made in 1891, and the results are now under the consideration of the Treasury.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that children intending to compete in the intermediate examinations in Ireland are required to produce certificates of birth, and are obliged to pay 3s. 7d. each for such certificates to the Registrar; and whether, in view of the fact that many of the pupils belong to the poorer classes, the Government will undertake to reduce the sum so charged to a nominal amount, say 6d., as is done under the English Elementary Education Act?

I have received a Report from the Assistant Commissioners for Intermediate Education, to the effect that the charge for certificates is not regulated by the Board. The charge does appear to me to be rather a high one, and I will make further inquiries on the subject.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what form the Government propose to ask the House for a Vote for colonisation purposes, whether in the Scotch Estimates or by a Supplementary Vote, or otherwise; whether this will be done at an early date, and whether any decision has been arrived at by the Government or by the Colonisation Board as to what particular locality in the Colonial Empire it is proposed to colonise with the funds referred to; and whether the Government have taken any steps since the month of July last, or propose shortly to take any steps, to faciliate or hasten an agreement with the Government of British Columbia as to colonisation of Crofter families or others in that Colony, in accordance with the recommendations of the Colonisation Committee of last Session, or otherwise?

An application from the Scotch Office for the insertion in the Estimates of a sum of £7,500 for colonisation purposes was received after the Civil Service Estimates were practically closed. It was therefore impossible to include this sum in the Estimates, but when the Scotch Estimates are reached, a Supplementary Estimate for this amount will be presented at the same time. It is proposed with these funds to take steps for the emigration of Scotch Crofter families to Canada. With regard to the last part of the hon. Member's question, we made what I consider to be an extremely liberal offer to the Government of British Columbia, and are now awaiting their answer. I should be very sorry to take any steps which would imply that we are anxious to press colonists upon a country which is not cordially ready to receive them, and I therefore consider that the next step should be taken by the British Columbian Government.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in the case of certain public commercial companies in London the Inland Revenue Commissioners have assessed as under Schedule D, and have sought to charge Income Tax on the following items of expenditure incurred in the course of the business of the companies referred to, viz.: debenture stamps, telegrams, bank charges, travelling expenses, debenture commissions, advertising, printing, and stationery; whether he will explain on what principle all or any of such items come under Schedule D as liable for Income Tax; and in the event of his not being aware that such assessments for Income Tax as above described have been made, whether he will cause full inquiry into the subject to be made?

The hon. Member made a very usual mistake in thinking that the Inland Revenue Commissioners are the assessing authorities in the cases to which he refers. The assessments are made by the Commissioners of Income Tax for the City of London, who are an independent body, and not under the control of the Government. With regard to the substance of his question, I have to point out that it is incorrect to say that Income Tax is charged upon certain items of expenditure. Income Tax under Schedule D is, of course, charged upon profits, and the question which has arisen is whether certain items of expenditure may or may not be deducted from the annual gross profits for the purpose of ascertaining the profits upon which the assessment is made. The items of expenditure mentioned in the question were connected with the issue of debentures, and the Commissioners held that they were of the nature of capital expenditure, and therefore not properly to be deducted from the annual profits. After the assessment had been made in the usual way, an appeal against it was heard by the City Commissioners of Income Tax, sitting judicially. It was open to a company dissenting from their decision to have a case stated, at a very trifling cost, for the decision of the High Court of Justice, and I understand that in some cases this step has been taken. The point is one for judicial decision, and not for administrative action.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a number of girls are employed in the waste paper department of the Stationery Office under unhealthy conditions and at low wages; and whether he is prepared to take steps to secure the amendment of the conditions of employment of the girls concerned?

Yes; and I have visited the factory in company with Mr. Pigott, the Controller of the Stationery Office. The statements referred to seemed to me highly coloured, and the building and conditions of employment much better than represented. With reference to the statement that there was a violation of the Factory Act, I found that the Controller had already sent for an Inspector from the Home Office, whose Report, however, I have not yet received. But I understand the factory has been regularly inspected by the Factory Inspector of the district, and that all suggestions made by him from time to time have been at once carried out. The Controller will obtain a Report from experts as to the possibility of removing the dust by fans or otherwise; the question of revising the wages will be considered; and steps will be taken to improve, as far as practicable, the conditions of the employment.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say the question of wages will be re-considered?

Yes; it will be considered at once.

Yes; I received a letter from the Mayor of Eastbourne on 14th July, in which he stated that, owing to the action of the Salvation Army, the claims on the police force were becoming very heavy; that they were unfairly deprived of their Sunday rest, and that parts of the borough had to be left with inadequate police protection, and in which he inquired whether the Watch Committee would be justified in limiting the police protection in the parts of the town frequented by the Salvation Army to the usual protection afforded on ordinary occasions, notice of this being given to the Salvation Army. In answer to this letter, the Mayor was informed that the responsibility for maintaining the peace in Eastbourne rested with him, the Watch Committee, and the Magistrates, and that the Secretary of State could not sanction or recommend any measures which might have the effect of allowing disturbances to take place unchecked. I do not think any public purpose will be served by laying this correspondence on the Table, but I shall be happy to furnish the hon. Member with copies of these letters if he desire it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the borough of Eastbourne the practice of boycotting all those persons who are known to be in sympathy with the Salvation Army is in full swing; and, under these circumstances, will the Government consider whether it is desirable to apply to that borough certain provisions of the Irish Coercion Act?

No case of boycotting has been reported to me.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is intended to refer the Railway Rates Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, introduced into Parliament on the 10th instant, to a similar Committee to that to which similar Bills were referred last Session; and whether, considering that some of the Bills cannot yet be procured by the public, and the difficulty which may be experienced by traders and agriculturists in complying with the ordinary rule requiring Petitions against Bills of this kind to be deposited within seven days after the Examiner's notice has been given, a relaxation of this rule will be conceded similar to that adopted in respect of the Bills of last Session, allowing all persons to be heard whose Petitions are deposited before the sitting of the Committee to which the Bills may be referred?

Yes, Sir; I intend, in respect of such of the Railway Rates Provisional Orders Confirmation Bills as may be opposed, to ask the House to follow the precedent of last year. As all the Bills are now in the hands of Members, I trust that, should the necessary resolutions be carried, the Committee may meet at an early date.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office has made any attempt to obtain a remission of a sentence of imprisonment and fine passed by the Police Court of St. Etienne, on 26th December last, upon an English subject named Bedwell, as accessory to an offence against the French law of espionage, alleged to have been com- mitted by an English subject named Cooper; and whether the British Ambassador in Paris has instructions to render any assistance to British subjects arrested under the French law of espionage, or to make representations to the French authorities upon their behalf?

Unofficial representations have been made to the French Government with a view to the mitigation of the sentence passed on Bedwell. Her Majesty's Ambassador is always ready to assist British subjects, but it is impossible for him to interfere with the ordinary course of justice in France.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works why the proposed buildings at the Admiralty have not yet been commenced?

The foundations of the new Admiralty buildings were completed last spring. The invitations for tenders for the superstructure were considerably delayed owing to the strike which prevailed in the Metropolis from May until November last. During this strike it would have been most unwise for the Government to have invited tenders, as contractors would have been compelled to send in high estimates in order to provide against possible loss arising from the uncertain issue of the strike. On its termination, advertisements for tenders for the first block were published immediately, all necessary preparations having long before been made. As a result, a contract with Messrs. Shillitoe and Sons was agreed to; and after an interval, no longer than was absolutely needed for the adjustment of the details of the contract, orders to commence work were given—that was a week ago—and operations are now in progress.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether an arrangement has been come to be- tween the Admiralty and the War Office, under which the latter is to take over the responsibility for the coast defence of this country; and, if so, is it proposed to employ the officers and men of the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers, in the event of them transferring their services to the War Office, in manning gunboats, torpedo, and patrol boats for the defence of the ports and the mine fields connected with them; and, if not, whether he would state how it is proposed to employ the force in the event of its agreeing to the transfer?

No such arrangement has been made, as the War Office has always been responsible for coast defence. The employment of the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers, or of some of them, is still under consideration; but I have indicated to them that congenial employment might be found for them in the corps of Submarine Mining Engineers at certain ports.

As to the question of responsibility, the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain that in framing the question my only desire was that the men should know what sort of employment it was proposed they should be engaged in.

Quite so. That has been clearly indicated to them.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can explain why the Factory and Worshops Act is not administered in the Isle of Man, where large numbers of women and young persons are employed; and if there is any distinction drawn between the Coal Mines and Metalliferous Mines Acts and the Factory and Workshops Act in respect to their application to the Isle of Man; and, if so, why?

Parliament has not thought fit to make the Factory and Workshops Act, 1878 and 1891, applicable to the Isle of Man. The Metalliferous Mines Act, 1872, does by express reference extend to the Isle of Man; the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, does not—for this reason, possibly, that there is no coal in the district.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he can say on what date the Land Judges received the application of Captain O'Conor, of the Palace Elphin, to be appointed to the Receivership under the Land Judges; what was the date of the appointment and that of the withdrawal, if any; and what might be the net annual value of the appointment?

I have already stated, the gentleman mentioned in the question did not receive any appointment. He was placed on a list as being eligible for appointment, which is quite a different matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when the Report of Lord Wantage's Committee on Recruiting will be laid upon the Table of the House; and when he will be able to inform the House whether he can lay the whole of the evidence also upon the Table?

I have already presented this Report, and it will be circulated on Thursday, but I hope a few advance copies will be in the House to-morrow morning. I saw there was an absurd suggestion in a morning paper yesterday that I wanted to keep back this Report. I have not kept it back a single day, and the delay was caused by the calculation, for the purpose of one of the dissenting members of the Committee, of the cost of their recommendation. I have not yet received the evidence; but when I do, I shall decide about presenting it, and in all probability I shall do so at once.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state how many of the ten gentlemen who may act as members of the Congested Districts Board, recently set up in Ireland, are Protestants, and how many are Catholics; is the secretary of the Board a Protestant or a Catholic; and will he explain on what principle Catholics have been denied a larger representation on this Board, seeing that they have constantly complained of not being sufficiently represented on Boards nominated by Government?

Before the Chief Secretary answers that question, I wish him to say whether it is a fact that all the members of the Congested Districts Board are Unionists, and that the holding of Nationalist opinions is a disqualification?

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will discourage as much as possible the attempt of hon. Members opposite to raise questions calculated to create religious animosity in Ireland?

This question only appeared on the Paper this morning, and, therefore, my only means of communication were by telegraph. The answer I have got is that there is no official record of the religious persuasion of the members of the Board.

I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman as an English gentleman, is he aware of the religion of of those gentlemen? Does he know, of his own knowledge, that there are eight Protestants and only two Catholics on this Board?

I think the hon. Gentleman will see that it is quite impossible for me to have any definite knowledge on the subject.

I will repeat the question to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that there were, on March 31st, 1886, 3,573 Europeans, including Eurasians, and only 492 Indians, drawing Rs5,000 and upwards in the Covenanted and Uncovenanted Civil Services of India; and if he can state why Europeans, including Eurasians, are in the proportion of seven to one to Indians in those Services?

Yes, Sir. The figures are those which I gave the House on Friday at the hon. Member's request. The proportion of Eurasians and Europeans to Natives of India in the Covenanted and Uncovenanted Services, taken as a whole, is not seven to one. The reason why the majority of the higher appointments in those Services is held by Europeans is explained in the Report of the Public Service Commission.

Is not the proportion in the two Services as eleven Europeans to one Indian? Is that true or false?

I think I cannot do better than to commend to the hon. Member a more careful study of the Report than he appears yet to have bestowed upon it.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether this practice of excluding Natives from the government of their own country was not denounced by Lord Lytton when he said that we had cheated the Natives?

May I ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if, having regard to his intention of raising the Mayoralty of Belfast to that of a Lord Mayoralty, he will, in appreciation of concurrent rights of other Irish Municipalities, restore to the Mayors of Limerick, Cork, and Waterford the privilege of which they have been lately deprived, of being nominated Commissioners for holding the Assizes in Ireland?

In reply to a question put by the Member for Waterford in 1888, it was stated that the custom of nominating Mayors as Commissioners for holding the Assizes in Ireland had long since become practically useless, and had been accordingly abandoned. I am not aware of any reason for restoring the privilege of the Mayors referred to.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the Government propose to introduce a measure to amend the Irish Drainage Acts this Session; and whether, if not, they intend to assent to the Bill of last year when re-introduced?

Yes, Sir; such a measure is in course of preparation, and I hope I shall be able very shortly to introduce it.

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether salaried Clerks of Petty Sessional Divisions, in receipt of salaries from the County Council, are eligible as candidates for the County Council of the county in which their Petty Sessional Division is situate?

The question involves legal consideration of some difficulty; but, on the whole, I am of opinion that salaried Clerks of Petty Sessional Divisions are eligible as candidates for the County Councils.

Is the hon and learned Gentleman aware that, under the Municipal Corporations Act, Chap. 50, Section 12, Sub-section 3 any person is disqualified if he is directly or indirectly interested in any contract that may be made on behalf of the Council?

I am perfectly aware of the provisions of that Statute, and therefore I expressed the opinion that there were legal difficulties involved in the case. I have given the hon. Member as much information as I can.

I beg to move for a Return showing, as regards each Poor Law Union in Ireland, the number of persons of each sex of 65 years of age and upwards, and the number under 65 years of age who have attained the age of 16 years of age, and the number of children under 16 years of age, in receipt from Boards of Guardians of indoor relief or outdoor relief respectively, during the twelve months ended at Lady Day, 1892.

Since the hon. Member was informed that there was no objection to the granting of this Return as an unopposed Return, I have learned that a somewhat similar Return, though worded rather differently, is being prepared by the Local. Government Board for England, giving the same information; and I beg to suggest to the hon. Member that he should postpone his Motion for a day or two, so that we may have two Returns framed on uniform lines for England and Ireland. The result will be more satisfactory.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what will be the business to be fixed for Thursday?

Well, Sir, I had hoped, as the House knows, that we might have succeeded in introducing the three Bills which stood on the Paper yesterday; but we have not succeeded in getting the First Reading for more than one of them. I propose, therefore, to put the other two Bills down for Thursday. The first Order of the Day will be the Bill which stands in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, who will introduce a Bill for the distribution of the Scotch Equivalent Grant. The second Order of the Day will be the introduction of the Bill for dealing with Private Bill Procedure; and the third Order of the Day will enable us to complete the unfinished discussion upon the Bill brought forward yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on Irish Education.

Will the Supplementary Estimates or the Indian Councils Bill be taken on Monday?

The Supplementary Estimates will be put down for Thursday, after the Bills to which I have alluded, and if they are not reached they will be taken on Monday.

With reference to the Supplementary Estimates, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman as to a sum of £30,000 for relief operations in Ireland last year, whether any information will be laid before the House as to those operations, before we are called upon to vote the money?

Yes; I will take care that full statistics of those relief operations, bringing the account down to the time of their completion, shall be in the hands of hon. Members before they are asked to discuss the Vote.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Indian Councils Bill is definitely fixed for Monday?

No, Sir; I think that, under present circumstances, probably we cannot take the Supplementary Estimates on Friday, and shall probably take them on Monday.

I beg, Sir, to give notice that on Friday next I will move—(Cries of "Call him, call him.")

The Question is, That Mr. Edward Samuel Wesley De Cobain do attend this House in his place upon Tuesday, 23rd February. As many as are of that opinion say "Aye," the contrary "No." The "Ayes" have it.

I beg to give notice that on Thursday next I shall move that Mr. Edward Samuel Wesley De Cobain having failed to obey the Order of the House—(Cries of "Perhaps he is here").

Mr. Speaker. I rise to a point of order. I beg to say we have no evidence before us that Mr. Edward Samuel Wesley De Cobain has failed to obey the Order of the House.

Hon. Gentlemen must be aware that if Mr. De Cobain had been here he would have been in his place, having been ordered to be in attendance this day; but I will call him—Mr. De Cobain. His not appearing shows that he has not complied with the Order of the House.

again rose and said: I have to give notice, Sir, that I shall on Friday next move that Mr. Edward Samuel Wesley De Cobain, having failed to obey the Order of this House, that he should attend in his place on Tuesday, the 23rd February, and having fled from justice, be expelled this House.

I rise to move the Resolution which stands in my name, and which reads as follows:—

"That, as the Church of England in Wales has failed to fulfil its professed object as a means of promoting the religious interests of the Welsh people, and ministers only to a small minority of the population, its continuance as an Established Church in the Principality is an anomaly and an injustice which ought no longer to exist."

I cast myself on the indulgence of the House, as I have just risen from a sick bed to perform my duty here. I approach the subject with a deep feeling of responsibility, for I know how difficult it is to do full justice to the intense convictions of the Welsh people on this burning question. In all the Debates we have had in this House I have always felt that we failed to give adequate expression to the deep sense of wrong that pervades the Welsh people. What Home Rule is to Ireland to-day, what Free Trade was to England 50 years ago, what "the disruption" was to Scotland 50 years ago, so is this question of religious equality to Wales to-day. It is the all-engrossing question, which agitates every household and practically divides the country into two camps, and there can be no peace or social harmony till this irritant is removed. Our difficulty is to convey to the English mind the grounds for this vehement controversy, and it imposes on us the painful duty of explaining why the English Church in Wales has wholly forfeited the respect of the mass of the people, and thrown them into the camp of Nonconformity. Deep changes in the religious convictions of a nation never occur except for adequate causes; all history shows that there is nothing so difficult to effect as a change of religion, and Wales is no exception to that rule. The revolt of the people from the Established Church was the result of intolerable wrongs. It was caused by the corrupt, oppressive, and anti-national character of the State Church, spread over centuries. I question if any ecclesiastical establishment presented more abuses than did that of Wales from the time of the Reformation down to the beginning of this century. It was used as an engine for crushing out the national spirit of the country, just as the sister Church of Ireland was, and with the same result. Its preferments were given in the most scandalous manner to English ecclesiastics for political services, and most of the rich livings of Wales were held for centuries by absentees, who deputed miserable and half-starved curates to do their duty. In many of the Welsh churches the language of the people was never spoken, in many of them services were only held once a year, and the lives of the clergy were often notoriously irreligious. Let me quote the language of that true patriot, Henry Richard, whose name will ever be held in reverence in Wales—

"Simony, nepotism, non-residence, pluralism, every form of ecclesiastical abuse ran riot in the Welsh Church. The great body of the clergy were ignorant, irreligious, immoral, in every way utterly incompetent to fulfil the duties of their office. And, indeed, many of them did not even attempt to fulfil their primary duty as instructors of the people."

I will trouble the House with one more quotation from the Rev. H. W. Clarke's excellent History of Tithes:—

"The majority of the Bishops, cathedral dignitaries, and parochial clergy did not know one word of the language of the people. They were aliens in blood, in manners, and in language from the great bulk of the people. The rites of confirmation, marriage, prayer, and preaching, were performed in the English language and then translated immediately into Welsh by an interpreter at the Bishop's or clergyman's elbow. Many of them resided in England or on the Continent, spending the tithes or other revenues, and neglecting their spiritual duties."

It is argued by some that those abuses are matters of ancient history, and that it is needless to rake them up now, as they have long been cured. This is far from being the case; they were shamefully prevalent in the first half of this century. One of the worst cases of nepotism that ever disgraced a Church was that of Bishop Luxmore, of St. Asaph, as lately as 1830. Mr. Johnnes, in his essay on the causes of dissent in Wales, states that Bishop Luxmore's income was £12,000 a year, and that he had bestowed livings on his sons and other relatives to the value of £15,000 a year. One of these sons was Dean of St. Asaph, Chancellor of St. David's, sinecure Rector of five livings, and the holder of several other preferments worth altogether £8,000 a year. It was computed that the Luxmore family drew more than all the working clergy of the diocese put together. And now, forsooth, we are told that these avaricious clergy possessed the true apostolical succession, and that it was a deadly sin for pious Nonconformists to leave their ministrations! I will now ask the House, for one moment, to consider the rise of Welsh Nonconformity. About the middle of last century the state of religion in Wales was at the lowest ebb. The Rev. Rees Pritchard of Llandovery, a well-known clergyman, writes of the first half of the 18th century:—

"Licentiousness, drunkenness, dishonesty, falsehood, and infidelity are rampant through the Principality. Judges and juries sympathise with drunken murderers, and permit extortioners to rob widows and orphans. Sheriffs and their deputies plunder innocent people by virtue of their office. The Lord's Day is a day for drunkenness, dancing, idleness, games, and wanton lewdness among the Welsh."

It was the same in England before the revival of Wesley and Whitfield; in truth, the middle of last century marked the nadir of religious life in the United Kingdom. But there rose up in Wales at that time a band of the greatest preachers that perhaps the world has known. Some of them were clergy of the Established Church; but, as soon as they began to evangelise, they were expelled from her pale, and the whole force of the Church was used to stop their mouths and limit their holy work. The Methodists of Wales had to undergo even worse persecution than their brethren in England; mobs were hounded on against them, often by the recreant clergy, and, to use the language of Dr. Rees—

"The inoffensive worshippers were abused, most mercilessly pelted with stones, wounded with knives, shot at; men, and even women, stripped naked in the presence of the crowd; able-bodied men were pressed for the Army and Navy, and driven away from their friends and families like cattle."

If ever there were true successors of the Apostles it was men like Wesley and Whitfield in England, or Howell Harris and Daniel Rowlands in Wales—men whose whole lives were one continuous martyrdom for their Divine Master, and yet these men are now described in some Church Catechisms as heretics and schismatics, and their worship as a species of idolatry. In spite of cruel persecution; in spite of merciless evictions of multitudes of poor farmers because they became Dissenters; in spite of pressure of every kind brought by the Tory squirearchy, as well as the clergy, the great mass of the people became Nonconformists; the meaning of which is, that the great mass of the people became earnestly religious, and now for many years Wales has become a nation of Protestant Nonconformists; and I assert that Wales has reason to be proud of what Nonconformity has done. It has made the Principality of Wales the most religious portion of the United Kingdom; in no part of the Kingdom is attendance at public worship so universal; in none is the Sunday school so developed, including, as it does, a great part of the adult population as well as the children. In no part of the country is there so little crime; in none are the Judges so often presented with white gloves for maiden assizes; in none is the population so orderly, peaceable, and well-conducted. If I were asked to point to any spot in the world where Christianity had shown its most signal influence to civilise and elevate a people, I should point to Wales. The Nonconformists have covered Wales with 4,000 chapels out of their poverty, and they voluntarily raise £400,000 a year for religious purposes. Need you wonder, Mr. Speaker, that with such an experience the Welsh Nonconformists repudiate the theory that religion needs the support of State patronage and control? Their experience proves the contrary; it proves that religion in its purest and most spiritual form is far more active and efficacious when freed from the benumbing effect of State patronage and State control, and left to the voluntary efforts of believers. The mass of the Welsh people have reached that stage of conviction which all English-speaking people, outside this island, have already attained, that all which religion requires from the State is a free hand and no favour. They are convinced that the whole machinery of the Established Church of this country is Erastian, and contrary to the principles of the New Testament. They can find no warrant there for Bishops appointed by the Prime Minister of the day, who may be a man of any religion or no religion, who may, for all we know, be a future Mr. Bradlaugh; they find no warrant for the Royal supremacy over the Church, for control of worship and doctrine by Act of Parliament; they find no warrant there for compulsory tithe, for the sale of advowsons, or for lay patronage, They believe that all these practices are grievous corruptions of primitive Christianity; and I think they are right, and the time is not far distant when the English people will think so. But it is urged by our opponents that a great improvement has taken place in the Welsh Church in recent years. The scandalous abuses have disappeared, and many of the clergy are now earnest and devoted men. I readily grant this is the case. Nothing can exceed the zeal and devotion of some of the clergy, but there are many exceptions yet to this rule. I do not contest, however, the improvement that has set in; but I must be allowed to call the attention of the House to the fact that the new life that is now flowing in the Church of England is actually widening the gulf between them and the Nonconformists; the dominant party is now the High Church party; its doctrines and ritual are in diametrical opposition to the views of all Protestant Nonconformists. The fact is the gulf between the Church of England and all Nonconformists was never so deep as it is now. Let me illustrate this by stating what recently happened at Llandudno. Two well known lady teachers were expelled from the Church Sunday school by the Rector because they declined to teach a Catechism containing the following questions:—

"Why is it necessary to believe in one Holy Catholic Church?" Answer. "Because it is God's one appointed way of salvation." Question. "Does it then make any difference what church or sect we belong to?" Answer. "Yes, it makes a great difference whether we obey Christ or disobey Him."

I may add that this manual of doctrine may be judged from the fact that the junior grade section recommended prayer for the dead, and the advanced grade, the Confessional. Now, if there is anything the Welsh Nonconformists may fairly claim, it is that their doctrines and Church policy are drawn pure and undefiled from the New Testament. They reject mediæval tradition, and refuse to admit any practices that are not authorised by express warrant of Holy Writ. The House will therefore understand how acute the difference has now become, and how intolerable they feel that it is that the revenues of their country should be applied to teaching doctrines so hateful to the great majority of the people. I have not so far dealt with the question of statistics as to the relative strength of Church and Dissent in Wales. The House has been wearied with piles of figures on previous occasions, and I can add nothing to what has been so well said from these Benches in the two recent Debates. I allow that all statistics that can be collected in Wales and quoted by one side are always disputed by the other. I am content to rest the case on the undoubted fact that the great majority of the Welsh people do not belong to the Church of England. What the majority is I do not explicitly assert, but I think few Church people will find fault with me if I state that the Church cannot claim more than one-fourth of the people of Wales. Some of my friends will think that I concede too much in saying this, and will only agree to one-fifth. But when you remember that this includes a large portion of English people resident in the large towns, you will see that it allows but a small fraction of the Welsh people to belong to the English Church. My own strong impression is, if we limit our survey to the indigenous Welsh-speaking population, the proportion belonging to the Church would not be more than one-eighth. There are many rural churches in Wales, as everyone knows, where the congregation is hardly more than the minister's family and servants, and I have heard of cases where the usual attendance was six, eight, or ten persons. But I am going to ask the House to look at some other figures collected outside Wales, where there can be no partisan character about the census, and which bring out the real tendencies of the Welsh people. It is well known that a large Welsh population resides in Liverpool. It is a common saying that Liverpool is the capital of Wales, because containing a larger body of Welsh citizens than any other city in the country. It so happens, fortunately for this Debate, that a very painstaking census of attendance at all places of worship was taken towards the end of last year in Liverpool by one of our leading journals. It had no motive to serve but to get at all the actual facts. Now, I am going to give the House the result of the attendance at the Welsh-speaking services. There are but two churches where the Welsh language is used, but there are 28 Nonconformist chapels. The attendance at church in the morning was 165 persons, at the various chapels 4,832; in the evening the figures were, Church 330, Nonconformists 6,271. Reduce this to a percentage, the proportion is 3.3 per cent. for church in the morning, and 96.7 per cent. for chapels; in the evening it is 5 per cent church, and 95 per cent. chapels. That is, on the best, showing 20 times as many Welsh-speaking people worship in chapels as in churches. A pretty good proof what an exotic the Church of England is. But I have an even more startling statement to make. It is well known that there is a large Welsh emigration to the United States. Wherever they go the Welsh people carry with them their intense religious feelings, and I am informed by a friend who has visited the United States and made careful inquiry that no less than 456 chapels exist where the Welsh language is preached, but not one Episcopal church. There was an attempt to establish one but it failed, and the building was sold to the Congregationalists. If this statement does not convince the House as to the real drift of the Welsh people in matters of religion I despair of enlightening it. All churches are free and equal in America; none are bolstered up by State support, and I hold that America presents a far better test than Wales, where a State-endowed Church, having all the social influence on its side and bringing pressure to bear on the neediest and more helpless part of the community, can collect, it may be, a quarter of the population as nominal adherents. I think more need not be said to prove how overwhelming is the case we lay before the House. Every argument that justified the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in Ireland holds equally good in Wales. The cases run almost on all fours. In each case you have a wealthy minority holding all the Church endowments, while the mass of the labouring class have to supply their own spiritual needs out of their poverty. In each case the Church endeavoured to proselytise and Anglicise the nation. In each case it utterly failed. In each case its history was marked by intolerable abuses persisted in till Parliament forced reform on a reluctant clergy. In each case the effect has been to deepen and intensify the persecuted faith, and strengthen the nationality it was intended to destroy. Every argument that justifies free government justifies the disestablishment of these two Churches; and the case of Ireland ought to reassure the most timid churchman. No one will deny that Disestablishment has improved the Church of Ireland. The springs of voluntary effort have been opened; and the laity have got their rightful position in the management of the Church. The same thing will happen in Wales. The strife that poisons Welsh life will be removed; the church will cease to lean upon carnal weapons; it will regain liberty and independence, and may have a career in the future far more creditable than it has had in the past.

I have much pleasure in seconding the Resolution so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Flintshire. I do not desire to say much, as we have had the question discussed many times. Formerly the Established Church had the vantage ground in Wales, but they let go the chance they had, of proselytising the Welsh people, and by degrees they forfeited their position. The Church was established by law, and it practically disestablished itself. By venality, corruption, and idleness it forfeited that position. When I first had the honour of bringing the question forward we received very little support for our object; we were a small minority with little support, even from our own friends. Now, however, the question has been discussed again and again, and a change has come over the spirit of our dream. Instead of its being viewed with indifference, the Welsh people have taken it up with the greatest zeal; and even our own Leader has now conceded the position that if the Welsh people are really in favour of the Disestablishment, which we plead for, he is bound to support that demand. The Established Church endeavours to take up a position which I must comment on. The Welsh, who are an eminently religious people, finding themselves deserted and betrayed by the Church, were not content to remain in it; they provided themselves with religious houses and ministers. They have established a church for themselves, and they intend to remain in it; that is a point to which I wish especially to call attention. The Welsh clergy were immoral and dissolute, but now, I am willing to agree, many are very moral, excellent, and hard-working men; but the Welsh people have established a religion for themselves in place of the one which betrayed their interests. It is, however, a common argument used by the Welsh clergy that the people really are not keen on this question; that they are desirous of going back to the Establishment. I am astonished that any ecclesiastic with any honesty in his nature should make such a statement. We know Wales pretty well, and we know that if she were left to herself she would be purely Nonconformist. Though great territorial influence has been brought to bear on many of the people, they have de- clined to become churchmen. It is always difficult to find what the religion of a people is, and I have always opposed a religious census, on the ground that it would lead to the bringing to bear of a great territorial pressure on those who did not belong to the Established Church. Very soon we shall have a dissolution, and then you may be quite sure the Welsh people will declare themselves in favour of this Motion. But whether they de, dare themselves in favour of it or not, let a poll be taken, and I have no doubt that the result will be in favour of freedom of religion and the support of that Church which they have so well established for themselves in Wales. Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That, as the Church of England in Wales has failed to fulfil its professed object as a means of promoting the religious interests of the Welsh people, and ministers only to a small minority of the population, its continuance as an Established Church in the Principality is an anomaly and an injustice which ought no longer to exist."—(Mr. Samuel Smith.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and on the part of those who sit upon this side of the House, a most definite and uncompromising opposition to the Resolution which has been moved and the policy which prompts that Resolution. Sir, I draw a distinction, and I think it is a natural one, between the Resolution and the policy which it is supposed to represent; for I am sure it will have been observed by those who have listened to the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution that they have paid no attention to the terms of the Resolution at all; that they have made no attempt to establish any one of the propositions which it contains, and that they have contented themselves by referring to other matters—matters which I own might form matter for consideration in Debate, but are not relevant to the propositions put before the House. I am not surprised at the course they have taken. I was, in truth, somewhat amused to find that having long delayed in choosing the terms of the Resolution, the hon. Member for Flintshire on Friday last put upon the Paper of the House this old Resolution, which has been proposed and debated several times, and which I thought had been absolutely destroyed last year by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian. I saw in the paper to-day an inspired communication to a newspaper in which the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire writes that—

"Mr. Gladstone desired to support the Motion for Welsh Disestablishment this Session as he had done last Session."

Sir, I wish he were here to-day to do it. I can conceive nothing more satisfactory than that a Resolution aimed at the Church in Wales should be supported as the Resolution of last year was supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian. We have taken care to circulate largely the speech of the right hon. Gentleman upon that occasion, and it will long be remembered as a lasting demonstration of the futility—I was going to use a stronger word—of the propositions in the Resolution before the House. Does anyone who heard him forget the paternal way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian corrected the innocent indifference of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil to all the history of the Welsh Church? Does anyone forget the way in which he, taking the terms of this Resolution, declared that he could not agree with them, and stated with regard to the first phrase which strikes one's attention, that "the Church of England in Wales" was an entire misrepresentation, and that it would be as reasonable to speak of "the Church of Wales in England " as of "the Church of England in Wales?" Last year the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was a very interesting speech. He came down to the House in order to appear to make a recantation of his statement of 21 years ago, that it was impossible to dissever the Welsh Church from the Church of England, and the principal sentence in which that apparent recantation was expressed deserves to be always remembered as the choicest possible example of the Parliamentary dexterity of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian. I think no such gem was ever contributed to the records of this House as the sentence in which he dealt with his statement of 21 years ago, that it is impossible to dissever the case of the Welsh Church and the Church of England. I beg the House to mark the sentence. He said—

"It is quite possible that I may have used that expression which may, when strictly regarded, be found to involve the element of exaggeration."

The most the right hon. Gentleman could do when he came down to recant the declaration of 21 years ago, was, not to say that it was an exaggeration, but to say that he "might have used an expression" which "might, when strictly regarded, be found" not to carry with it, but "to involve," not exaggeration, but "the element of exaggeration." And, Sir, when the right hon. Gentleman had done his part in that apparent recantation, the House will remember how the right hon. Gentleman turned with obvious satisfaction to that which was more congenial by far; to speak out his mind, and particularly to declare that—

"The Established Church in Wales is an advancing Church, an active Church, a living Church, and I hope very distinctly a living Church rising from elevation to elevation."

It is not we who are slow to recall that speech of last year of the right hon. Gentleman. That speech contained another remarkable sentence, another remarkable piece of information as clearly conveyed as words can convey—at all events, as clearly as the words of the right hon. Gentleman could convey. He admitted that there might be an element of exaggeration in his former speech; but it is very significant to note the terms in which he refers to the character of the task which would have to be undertaken by anyone who proposed to disestablish the Church of Wales. He said—

"And I say now what I believed then, and what I believe now, that the operation of disestablishing the Church of Wales from the Church of England will not be found very easy. I suspect that it will be found that it is tied and knotted and tangled, I might almost say in such a multitude of legal bonds and meshes with the general body of the Church of England, that it would be a very formidable matter indeed to accomplish this purpose."

Anyone who heard the right hon. Gentleman was conscious of three things: first, that he was anxious to remove the effect which, during 21 years, his earlier speech had been exercising upon the minds of the people of this country, by the defence which he then made for the Church of Wales; secondly, that he bore emphatic testimony to the good which the Church was doing in Wales; and, thirdly, that he gave notice that whatever might be done by those who should come after him, it would not be for him to do the work of Disestablishment. He did support, in a fashion, that Resolution. He did, I believe, pair in favour of that Resolution; but he rested his case with regard to it not upon any attack on the character or work of the Church in Wales, no upon the smallness of the minority of the people forming the membership of the Church, but on the ground that the majority of the people of Wales, he believed, desired Disestablishment. Therefore, not upon the ground of Church policy, or high policy, but on the ground of separatism, he accepted that majority for the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales. He was yielding to that passing craze of separatism, which has attacked the minority in this House, and which would set up again barriers and fences between the families of our people that have almost been erased and trodden down by the friendly footsteps of many generations. His speech did not greatly help the assailants of the Welsh Church. But what have they themselves to say in regard to the Resolution? I watched the hon. Members the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution, and they have taken warning by what the right hon. Gentleman said last year. They did not this year talk about the Church of England in Wales; nor, indeed, did they make any attempt whatever to prove either of the two propositions contained in the Resolution. The first proposition in this Resolution is—

"That the Church of England in Wales has failed to fulfil its professed object as a means of promoting the religious interests of the Welsh people."

I will examine that proposition presently; but if I had only to deal with the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of this Resolution, they would require no answer upon that point at all, for they have not attempted to prove that proposition by any particle of evidence that can reasonably be submitted to the judgment of the House. Let us take the second proposition, without passing altogether away from the first, to which I will return. Take the second proposition, that "the Church ministers only to a, small minority of the population." If that proposition is true, it ought to be, in some way or other, capable of proof, and the hon. Members who ask the House of Commons to accept a very serious proposition like this, and who lay it down as one of the premises upon which the House is to move to this decision, ought to give us, at all events, some sort of argument or evidence in its favour. But what have these gentlemen done? It is surely very grotesque. The hon. Member for Flintshire, who moved the Resolution, spoke, as he had very good reason for speaking, very doubtfully with regard to statistics. He says that statistics have been freely handled in this House. I am glad to know that they always will be freely handled. I shall say something later on about the statistics prepared by those who have been professionally engaged to support the case which the hon. Gentleman puts before the House, and I shall venture to handle them somewhat freely. The hon. Member has his doubts about statistics; but instead of getting as near as he could to the statistics with regard to the Church in Wales, instead of giving any sort of excuse—good, bad, or indifferent—for having put the proposition down upon the Paper, he gives us statistics as to the attendance at Welsh churches in Liverpool and Welsh churches in America. What nonsense this is the speaker himself must upon reflection see. He could see in a moment that Welshmen who live in Liverpool are for the most part familiar with the English language, and that when he chose churches in Liverpool at which only Welsh is used he is choosing churches which would not in the least represent the attendances in the churches in Wales. As to these indefinite statistics from America, they seem to be the information of some anonymous person as to that country; they cannot have any relation whatever to the condition of affairs in Wales. And yet the hon. Member, after giving us these fragmentary and irrelevant anecdotes, proceeds to say that he has now overwhelmingly proved his proposition that the people of Wales are Nonconformists. Let me pass on to another matter with which the hon. Member dealt. He says that in past times the Church of Wales was a corrupt and an incompetent Church. He could hardly use expressions of reproach in describing the condition of Church work either in Wales or in England during, say, the reigns of the Georges, with which I should not be inclined, most sorrowfully, to agree. It was not in Wales alone, but in England also, that there was in those days a decadence of the Church work and a degradation in the character of the ministers of the Church which is now a subject of sorrowful reflection. Yet there were always good and holy and religious-minded men in the Church of Wales as well as in the Church of England, who, to the best of their ability, discharged their duty to both God and man in the ministry of the Church; but there were, doubtless, many others of a different character; men who lived—in England as well as in Wales—weak and degraded lives. I am glad to say, however, that in Wales, as well as in England, the Established Church has escaped from the discredit which has been brought upon it by this latter class. Our extrication from these difficulties was probably earlier than in Wales. We in England were a less scattered people; public opinion was more effective and more active, and perhaps it would be right to say that owing to circumstances a higher standard of character had been maintained, so we escaped earlier than in Wales. But thank God the troubles and degradation to which I refer have now almost gone! We have got rid in England, and I believe in Wales, of the drinking parson, the sporting parson, the gambling parson, of the pluralist and the absentee; we have almost got rid of the magistrate parson, and, for my own part, I am very anxious that we should get rid of the political par- son. These reforms have already been secured to a great extent in both countries, and those who are most active and vigorous in carrying on Church work in England and in Wales are men who devote themselves to discharging their high duties to the State and to the Church in the most self-denying exercise of their great calling. But when this is the case, both in England and in Wales, to what purpose is it that we are to be reminded of those scandals of a century and a half ago, or even of things which may in scattered instances be found a little later? The hon. Member who moved this Resolution gave us as his most recent instance of misconduct in Wales an instance of a Bishop who, in 1830, was enjoying an enormous income and appointing his sons and his nephews to sinecure livings. Sixty-one years is a substantial time in the history of a Religious Body, and during those 61 years the progress of the Church both in England and Wales has been a course of continuous and undisturbed improvement; and now no one, I am sure, can allege or point to any scandal with regard to England or to Wales comparable to that which the hon. Gentleman has spoken of as having existed 61 years ago. Let me suggest to the hon. Member that he was not logical in bringing this sort of evidence before the House in support of his Resolution. If the hon. Member could have said that 150 years ago the Church in Wales was an active, and a vigorous Church, preaching the pure faith, ministering diligently and faithfully to the people, discharging its duties with zeal and with earnestness, whereas now it had lost that pure faith, and the energetic and true life had become corrupt and disorderly and inefficient, then he would have given us some ground for his bringing forward his Motion to disestablish the Church in that part of the United Kingdom. But when he points to the fact that the Church in Wales 150 years ago was feeble and unfit for its Divine work, and that now it has risen to such a pitch of efficiency and of purity that no one will challenge it, and no one will bring an accusation against it, is he not giving us the very best reason in the world for not destroying a Church whose energy has thus been revived and purified, and for allowing the country in which it exists to profit by its teaching and its work? I venture to say that in the line he has taken, and the suggestions he has made as to those scandals of a long-gone past being sufficient to induce us to disestablish the Church of Wales, he is directly contradicting the hopes and teachings of those great men whose memory he calls upon us to reverence. Never was a more fitting memorial placed in Westminster Abbey, or one more thoroughly deserved there, than the medallions of the brothers Wesley which are upon its walls. Does not the hon. Member see that in asking us to disestablish the Church in Wales he is acting in direct contradiction to their hopes and principles, and to the Society which they have founded.

No.

I will prove it. The hon. Member has said that the great men he has mentioned—Wesley, Rowland, and Whitfield—had been turned out of the Church. He is mistaken. Wesley and Rowland remained faithful members of the Church, and they lived and died declared members of the Church. I believe there was a time in the early part of his life when Wesley was not admitted to the pulpits of this country; but he was admitted to those pulpits before he died. John Wesley was re-admitted to those pulpits; and his last words, practically the words of testament by Wesley to those who were to follow him in the body which he had founded, constituted a declaration that he lived and died in the Church of England, and he left his dying injunctions to the members of that body that they should never depart from the doctrines and principles of that Church. I must mention another matter. We are sometimes told that the Church ought to be Disestablished in order that she may be freed from control. We have had a scene in this House, upon the 29th July of last year, a scene which was very painful to all Churchmen who were trying to pass a Bill to enable the Church to expel from its benefices clergymen who had been guilty of gross immorality or other grave offences. That Bill was opposed, and the Churchmen were told in so many words that we should not be allowed to purify the Church; and that if we wanted a measure to give power to the Church to purify itself, we must consent to Disestablishment. I remember on that occasion three hon. Members on the opposite side of this House—the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, the hon. Member for the Eccles Division of Lancashire, and the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool—all protesting against this opposition, and the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool said that to postpone dealing with grave scandals until they could deal with the question of Establishment would be a crying injustice. But it is a mistake to say that a disestablished Church would be a free Church, free from control. At the present moment the great Nonconformist Bodies of this country are limited not only as to their discipline, but as to their doctrine, by bonds which Parliament alone can break. The papers yesterday had a quotation from the Methodist Recorder with regard to a proposed change in the regulations of the body which follows John Wesley; and the section of the deed poll which the Wesleyan Methodists are now coming to Parliament to ask to be relieved from by Act of Parliament, is a very remarkable one. They cannot now allow a minister to remain more than three years upon a circuit, and the Wesleyan Methodists are now coming to Parliament asking to be relieved from that regulation which prevents them appointing any person for more than three years successively to the use and enjoyment of any of their chapels, and I think the hon. Member, when he speaks of a free Church, will find in the last line of this section a very interesting refutation. It was enacted by the eleventh section of Mr. Wesley's deed poll, of the 28th of February, 1784, that—

"The Conference shall not, nor may, nominate or appoint any person to the use and enjoyment of, or to preach and expound God's Holy Word in any of the chapels and premises so given or conveyed, or which may be given or conveyed upon the trusts aforesaid, who was not either a member of the Conference or admitted into connection with the same, or upon trial as aforesaid, nor appoint any person for more than three years successively to the use and enjoyment of any chapel and premises already given, or to be given or conveyed upon the trusts aforesaid, except ordained ministers of the Church of England."

At this moment the only persons the Wesleyan Methodist Conference can by law continue more than three years in one place are the ordained ministers of the Church of England. But, Sir, I go further even than this. In the year 1818 there was constituted by Conference a Primitive Wesleyan Methodist Society, and in the year 1871 an Act was passed, the 34th & 35th Vic., Chapter 40, which gave legislative sanction to the Constitution arrived at in 1818. It was enacted by Section 4 that—

"Nothing in this Act contained shall authorise any alteration in the doctrine of the Society as set forth in Part II. of the General Principle of the Methodist Constitution."

Another section allowed them to vary parts of the Constitution which referred only to discipline. The Schedule of that Act contains different parts of that Methodist Constitution, from which I will read an extract—

"Does not the Methodist Society profess to belong to the Church of England? Yes, as a body, for they originally emanated from the Church of England. They originally emanated from the Church of England, and the Rev. John Wesley, the venerable founder of the Connexion, made a declaration of a similar import within less than a year preceding his decease, 'I declare once more that I live and die a member of the Church of England, and that none who regard my judgment or advice will ever separate from it."—(See Arminian Magazine for April, 1790.) "This regulation is not intended to be understood as interfering with the right of private judgment in places where education or prejudices attach members to other Established Churches."

That, Sir, is in the Designs, Part 1, which they are at liberty to alter; but in Part 2, which that body cannot alter except by coming to Parliament, we find this, "What is the foundation of the Methodist doctrine? The Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. Wherein consists the unity of the Methodist doctrine?" The hon. Member who moved this Resolution said that the doctrine was drawn pure and direct from Holy Writ. I will read to him the doctrine which is obligatory by Act of Parliament,upon this body; it cannot be altered without the consent of Parliament. The Primitive Methodist Society of Ireland—

Is it a public Act or a private Act?

A public Act. The hon. Member will find it on the Table from which I have taken it, and the answer given to the question of what the unity of the Methodist doctrines consisted was as follows:—

"Answer.—In teaching and enforcing those doctrines only which are contained in the Scriptures, as taught and explained in the writings of the Rev. John Wesley and the Rev. John Fletcher, particularly Mr. Wesley's notes on the Old and New Testament, his eight volumes of sermons, his appeals, and the doctrinal parts of the Arminian Magazine as maintained by him and published to the period of his decease; also Mr. Fletcher's checks and letters, published by Mr. Wesley."

And when the hon. Member speaks of the freedom of the Church which is not established as the Church of England, has he forgotten for the moment if any body such as a Church comes to be possessed of property or endowment of any sort or kind, there is a condition of things established which prevents it from altering its doctrines or the terms of its membership except by appeal to the House of Commons? With regard to the matter of the number of people in Wales, the hon. Member for Swansea made an observation as to his wish for a census. Well, we have always wished for a census, we are anxious to have a census. It is not the fault of Churchmen that there has not been a census made in Wales as there is in Ireland, to ascertain the religious opinions of the people. Hon. Members on the other side may be well justified in the opposition that they make to that proposal. I do not complain; they form their own judgment in the matter, and they object to our proposal being carried out; but, at all events, if they object to any record being taken by an independent and authoritative body, it is not for them to ask that we shall accept the amateur and somewhat suspicious attempts that they make to get these returns. With regard to this question, which I consider an important one, the hon. Member who moved the Resolution gave the go-by altogether to that part of the case, and says fairly, "I do not choose to deal with Welsh statistics." I do not think that is quite satisfactory; I think we ought to be able to find out in some way what is the proportion between Churchmen and Nonconformists in Wales. The Nonconformists say they desire to obtain returns of the attendances at our churches. Well, they have made several attempts to do this. In the year 1887, it was announced that a religious census was about to be taken by a very active and vigorous Nonconformist in Wales. He was believed to have taken it. He did not publish it. About two years later he published fragments of it, and explained that in the cases in which he had taken returns he had a private census taken for the re-consideration of the figures. I do not say the figures given were not true. One cannot say that; there was no comparative statement on the other side by which to test it, but I do say they cannot call upon us to pay any very great respect to an amateur experiment of this kind, founded upon a principle unfair to the churches and unfairly applied. I say "a principle unfair to the churches." When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian had occasion in this House to discuss some years ago—I think 40 years ago—the Motion of Mr. Miall with regard to the disestablishment of the Church of England, he protested against the idea that you could test the efficiency of an Established Church by counting the number of persons present at a single service upon a particular Sunday. If you took the number of persons present at special worship you would not establish a fair comparison between the Established Church and other bodies which thought much more of the preaching of the Word, and of attending at particular times in their churches and chapels. It would not be a fair comparison. But I will take for examination a very recent example—the most recent return I think—taken by one of those who have been professionally engaged in support of the Liberationist movement in Wales. There has been a Wales Campaign Fund started, and some of these needy Nonconformists of Wales have given sums of £500 each to establish that fund. I will not inquire too curiously how it has been spent, but I believe it has been partly spent in obtaining the Returns published in the Times newspaper in December of last year. Mr. Owen Owens published in the Times of the 18th December, 1891, a Return which he had obtained from an inquiry set on foot by him into the attendance at churches in the diocese of St. Asaph; and he said that the Return he gave showed that "the proportion of attendants at church on a Sunday did not reach 10 per cent. of the population." It was a curious conclusion, and I should like to tell the House how it was arrived at. There were 73 churches taken in the diocese of St. Asaph's. He got out a total of 113,000 persons in the population and of 11,009 persons in attendance in the churches; and he said that taking these figures they represented a proportion of something less than 10 per cent. I do not think that 10 per cent. is an insignificant number when you take the attendance at one service only, at a church in a rural and somewhat wild district in many parts, upon an extremely inclement day in the month of November. But let me take it. This census can be examined, and has been examined, and. the figures which I am going to refer to have been published, and have never been answered. At Wrexham, the amateur who was present on that day omitted five places of Church worship altogether, and he estimated the population at Wrexham at not less than 2,000 persons below its real number. In one place the two enumerators were aged respectively eleven and thirteen years, and as might have been expected from such juvenile officials, there was a difference of 45 per cent. between them. But in nine places—9 churches out of 73—the numbers given as at the congregation service were smaller than the number of communicants who had communicated at these churches upon the Easter Sunday. I need not draw the inference from that fact. But there was one place of all these 73 which was correct, and only one. It was the parish of Hawarden, and the parish of Hawarden, a large parish, with over 6,000 inhabitants, has I am very glad to say a diligent Church ministry and a large attendance at the services. The parish of Hawarden came out in these returns in a way which corresponds with the returns made by the Rector of Hawarden, to the Bishop of the diocese. The explanation is an interesting one. The Rector of Hawarden, is the Rev. Stephen Gladstone, who knew this inquiry was to be made, and offered to give the persons who were conducting the inquiry the figures himself. They accepted the figures, and thus the parish of Hawarden had the singular distinction of being the only correct return, so far as we can see, in the whole of the 73. Now, Sir, this is an example of the statistics which have been given by our opponents. With regard to them, I do not impute bad faith. The controversy we are engaged in to-day is a controversy which may last for many years and involve much—(Cries of "No, no!" from the Opposition Benches)—may last for many years, and, for my own part, I will take care, from the beginning to the end of this controversy, that no word shall be spoken by me which will embitter the antagonism among those who, to my thinking, ought to be working for and in one common cause. I have given an example now of the statistics with regard to ourselves. Let me give something which I confess I am inclined to consider more trustworthy. There are reasons, as I have shown you, to distrust these statistics about us. I think we are entitled to accept the statistics of our antagonists in this matter about themselves. With regard to them, I think they ought not to complain if we examine their own statistics and apply them to the consideration of the question, and I want to ask the attention of the House to the result of some interesting statistics. The four large bodies of Nonconformists in Wales are—the Calvinistic Methodists, who I believe outnumber by about one-half any other Nonconformist body. I think the four largest bodies are the Calvinistic Methodists, the Independents, the Wesleyans, and the Baptists, and they comprise the large majority, almost the whole, of the Nonconformist population of Wales. Now, these four bodies issue every year an account of their Church membership. Two of them issue the account in this form. The Calvinistic Methodists and the Independents give a table of the number of members of their Church, and they also give the number of the adherents of the Churches. It is an important matter to remember what an adherent means, and I shall read the definition of adherent, which is an authoritative definition of the Nonconformist Body—

"Adherent includes all who attend regularly or irregularly at Nonconformist places of worship, all who avail themselves of the religious services of ministers or members of the Nonconformist Body on the occasion of sickness or death in their family, and children of all ages."

In other words, all who can be directly or indirectly described as a Nonconformist. The adherents of the Calvinistic Methodists and Independents, are just over twice as many as the members. Applying these figures to the other two bodies, who give only the number of members but not of adherents, and doubling their figures, or rather more than doubling their figures, in order to produce a fair result, the result of this is: The total adherents in Wales, including Monmouthshire, of the four largest Nonconformist Bodies is, according to the last Return—that of 1890—814,277, from their own books. That is 46 per cent. of the population of the country. I think the hon. Member for Swansea, some years ago, gave an estimate in this House of the number of persons who were Nonconformists, including under that total the Roman Catholics, who were not included in these four Bodies, and he estimated them at 55,000. I believe 56,000 is about right. That would add another 3 per cent. to the Nonconformist Body; and so, according to their own statistics, including adherents, including every child and everybody casually brought into contact with the body, the largest number they can claim of members and of adherents attached as loosely as possible to their body, when added to the number outside this body, comes to 49 per cent. only of the population.

Supposing the rest conform?

I shall finish my statement, but I assure the hon. Member I shall not omit to notice the question. But there is another very interesting fact with regard to this. Nonconformity is not evenly distributed over Wales. The eastern part of Wales—the seven counties which may fairly be called the eastern part of Wales—are places of large population and of increasing population. The six counties in the west of Wales are places more sparsely occupied, of decreasing population. In the seven eastern counties, which contain 72 per cent. of the population, the adherents of the Nonconformist Bodies, including Roman Catholics, who are more numerous in that than in any other part of Wales, amount to only 35 per cent. of the population. So that, according to their own statistics, in that part of Wales which is increasing in population, and full of prosperity and promise for the future, it is not much more than one-third of the population that, by any method of calculation, can be brought within the Nonconformist Body. It was said, "Do the others conform?" I do not understand the question. There is no such thing as conformity to an Established Church in the sense which it necessarily has when dealing with the Nonconformist Body. The claim of the Church is that all belong to her body, and are entitled to her ministrations; that the doors of her churches are open to all, the ministration of her Sacraments given to all, that the consolations of religion will be given by her clergy to all people amongst whom they live. The strength and the power of the Established Church is that she directs her unceasing effort to that large body which may not have come into direct relation with any religious community at all, but which is open to the influence of Christianity and the influence of the teaching of a worthy Church; and, again, I say no one will deny—I am sure the hon. Member for Denbigh himself, who is going to speak in this Debate, will not deny—the value of the ministrations of the ministers of the Welsh Church, although they may be given to those who have not absolutely declared themselves to be members of a religious body. It was not in a hasty or debating speech that the hon. Member expressed, not long ago, the very highest opinion of the work of the Welsh clergy. In an article, I think in 1885, in the Nineteenth Century, or about that time, he paid his testimony to the character of the clergy in Wales, and a better or more hearty eulogium could not be expected from the most devoted defender of Church Establishment. As the question has been asked, I should just like to point out this. It has been said how about those who lie outside of the membership of the Nonconformist Body. But when one is talking about the membership of the Nonconformist Body, and the number of Nonconformist chapels, and the number of Nonconformist ministers in Wales, one is necessarily exaggerating to a great degree the influence that Nonconformity has in Wales. I will give an instance. In the Diocese of St. Asaph's there are 208 churches of the Established Church. These 208 churches are served by 312 clergymen, and in each parish there is a resident clergyman, who has in some cases assistant curates, attending to the people among whom they live. What is the case with the Nonconformist Body? The Calvinistic Methodists are a very strong body in the Diocese of St. Asaph's. They have 330 chapels in that Diocese. But they have only 70 pastors. Of these 70 pastors 35 have more than one chapel to attend to; and there are forty-three other persons who make up the ministry of the Calvinistic Methodists in that diocese to the number of 113. Altogether, there are 43 persons besides these pastors—men, no doubt, of exemplary life and great capacity to lead others to a religious life—but persons obliged to occupy their daily time in other and secular employment.

Like St. Paul.

I heard the interruption. If St. Paul had not had to work for his living he would have had more time to work for his Master. ("Oh, oh!") And I say, while these men may be men of good qualities to guide and lead and encourage others in religion, at all events they cannot, by the nature of things, give such constant pastoral care to the people amongst whom they live, as could be given by those whose whole lives are spent in the discharge of those duties. There exist, then, 330 chapels in the diocese of St. Asaph's; there are 70 pastors. Of these 70 pastors 35 have more than one chapel to attend to. I do not care to dwell upon this subject. I do not care—for my part, I absolutely refuse—to make any attack upon the organisation or work of the Nonconformist Bodies; but I propose to read to the House an extract, not from a writer upon our side, but from a writer who was speaking from the Nonconformist side with regard to this matter. On the 14th May, 1891, there appeared a leading article in the Goleuad, which is the official organ of the Calvinistic Methodists in Wales. This is an extract from the leading article:—

"As is seen in the figures used by Mr. Roberts, our chapels (eglwysi) throughout North and South Wales number 1,258; of these, 724 are in North Wales, including three in Liverpool and Manchester. According to our diary there are only 236 pastors to take care of all these churches…. Let us take an example. We know a district within a presbytery in North Wales where there are 19 churches, and there is only one pastor in the whole district. In cases of illness amongst our members, and when special circumstances call for the presence of a minister, to marry, to baptise, to promote beneficent movements, such as temperance, &c., to hold classes for the young people, to defend the rights of Nonconformists against civil and religious violence and oppression, the Calvinistic Methodists have only one pastor for this tract of country. In the same district there are at least ten clergymen, the great majority of them evincing great zeal for the "Mother Church," and untiring in their efforts to win Nonconformists to their fold. Read the reports of the Sunday Schools in this district, and you find a very great decline in the work of the schools."

I think we are entitled to point out to hon. Members who are seeking to disturb and destroy the work of that Church which maintains in every parish throughout the diocese a clergyman diligent in the performance of his duty, and ministering to the people in whose midst he is placed; it is right for us to remind them that those on their own side, who are most deeply and ardently interested in the work of Calvinistic Methodism, lament the fact, that by the paucity of their pastors as compared with the numbers of their churches, their people are practically left without guardianship, and practically without guidance in spiritual matters. Sir, the time may come when the timid inveracities of this Resolution shall give place to a formal scheme proposed to Parliament by a Minister of the Crown for the humiliation and the despoiling of the Church. If that day should come how will the opposing ranks be filled, and in what principles will the defenders of the Church find their inspiration. We are sometimes told that we are defending vested interests and a Government Department. Sir, to some of us it is no question of the defence of a political institution. The Church is of Divine foundation, its system is Divinely ordered, its faith Divinely guarded from corruption or decay. In the Establishment we find the privilege and obligation of a universal duty; in the endowments which the piety of her sons has, in past ages, consecrated to the Divine service we see the guarantee for the independence of her ministers, and for that unfailing service of charity by which far more than this her heritage is given directly to the poor in the relief of ignorance and sorrow, of sickness and of want. In our belief the inheritance of the Church is the most precious possession of the poor. This is not your belief, but it is that which I share with millions of my fellow-countrymen. Many of those are to be found in the ranks of the Liberal Party; many who, in presence of such considerations as these, will refuse to join in a policy of destruction. But these will not be all. There will, I believe, be with us many who do not share in this belief, do not approve the system of the Church, and do not profess her creed, but who accept as their rule of political conduct something better than the party expediency of the moment. What, Sir, is the characteristic of the higher statesmanship of the day? It is that the principle that the welfare of the people is the supreme law is becoming more and more the rule of our legislation, and of all the activities of our public life. And this other truth we ought to have learned, that the welfare of the people does not mainly depend upon forms of Government, or the arrangement of political privileges, or even on the distribution of the national wealth. It depends on the character of the people. Who will deny that the teaching of the National Church is one of the most potent of all the influences which form and elevate the national character. Fixed in a pure and manly faith, secured by the very conditions of its establishment from the spasmodic extravagances of religious fervour, and the more permanent danger of priestly domination, it is the strongest of all existing forces to strengthen and refine the spirit of our people, and to teach them that in the fulfilment of Christian duty lies the only hope of protecting our social life from the extremes of a cynical selfishness on the one hand, and on the other from the vagaries of a fantastic and predatory socialism. Sir, we of the Tory Party gladly and gratefully accept the honourable duty of standing foremost in this cause. But we believe that as the years go by there will come to our side more and more of those who place the national welfare above the ties of a political combination, and will claim to share with us the patriotic work of guarding the inseparable interests of the Church and the people.

I have listened, and I am sure the House has listened, with interest and admiration to the ingenious and eloquent address of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I admired his speech in many respects and not least in this, that it was so very skilful and successful in diverting attention from the points of the case which are most vital, and dwelling at length on propositions which none of us dispute, and introducing matter entirely irrelevant to the case. The Solicitor General began by the artifice familiar to hon. Gentlemen opposite—that is quoting and dilating upon dicta, which have fallen in the course of his long life from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian. But the hon. and learned Gentleman improved upon former examples by quoting from the right hon. Gentleman when he was not present to correct the twistings and dislocations from their context of the extracts which he used. Now, Sir, it seems to me that the census statistics which always form a large feature in these Debates may well be left to be dealt with by the Welsh Members. The figures however of the Solicitor General deserve a little notice. He claimed that all who were not proved to be Nonconformists must be assumed to be members of the Church of England. It seems to me that those in Wales in whom the spirit, life and convictions of religion is doing work, attach themselves to the Nonconformists, and only in small proportions to the Church of England. The Solicitor General went on to a more questionable view. He made it apparently ground of accusation against the Nonconformist body that they were so poor as not to be able to have separate and settled ministers for each of their churches. I have thought that was rather a testimony to the fervent attachment of the Nonconformists in Wales to their clergy and churches, when they come to those churches in spite of the comparatively scant ministrations which are offered to them, and when with all their poverty the Nonconformist Churches are able to take a firmer hold on the attachment and attendance of the people than the Church of England, with all her appliances, can do. The Solicitor General went a step further, and in reply to a reference to St. Paul he observed that St. Paul would probably have done much better if he had had nothing but preaching to do. Well, that is a moral to most of us. I think the Nonconformist ministers will be satisfied if nothing worse than that can be said of them, that they followed in the steps of St. Paul—only that the Solicitor General thinks St. Paul was only a moderate success, and that much more would have been accomplished if St. Paul had been a preacher and nothing else. Sir, I must say I was struck by a certain amount of unreality in the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He has dealt with this matter as if he were pleading a cause in those Courts which his eloquence adorns. He has attempted to divert the minds of hon. Members from the real issue, as he did in the case of those other clients whose claims he advocated with so much zeal, when the question of licensing compensation was before the House. He gives us forensic arguments based upon the alleged inaccuracy of certain statistics alleged to be inaccurate. He assumes that Members of this House are not to know anything more about Wales than can be learned from evidence that can be called and cross-examined upon in Court, or from statements made by witnesses upon affidavit. Anyone who approaches this question in the spirit of a practical statesman would have given the House the credit of knowing that the majority of the people of Wales are Nonconformist. Be the figures three-fourths to one-fourth, four-fifths to one-fifth, or five-sixths to one-sixth—all these estimates are made—the plain and broad fact stands out, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian has said, that the Church of England in Wales is the Church not only of the rich but of the small minority, We have here a comparatively simple case to deal with. It is not a question of Establishment generally, but a very special and peculiar case that ought to be tried on its own merits. It is the case of an Established Church with every advantage, with undisputed possession, with a great line of ancient tradition behind it—because the Church in Wales is the legitimate historical succession to the Church of St. David—it is the case of an Established Church with all these advantages that has completely failed to make herself a National Church. It is, moreover, a conspicuous instance of failure, because in Wales those conditions for which Established Churches are supposed to be specially needed and to have a special chance of success, have been abundantly prevalent. It is constantly claimed for a National Church that it ought to draw in, and embody and give visible shape to the natural feelings of the people, that it ought to be in accord with their traditions, supported by their sentiment and affection, and be able to give shape to their natural life. It was also claimed by the Solicitor General with great eloquence that the Established Church ought to be the church of the poor; that it is her special mission and function to take the poor under her protection, and do for them what they are unable to do for themselves. In Wales the Church has had a great and effectual door open to her in these respects. The Welsh are a religious people. Their religion is more constant and devout than that of any other people in these realms. They are a patriotic people and devoted to their national language, their ancient songs, their national traditions. Wales is a poor country. It is much poorer in proportion to its number than England; and yet in both of these respects—as regards her national character and her hold upon the poor—the Church of England in Wales has been a most conspicuous failure. All the national life of the Established Church, all the religious fervour, has gone out into the Nonconformist bodies. I do not say all the people have gone, but I say that the passion, the fervour, the ardour of religion, the attachment to the Welsh language, to Welsh history, and to Welsh nationality, have gone to the Nonconformists; and the masses have drifted away from the Established Church, leaving it the Church of the rich and not of the poor, the Church of the few and not of the many. Why? Because the Church is established; because it has the organisation of an Established Church. That happens because the Church being endowed and having benefices, the people saw her wealth and her benefices despoiled for the benefit of England. That process began early in the history of Wales when the tithes of the South Wales Churches were taken away and given to the Abbeys of Gloucester and Tewkesbury. It is because the Church has been an Endowed Church that those misfortunes mentioned in early history have befallen her. The fact that it is the Church of the rich, a Church which does not look for, and does not depend upon, the contributions of the poor, which does not possess the obvious motive of going to the poor and associating itself with the life of the poor—it is that which made it sink into the lethargy of the last century and caused the people to drift into the hands of the Nonconformists. I do not think the fact was put too strongly by John Bright when he used these striking words:—

"It is the Establishment that has killed the Church in Wales."

That is the case we present to the House, and it is a case which the Solicitor General has not answered. It cannot be said that religion would languish without the Established Church because with the Established Church it has languished. It cannot be said that the Established Church if disestablished and disendowed will not be able to support its religious ministrations, because it has a very strong claim upon the superabundant wealth of the people of England. It cannot be said in defence of the continued existence of the Church that it is justified because of the necessity of maintaining an educated clergy in every parish; because, Sir—thanks to the opening of the Universities of Oxford and of Cambridge—there are now in the Nonconformist Churches, and particularly among the younger men, those who can hold their own in education and intelligence with the parsons of the Church. It was said by a former dignitary of the Church:—

"There were educated men, but they could not speak Welsh; there were men who could speak Welsh, but they were not educated. The educated men could not speak to the people; those who could speak to them had nothing to tell them."

The reason the Solicitor General gave us why the Church of England in Wales should be allowed to hold its own against the wishes of the great majority of the people was that it is improving. I admit that gladly and heartily. I do not think it is denied by any on this side of the House. I have the pleasure of knowing many clergymen of the Established Church in Wales, and I know that many of them are men of the highest character and attainments, and of the strongest devotion to their duties. But I have always felt that they are in a very painful and even in a very false position. They are put out of touch with the sentiments of the people; they are forced into an attitude of proselytism, obliged to make themselves the agents, whether they liked it or not, of the proselytising spirit that is now so active in Wales, and forced into that very position to which the Solicitor General made reference, that against their will they are made political partisans. Their idea of their loyalty to their Church requires them to take part in political agitation on their own behalf, and forces them into opposition, not only to their nonconforming brethren, but to a great many of those among whom they live. It is from that we desire to relieve them, and if hon. Members opposite knew as much about Wales and her clergymen as I do, having travelled all over the country in the course of my duties connected with a public mission, they would know that these difficulties were very pressing and very painful to some of the best and wisest men of the Church in Wales. There is another observation which must rise in every man's mind when he hears the improvement of the Church in Wales referred to. Institutions have gone on improving just as the hand of the reformer was upon them. No institution ever was at its worst when it was reformed. That is only natural, and it arose not because the institution began to improve when threatened, not alone because of the spirit which works outside for a drastic and speedy reform, but also because there is a spirit work which works inside for a softer and milder reform in the essence of the institution itself. Let me mention a couple of cases. When the Bastille was taken there were found very few prisoners in it. It was not taken at the time when the real grievances existed, but at a time when the improving influences had been at work. I need not remind the House that the Established Church in Ireland at the time of its disestablishment had been improving in every respect—in the character of its ministers, in the attachment of those who belong to it, in its relations with the people. I do not think, therefore, that the House need be surprised that the Church is improving in view of the prospect that lies before it of a drastic reform. Sir, I protest against the language used by the Solicitor General when he asked us not to destroy this edifice. We propose to relieve the Church from an indefensible position, to set it free from the trammels in which it is now bound. We propose to give it a far stronger claim upon the liberality and attachment of its people than what it can have as an established and endowed Church. We believe that the success it has attained of late years, and the increase of attachment to it on the part of the people, have been gained not so much by it as a State Church, but by it in the very measureable proportion in which it becomes a voluntary Church. It is because it has had not to rely upon its endowments, but because it has had to appeal to the liberality and attachment of its non-adherents, that it is more prosperous than it was before. We think a little more of this kind of influence will do it still more good. We believe that when it is thrown entirely upon its own resources it will rise to the strength that it has not yet attained, and will fulful better than ever those purposes for which it exists. It raises very large sums already. It can raise still larger ones. The sums it has raised are small in proportion to the wealth of its adherents, to those which are raised by the nonconforming bodies. Now, there is one other argument which I know is always dwelt on in this case. The Solicitor General did not, except in passing, advert to it. It is the argument that the Church in Wales is one with the Church in England. He did advert in one point to that argument, because near the beginning of his speech he referred to what he called "the craze of separatism which seems to have seized upon a Political Party in this country." He attributed the desire for disestablishment in Wales to what he called this "craze of separatism," by which I suppose he intended to describe the desire of any people or race, or nation within these realms to have such legislation as they desire, and suited to their own needs. Now I am not going to argue the question whether Wales is a nation, but I will say there are present in Wales—and no man with open eyes can deny it—conditions and circumstances which make it so unlike England that it ought to be dealt with differently from England. Before I part from that word "separation," I should like to remind the Solicitor General as to who it was who first broached this doctrine of separation, as he called it, with reference to Established Churches. We do not claim, Mr. Speaker, what may be called the patent of that view—that the question of an Established Church in one part of these islands should be dealt with according to the wishes of the people inhabiting that part of the country. That doctrine was first laid down by a noble Lord who used to lead one section in this House, and who was at that time the Leader of the Liberal Party—the noble Lord who is now the Duke of Devonshire. Speaking in Scotland, he laid down the proposition that the wishes of the people of Scotland ought to be conclusive as to the establishment or non-establishment of the Church of Scotland. He declared that it was for the Scottish people to say whether they wished that Church to be established or not. It is upon the basis of that doctrine that my hon. Friends proceed when they say that the wishes of the Welsh people ought similarly to be accepted as conclusive with regard to the existence of the Establishment in Wales. I know it will be said that the Church in Wales is one with the Church in England, and that it must be defended for the sake of the Church in England. What does this mean? If the Established Church in Wales were a church distinct from the Church in England; if it were another religious body altogether, and if three-fourths of the people of these islands were opposed to it, and did not belong to it, would he still contend that it ought to remain as an Establishment? Clearly not. Suppose that the Church being one with the Church of England, should nevertheless exist in a separate island, would it be contended, with the precedent set in the case of Ireland, that it should remain established only because it is part of the Church of England? We arrive, therefore, at this conclusion, that the church establishment in Wales is to be maintained because it is one with the Church of England, and because Wales is contiguous by land with England, adjoining England, and on the land frontier, instead of lying by itself in the sea. Therefore the argument which the Tory Party and the Solicitor General are obliged to put to the Welsh people is this. You are to continue to acquiesce in an Establishment which three-fourths of your people reject and which nine-tenths of your Members reject— because I believe that the division of Welsh Members at present is 27 to 3. You are to continue to maintain this Church, which you hold to be a grievance, for the sake of England, because it is one with the Church of England and because some injury will be inflicted upon England and the Church of England on cutting away this Welsh Church. I think that is an argument which the people of Wales will be very slow to accept. They will say, why should we be sacrificed for England? I do not claim that for every purpose Wales should be considered as a distinct country, but I do claim that for many purposes Wales is so distinct a country that it ought to receive special treatment. You, yourselves, have admitted it in your Acts, which are intended for Wales alone, because you felt that the condition of Wales and the wishes of the people were special elements in the question. I say no man can go into Wales without feeling, not only in the language, but also in the character of the people, and in their social and economical conditions, that there are many facts which suggest independent legislation for them. The Welsh people at any rate feel as a nation. No one who knows the Welsh can doubt that the pulse of national life beats very strong in the veins of the people. I think the only effect of the continued denial of the claims of the people of Wales for legislation, which they desire to have, will be to intensify what you call the separatist and distinct feeling, and to strengthen the cry for Home Rule. If now, you adopt the prudent policy of making timely concessions to Wales, you would appease those demands and reduce the claims which they make to a compass in which you would find nothing to object to. But if you insist upon flouting and disregarding their wishes you will increase the demand for separatist government, and you will heap faggots upon the fire of Home Rule. I have only one word more to say on the effect of this policy on the Church of England. You say the Church must be defended because she is one with the Church of England. That was said in 1868 and 1869, in regard to the Church in Ireland, which was united by a Statute, and a very solemn Statute to the Church of England. Such arguments were used with far more force then, because it was alleged that the process must go on at once in England. Nobody I suppose on the opposite Benches would now propose to re-establish on a Protestant basis the Church in Ireland. Nobody wiil deny that the Church is not weaker than it was in 1869. I believe myself she is far more defensible than when linked to an altogether indefensible sister church. So will it be now if Disestablishment is carried out for Wales. There is a metaphor which I notice is generally used by those who support the Church in such a Debate as this. It was used last year:—

"The Established Church in Wales is an outwork of the Church of England, and an outwork which must be defended."

This metaphor, I know, has had considerable influence on people's minds. I would like to observe there is such a thing in war as an indefensible outwork, there is such a thing as an outwork from which a prudent general retires, because he knows that he cannot permanently hold it, because he knows that it weakens his forces and his position as a whole. If that be the case of the Established Church in Wales, I believe that the sooner the Church of England retires from it the stronger will she be within her own walls. This question of Established Churches is not a new matter. An attempt has twice been made to force Established Churches upon nations which did not wish to have them—once in Scotland, and once in Ireland. Do you suppose that now in times which are more peaceful, but in times which are much more democratic, and when the wishes of the Representatives of the people are admitted to be conclusive, you can permanently deny this demand of the Welsh people. I do not know what hon. Members opposite will think, but I would remind them of the proverb, which says that even an opponent may say that which is true. And I would venture to say that the state of matters in Wales is such, that for the sake of the peace and good feeling of the Church, not less than respect for the wishes of the people of Wales, the Tory Party ought to retire from their position as to the Church in Wales as soon as they possibly can.

I do not wish to intervene for any lengthened time in this Debate. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has dwelt very forcibly upon the idea that we are here to disestablish the Welsh Church in order to strengthen the Church in England. Now, I want to know—we all want to know—how far that is the opinion of hon. Members sitting on that side of the House—how far does it accord with the view of the Liberation Society and all its agents who were working for the disestablishment of the Church in Wales? I am sure the hon. Gentleman and those who sit with him, and behind him, will not desire to put forth arguments in favour of the Resolution upon any false pretences, but certainly, if we may assume that he is speaking for the Party upon his side of the House, who are in favour of this Motion, a new development has taken place in the discussion this evening, and we shall now be able to quote the hon. Gentleman, believing that he represents his Party, and the statement that the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales is only asked for by them in order that it may strengthen the establishment in England.

The hon. Member will perhaps permit me to state that I did not say anything of the kind. I said nothing about the motive we had in asking for it, or rather I said the motive we had in asking for it was a totally different thing, but I pointed out to hon. Members opposite, who are legitimately interested in the Church of England that it would not weaken her.

I am glad the hon. Gentleman has got up, because it is important to have the matter clear. At the same time, the effect of the statement made by the hon. Gentleman in his speech indubitably and clearly was that Disestablishment of the Church in Wales would greatly strengthen—that is the hon. Gentleman's word—the Establishment in England, and it is certainly a legitimate conclusion to draw from his words. This Resolution was-put down on the Paper to apply only to Wales, but was there no sinister motive for inserting the wedge of a larger measure of Disestablishment in England? It is important, I think, to understand that. Now, Sir, it is a little singular, after the very eloquent speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Gladstone), whose absence. I am sure we all regret to-night—after his strong statements, some of which were quoted by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General in his eloquent speech to-night, condemning, the terms of the Resolution, that that Resolution should appear again in the same terms this year. The Resolution proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Flintshire states—

"That as the Church of England in Wales has failed to fulfil its professed object as a means of promoting the religious interests of the Welsh people."

The hon. Gentleman opposite objects to having his Leader, in his absence, inconveniently quoted; but, on the other hand, I may say, in passing, he did not object to quote the Duke of Devonshire on a point to which there may have been, I think, some reply, because it was distinctly taken out of its context; but there can be no mistaking the language of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian. It is emphatic; and every sentence can be taken collectively or separately. One quotation was made by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General on the subject. I can give another, in which the right hon. Gentleman said—

"The efforts and exertions of the Church in Wales now and for a good many years, and the growing and increasing efforts, are such as do, in my opinion great credit, both to the clergy and the laity of that Church. I render them ungrudging recognition, and I do not think it my duty on this occasion to withhold any portion of the praise which is justly their due."

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian said a great deal in the same direction, and certainly setting completely at naught the arguments which have been made by my hon. Friend who moved the Resolution, and by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, as to the present condition of the Church in Wales. Then, as to the statistics, both hon. Gentlemen who have spoken wisely avoided going into all the details. I do not propose to go into them either, but I believe there is one thing which has been made perfectly clear, namely, that less than one-half, or at least not more than one-half of the people of Wales are avowed Nonconformists. That, I think, there is no question about. That, I believe, is an admission which was made when my hon. and learned Friend was speaking. It was desired in this House to have a Religious census, but hon. Gentlemen opposite made that impossible, and particularly the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Denbighshire (Mr. G. Osborne Morgan). But immediately after we separated for the Session, amateur censuses were taken all over Wales, and encouraged by the same right hon. Gentleman who refused to have an official census made by the Government.

I did not.

The right hon. Gentleman publicly, by letters and speeches, made it impossible.

I in no way encouraged the taking of these informal censuses.

No; but the right hon. Gentleman has been very prompt in quoting them and using them in his speeches. Therefore, if that is not an equivalent to encouragement, I do not know what is. I will refer to my hon. Friend the Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd-George), and I do so because he has been, as is well known, put forward as a prominent advocate of the Disestablishment question. His views of the principle upon which the claim for Disestablishment is based happen to differ very much from those put forward to-night, and he is supposed to represent, at all events, a considerable section of the Disestablishment party in Wales. When speaking the other day, he threw overboard altogether the issue of religious equality and Church freedom, upon which alone the claim for Disestablishment has been made here to-night, and based the claim for Disestablishment in Wales wholly upon Welsh national grounds. It is quite open to the hon. Gentleman to base it upon that ground or any other, but it is right to show to the House that the claim made by hon. Gentlemen who have spoken to-night, namely, that it is based upon the cause of religious freedom, is not accepted by others who are advocating Disestablishment. The hon. Member went on to say, and in the same speech—

"We have to consider the English Constituencies, and that, unfortunately, there are still a few Liberal politicians who regard religious equality as good enough for Irishmen and Welshmen, but utterly inapplicable to their own countrymen; and the significance of Welsh disestablishment would lie in the fact that it was the first great political measure recognising the separate national existence of Wales."

I quote from the hon. Member's speech, which is one of several utterances making for the same line of thought and argument, to show that behind this effort at Disestablishment there is a great deal more than this question of religious equality and Church freedom. In Wales, the advocates of Disestablishment—and I do not think anyone will say that I do not have some knowledge of the Principality—may be divided into two sections, one honestly against Disestablishment as a principle, and whose views we must all respect, and another section who use the question as a political stalking horse of agitation. I have more respect for the former than I have for the latter. Then again, one of the conspicuous arguments in favour of the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church was that it was an alien church, but this also has been effectively answered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, who said—"We may really speak with as much justice of the Church of Wales in England as of the Church of England in Wales." Yet these strong assertions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian continue to be absolutely ignored in the speeches we have just heard from the other side to-night, and on every occasion absolutely and unequivocally by the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs and other sin their speeches out of doors. This alien question has become a standing word in the Radical vocabulary as applicable to other interests, but they are not the best friends of Wales, who, in advo- cating the Disestablishment of the Church, ignored the English population, who were more and more attracted to the Principality, and contributed to our prosperity and our interest. No part of this country is more loyal, I venture to say, than the Principality of Wales, yet this alien question is carried beyond the limits of anything like Welsh nationality. I will give an illustration of the way in which the alien policy is used. When the touching letter of Her Majesty thanking her people for the sympathy given to her on the death of the Duke of Clarence, the newspaper with which the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs is closely connected—which indeed is known practically as his newspaper—had no better commentary to offer on that letter of the Queen than to say—

"that Wales does not waste any love on Royalty;"

and speaking of the Royal Family added:—

"If they were swept back again to their own German Fatherland they never would be missed. Wales is intensely Republican."

Happily such words have, no echo in the heart of the large majority of the Welsh people, but are confined to a small section, and that section those who put forward this alien policy as against the Church. The founders of Methodism in Wales, to whom reference has been made, always spoke well of the Church, and deprecated any schism. As to proselytism, a member of any denomination is only performing his duty in endeavouring, by proper means, to attach others to his Church; and if that be so, I hope the Church in Wales will continue to be a proselytising Church. But when the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs spoke of it as proselytising by means of the pewter pot, I think that is an insult to the whole Nonconformist body which they must resent. Out of doors hon. Members use language which is anything but temperate, and on occasions extravagant and violent. By so doing, they provoke a temporary cheer, but revolt the good feeling of both Churchmen and Nonconformists. I have extracts here from Welsh newspapers which indicate that the sense of the country is strongly against these violent declarations of the organs of the opposite Party. There is no reason why we should not import some spirit of Christian unity and charity into the discussion of a measure so important as this. I must notice the absence of any reference to Disendowment in the Resolution before the House. Disendowment is the fascinating allurement dangled before the people of Wales by hon. Members responsible for this Resolution, yet it is not uttered in this House when, from time to time, Resolutions of this character are brought forward. In Wales that was felt to be the most important consideration, and the principle of Disestablishment was to a great extent thrown aside for it. I am of opinion that we should arrive at a better understanding of this question if it came before the House in the shape of a Bill which, by its details, would show us what was really meant. Not a few Members opposite are opposed to Disestablishment for England. They at least should give their votes against Disestablishment in Wales, for Welsh Disestablishment is avowedly used outside the House with a view to promoting the Disestablishment of the Church in England. However much we may differ upon this subject, there surely should be a way of discussing it in a serious and Christian-like spirit, and I trust that the question will be discussed on its merits, and that the real significance of this Resolution will not be misunderstood by hon. Gentlemen who say they, are opposed to Disestablishment.

I wish to point out that the Church of England in Wales has failed, in the terms of the Resolution, to fulfil its professed object as a means of promoting the religious interests of the Welsh people. The Solicitor General and most of the speakers on the other side seem to have relied for most of their arguments against the Resolution upon a recently published article upon what was called the "Phenomenal Advance" which the Church had made in Wales during the last 20 years. It appears that between the years 1841 and 1886, in the Diocese of St. David's alone, non-resident incumbents were reduced from 74 to 7; in the Diocese of Llandaff from 137 to 5; and it is adduced as an argument to show that the Church of England has made an attempt to do its duty in recent years, that in 1841 there were 174 incumbents in one diocese in Wales who were not Welsh-speaking. It is quite true that great changes have been made, for since 1864 the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty have contributed £200,000 towards this work of propagandism in Wales, and all this effort has been directed, with unfailing energy and persistency, to the desperate attempt of propping up the Church in Wales. I do not dispute that the Church by a voluntary effort has done a great deal, and we take it as an axiom that, in proportion to the extent to which a religious body is supported by voluntary effort, it flourishes in its spiritual life. To that extent, I admit there has been a remarkable growth in the Church of England in Wales, but where has it been displayed? The Solicitor General produced statistics with reference to East Wales, and we know that there has been since 1871 an immense increase of population in Glamorganshire, but those people come from England, Scotland, and Ireland, and have brought their religion with them. They are not Welshmen, and naturally the "phenomenal advance" of the Church in Wales has been its growth in our large towns. But if you go to Cardiff, and spend a week there, or go 16 or 17 miles into the Rhondda District, you will find that the overwhelming majority of the Welsh colliers are not only Welsh-speaking but Nonconformist. As to the new churches which have been built, the Dean of Bangor at the Church Congress at Swansea said he did not rely upon figures, but upon the experience of Welsh clergymen, when he said that many of the churches were empty, and five-sixths of the Welsh-speaking nation were outside the Church. It is conclusively shown that all the efforts of the wealthy and all the influence of social position have been brought to bear to increase the number of churches for the benefit of Englishmen, and that they have not benefited the Welsh people at all. To my mind, Mr. Speaker, the saddest part of this long struggle is the bitterness, the class jealousy and hostility, and the feeling of social inequality and injustice, which have been brought about by the continued existence of an Established Church which is the Church of a small ascendant minority. Those small shopkeepers, peasants, and farmers who have built their chapels, and raised £400,000 a year to keep up, very inadequately, the worship after their heart and conscience, see all the wealth, all the social influence used in in favour of this small Church, which is alien in the sense that it is the Church of those who are foreign to the nationality to which we belong. A constant sense of injustice is stamped in the hearts of the Welsh people by seeing this endowed Church supported out of what we maintain is the property of the people, The social disadvantages I will show by an illustration. A farmer's son, who might be a dull and stupid peasant, with just enough in his head to be ordained, directly he becomes a curate, is immediately recognised by the county squire and all the county gentry, and is taken on to a social footing with them all. On the other hand, you may have one of the ablest young men in Wales, who may proceed from an elementary school to the University College and be ordained as a Congregationalist or Baptist, and though he be the brother or cousin of the farmer's son, he would not receive the same social recognition. We want to get rid of this injustice, and to put every religious body in our country on one common footing, without privilege. But I deprecate the suggestion from that side, that in carrying on this great crusade we are actuated by any feelings of bitterness or hostility or dislike to the Established Church. Nothing would be a greater blessing to that Church in Wales than that this great measure of justice should be carried out. If the advice of my hon. Friend is acted on at once, something may be done; but whatever is done by the other side, in a few short months this great question will come to a final issue. We know what the expressed wish of the great majority of the Welsh people, as expressed by their represen- tatives in this House, is, and that cannot and will not be much longer disregarded by the people of England, when once more we have an opportunity of appealing to them, and this great injustice will be done away. In the meantime it is a great trial, but it has done great things for the Welsh people. It has made us feel first of all that we are a people; it has drawn out all our best qualities; it has made us men; it has created in us a sense of justice, and it has brought home to us the conviction that a great people with great religious instincts have a right to choose their own form of worship.

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down says that the great mass of the Welsh people are outside the Established Church. But even if the statistics be true, has he shown that their happiness or prosperity will be in the least degree promoted by the passing of this Resolution? He has given us an illustration of the different social treatment of the curate of the Established Church and the minister of a Nonconformist body. How would Disestablishment cure that? If you were to carry it to-morrow you would still have the titles, bishops, archdeacons, and so on, as you have to-day, and in the same way the English people would form their congregations, and there would still be that sense of social inequality of which you complain, and all that bitterness of feeling which is excited by the fact that the Church of England curate is on good terms with the squire. I think that feeling is fomented by Motions of this kind, which are not directed to any practical good. We know that the property of the Church and charities have been dealt with for a long time by Queen Ann's Bounty, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the Charity Commissioners, and, therefore, I ask what good will be done to any human being by the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in Wales? I do not mean merely material good; but what spiritual, or social, or moral good do you expect from such a Motion as this. The right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Midlothian is apparently not inclined to answer this question. In a letter to-day we learn that he was never in better health and spirits; but we do not find in that letter, what we usually find in such letters, any reasoning as to the utility of this Motion. In what he said at Newcastle we find not one word as to the policy or justice of this measure. He did not venture to say that any good would accrue from Disestablishment; all he has ever said is that a majority, he finds, of the Welsh people ask this, and what a majority asks it is prudent for politicians to give, That is all we can find from the Newcastle programme to the letter of this morning; that is all the encouragement hon. Members opposite get from their leader. We have heard to-day that the Established Church in Wales is forced on the majority of Nonconformists. In what sense is it forced upon them? In what sense is it an impediment to their worship or injurious to them? They are not compelled to contribute to it, nor to go within its walls. They are never attacked by it I assert that no clergyman of the Church of England ever uses language about the Nonconformists of the same nature as they use about the Church of England. Disendowment is, I suppose, included in Disestablishment, the latter being a greater kind of word and less likely to alarm the people of England; and no doubt the principal object is Disendowment. The revenues of the Established Church in Wales are not sufficient for its purposes. It is an active and energetic Church, and is undoubtedly doing much good work there. The hon. Gentleman made a mistake when he said that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had devoted large sums to church building; they have no power to appropriate a single shilling to such an object. The church building has been brought about solely by the zeal and contributions of the members of the Church themselves. On what grounds, then, do you desire to abolish the ministers and deprive them of that property which is insufficient for their purposes? Is it the tithe? It might have been argued at one time that tithe was of the nature of a tax, but the position of hon. Members opposite has been that tithe is property, and nothing else. They desire to have that devoted to some secular or national purpose. When the hon. Member for Midlothian Disestablished the Irish Church the foundation of his scheme was that tithe was property, and it was so treated. If he had treated it in any other way he would have had to remit it, and it would have benefited very much that landed class who were as little in favour of it then as they are now. Is it the buildings you want? It seems to me that the ancient Welsh churches have been restored at great cost, and new ones built by the voluntary efforts of the Churchmen in Wales. Do you propose to take them? If they are not proposed to be taken, what does Disendowment mean except taking away the tithe, which is property used by a large body in Wales, and insufficient for its purposes. Then we get to Disestablishment. There is a disadvantage in a motion of this kind, that it does not state exactly what it means. Arguments have been used as if Establishment meant what it did 100 years ago in this country, and what it means to-day in Spain, Russia, and other continental countries. But surely hon. Members must not forget that Establishment in that sense no longer exists? For two or three generations it has been, in a sense, going; we have had the opening of cemeteries, the abolition of Church rates, and other steps have been taken to remove the sense of inequality and injustice which everybody felt. There is a tendency in hon. Members opposite, and those who speak on behalf of Nonconformists, to forget the enormous advantages they enjoy. They are apt to forget their own property. The Nonconformist Bodies themselves have received the benefit of semi-Establishment. Their chapels are freed from rates and taxes, their charities are also free to be settled for ever. They have other privileges in the exemptions of ministers, and so on. If hon. Members want to know how important these privileges are, let them look at France and other countries on the Continent, and see whether the Churches there would not be pleased and proud to have the rights which are granted to Nonconformists in England and Wales. You have exactly the same rights with regard to your schools as the Church of England has in respect of the education and fee grant. It is put as a great injustice that the Church of England has built more schools than the Nonconformists. That was done by the voluntary contributions of the Church people. There is no fund and no tithe available for the building of schools, and if it be true that education in Wales is monopolised by the Church of England, what does it mean but that the Church people, by their voluntary exertions, have spread a network of schools over Wales; and, if so, that is a great argument in favour of the work and power of that Church in Wales? I really fail to see any good that would be done if the Motion were carried. The Nonconformists would not advance one step towards that social equality—of the want of which you complain, but which laws and statesmen are powerless to give you. The Episcopal Church of Scotland, which has no connection with the State, has all these social advantages, and that sort of respectability and concert with the nobility which so many Nonconformists seem to envy. If a Nonconformist by his ability and good conduct can win a position anywhere he will secnre as much respect as any Vicar of the Church of England. We do not want to take away your Church; we do not want to take away your property and apply it to the purposes of our own Church. You say that you want this Disestablishment in order to satisfy the national sentiments of the Welsh race. This is the sort of fictitious idea, the sort of fantastic idea, that seems to have been encouraged in recent years. We have all heard and know of the different influences which operate upon the history of races. We find in Mr. Buckle's History of Civilization, the differences which time and habit produce in the temper and character of a race. What I call a real difference of race is such a difference as that which exists between people like the Chinese or the Negro and the people of Italy and Sweden; but I think that the difference of race which is spoken of as to Welshmen is absurdly fictitious. I can find in London no difference whatever, either in sentiments or in talents, between the Englishman and the Welshmen, and "Mr. Smith" and "Mr. Brown" are equal in all respects, and in all respects equally treated. The Welshman in London speaks English with equal purity to the Englishman; he speaks it with a purity that we in London might even imitate. We do not sit here as representatives of nationalities. I would remind hon. Members who talk about the opinion of Welsh Members; we sit here by constituencies, and I refuse to recognise any such body as the Welsh nation, or Welsh Members at all. I know what you mean by such terms as "the Member for Glamorganshire " or "the Member for Lancashire"; but I do not understand what you mean, except in a social sense, by "the Welsh Members," or "the Cornish Members."

What about Irish Members?

There comes in a difference. The Welsh Members sit together with the view of giving rise to the belief that there is a sort of Welsh Party. When the Irish Members, who sit behind them, begin to speak, we feel there is a sort of change coming over the House—a sort of sense of relief. There is something about the gentlemen from Ireland that excites interest, and gives rise to cheers, though we do not agree with them; but I confess I am unable to establish or to recognise any difference between the Welsh Members even who sit opposite and the other Members of the House, and I must certainly demur to the notion that there is any difference whatever either in their ideas, or appearance, or manner, or language. I recognise no difference between the Welsh people and the English nation, to which they belong. It is, after all, a very serious and unfortunate movement, and the reason I dislike it is this: that it is an attempt to sow bitterness and bad feeling where it ought not to exist. Why should any minister or Nonconformist have any feeling whatever in regard to the Church of England except a feeling of friendliness, especially when it is not doing him any harm, and does not interfere with him in the work which he is doing in connection with his own Church? The Nonconformist would seem to have this sort of feeling in regard to the Church of England made evident when he gets upon a platform; then the bad spirit comes at once to be realised. I hope that hon. Members from Wales will be able to come to the conclusion that neither Disendowment nor Disestablishment would do any good to them nor to anybody else. I do hope they will not give way to these notions of a separate nationality, which, I am glad to say, no one in England adopts. The Welshman with us is able to assert his rights just as is a native of Lancashire, and he is treated by Englishmen as an Englishman is treated. I hope hon. Members will not dwell upon this separate national sentiment, which is more calculated than anything else to disturb that peace which ensures the prosperity of the nation.

I noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport, who has just spoken, remarked that the question of Disendowment had not been brought before the House on former occasions. There were murmurs of dissent on this side of the House, but I confess that the remarks that have been made have very real force. I am one of those members of the Church of England in Wales who long—for the last few years, at any rate—have supported the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church; and I, and those I have associated with, have supported the Disestablishment of the Church, in the hope that some means might be found to put a stop to the state of social warfare which has been going on in Wales for a considerable time. At the same time, we acknowledged there were immense difficulties in the way; but it was hoped that by moderation these difficulties might have been overcome. In 1885 I certainly, in common with a great many others, pledged myself to vote for the Disestablishment of the Church; but I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport and others who have addressed the House this evening that, at that time, and in the past few years, especially in the Resolutions brought be- fore this House, the question of the Disendowment of the Church has been kept entirely in the background. I am going to show, if the House will bear with me for a short while, why it is that I agree with the hon. Members on this subject. Before I do so, I wish to state that in all the speeches which I have heard there has been simply a cry for equal justice as between Nonconformists and Churchmen. The hon. Member for Merthyr said last year, "What the Welsh Dissenting Body ask for is that those who differ from them in externals should have no privilege." Well, I entirely agree with any protest of that sort. I confess I cannot follow the hon. Member for Glamorganshire with reference to the social distinction made between young clergymen of Lampeter and young Dissenting ministers from the Welsh College; because I have associated and, I am happy to say, I have friends amongst those who are not only clergymen of the Church of England, but ministers of other denominations; they come to my house, and I am always glad to see them. I do not recognise any of these social distinctions; and I do not believe in casting reflections upon gentlemen educated in one college and gentlemen educated in another. But my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire, who was at one time and, so far as I know, still is the Leader, as it is called, of the Welsh Party, said last year—

"We are not covetous of the goods of the Church. All that we ask for is honourable equality before the law for all denominations."

Well, that equality before the law I have always striven for, and shall always do so; and if Disestablishment—that is to say, the severance of the Church in Wales from the State—can bring about that equality before the law, all I can say is that there are numerous gentlemen like myself who will be very ready to see it carried out. But I am sorry to say that that is not in the least what is asked for now. At one time the Members for Wales and my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire refused to associate their cause with the Liberation Society. But we are told dis- tinctly now that the Disestablishment and the Disendowment of the Church in Wales is in sympathy with the Liberation Society in England, and is the first object of the attack on the total Disestablishment of the English Church. Well, I say, as a member of the Church of England, when I am told that fact I draw back and say—this is not what I intended at all; everybody must concede that in Wales the Dissenting community are in a large majority; but, at the same time, I will say that the minority have in all these Debates been treated as if they were merely a minority hardly worth consideration. It is a very remarkable fact—and this has not been stated this evening—that at the Election of 1885 the number of those who voted for Disestablishment was 98,593; and those who voted against it were 67,560, which is showing a ratio of 3 to 2. Well, that is a fact which I confess I consider ought to have some weight when you come to deal with the interest and the property of the minority. We know from the very highest source that the English Church in Wales or the Welsh Church in Wales is in a very flourishing condition. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian tells us that—

"Undoubtedly the Established Church in Wales is an advancing Church, an active Church, a living Church, and I hope very distinctly a rising Church from elevation to elevation."

This is also a remarkable fact. In the Welsh National Quarterly of last July I find this:—

"The Rev. T. Lewis Jones, a Methodist minister and Cambridge Prizeman on the staff of the North Wales University College, referring to this subject set down for the Church Congress, observed 'every honest Nonconformist will acknowledge that a great reformation has taken place within the Established Church in Wales during recent years, and that the Church, especially in the towns, is gaining ground. The best class of Nonconformist were quite prepared to agree with all that Churchmen say touching the revival that exists among them. I say again it would be dishonest on our part, as Nonconformists, to attempt to deny the progress that goes on within the Church these days. A new generation of clergy are able to enter into the life of the nation better than their predecessors. They sympathise with the aspirations of Wales in many directions, and strive their best to drink of the spirit of young Wales."

I allude to this opinion of a Nonconformist minister in the hope that, at any rate, it may lead people to suppose that the Church of England in Wales is deserving of some consideration. It is impossible to ignore the fact that the minority of Churchmen in Wales is not only a powerful one, a numerous one, an increasing one, but also at the present moment that the Church is thriving, and, whether disestablished or not, will in all probability in 25 years become much more powerful. There are abuses in the Church which we acknowledge; but on the other hand, unfortunately, when these matters are brought before this House for reform, instead of lending us a helping hand, we are obstructed and opposed, and we are told not to come here for reform. I want to point out to the House what is actually the idea brought before the population of Wales at the present moment with regard to the disendowment of the Church. In November, 1890, in the Carnarvon Herald, which is a very well-known newspaper and a newspaper which carries a great deal of weight, and I must say, generally speaking, extremely well conducted, this newspaper published a draft Bill. Who drafted the Bill I cannot say. Possibly it may have been drafted by the hon. Member for Carnarvon. I want to point out what were the provisions of this Bill, which was lauded to the skies afterwards, which was criticised by distinguished Nonconformists, and which was called extremely moderate. First of all there was to be a Commission—one Commissioner appointed by the President of the Local Government Board, and one by each of the County and Borough Councils in Wales, making a body of 14. The County Councils, I wish to point out, are very largely composed of Nonconformists, so that the whole of these Commissioners would be Nonconformists; with the exception, possibly, of the one who would be appointed by the President of the Local Government Board. This body was to be called the Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Wales. Each of these Commissioners was to be paid £50 a year. They should have full powers to call witnesses and enforce attendance, and to punish anybody who refused. All the property of the Church, and all in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, besides all in any way belonging or appertaining to any Bishop or Cathedral, was to be vested in that body. All Clerical and Cathedral Corporations in Wales were to be dissolved; all ecclesiastical laws were to cease; the Bishops and clergy were to be paid annuities for life; £25 was to be paid to curates not permanently appointed; compensation was to be made for private patronage. The Church was to be called upon to form itself into a body, to be called the Representative Body, and was to consist of Bishops, clergy, and laity. Well, I now come to the use that this Commission was to be put to. The principal clause is this—

"If any church or chapel be in actual use at the time of the passing of this Act, and if such church or chapel shall have been erected at least 50 years before the passing of this Act; and if the Representative Body shall within six months of the passing of this Act apply to the Commissioners for the use of such church or chapel, the Commissioners may let such church or chapel to the Representative Body on such terms as the Commissioners may fix, provided always that if the Representative Body shall omit to apply to the Commissioners for the use of any such church or chapel as above provided, or shall refuse or neglect to accept the terms fixed by the Commissioners, it shall be lawful for the Commissioners to let any such church or chapel for the purposes of Divine worship, and for no other purposes whatsoever, to any person or persons who shall accept the terms offered by the Commissioners. The Commissioners shall, on the application of the Representative Body, if made within twelve months of the passing of this Act, vest in that body all ecclesiastical residences with garden and curtilage thereto, also all glebe lands, subject to any existing life interests, upon payment to the Commissioners twenty times the amount of the annual value of such ecclesiastical residence and glebe lands."

Now, Sir, it is quite time to hear from these gentlemen some statement as to what they are going to ask Parliament to do. I certainly hope they will repudiate this Draft Bill, and that they will most distinctly point out how far the confiscation of the property of the Church is to go. I have seen announced in a newspaper that the Church is to be stripped of the last rag upon her back. As regards the disposal of the money, first, it is proposed that the money should be applied to education; but education is already provided for in every possible way—higher, middle-class, and elementary. Then it is proposed that professional chairs should be endowed; that a national Academy of Art and Music should be established, and museums erected; that the Eisteddfod should be assisted, and that one or more astronomical observatories should be erected in the Principality. These, we are told, will be the uses to which the money realised from the property of the Church will be put. I can only say that I hope my colleague the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Denbigh will repudiate the scheme in the Carnarvon Herald, and which gave a great shock to those people in Wales who were in favour of a moderate scheme of Disestablishment. So far as I am personally concerned, I regret to be obliged to say this much. I agree that there is a desire on the part of the Welsh people for what they call religious equality; and if that equality can be obtained by Disestablishment, without such predatory means and measures as those which are suggested, I, for one, will continue to support it. But unless I get an assurance that the Church property is not to be confiscated, and the churches which we have built and restored at enormous cost are held sacred, we will have nothing whatever to do with demands so unjust and so iniquitous.

I hope that the modified state of the opinions of my hon. Friend opposite have so permeated those with whom it is his good fortune to act that we shall have the benefit of his vote upon this occasion. The hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Flintshire, says, and it is practically the Preamble of his Resolution, that the Welsh Church has failed in the objects for which it was established, and it is for that reason he advocates Disestablishment. Well, Sir, we have heard that a great many Members are pledged, more especially Members on the other side—Members of the Principality—to the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church. But, Sir, I do think that on an occasion of this sort we were entitled to hear the united voice of Radical Wales on the subject. At any rate, we might have had the so-called Leader of the Welsh Radical Party present on this occasion. I know that he has written from Valescure to say that he trusts the Welsh people will be satisfied with the fact that he is taking care of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian. Nobody wishes better to the Member for Midlothian than I do. I wish him long life. Being a citizen and a denizen of the same county, I am a great admirer of the right hon. Gentleman; but I do not see why the Welsh Radical Leader should be his caretaker. I should have thought the Member for Midlothian was quite capable of taking care of himself. Now, it is said in this Resolution that the Welsh Church has failed in its mission, and ought, therefore, to be disestablished. The Resolution seems to me to convey two alternatives, one of which the hon. Member for Flintshire must accept. One alternative is that the hon. Gentleman who proposed this Motion is in a great hurry to pledge the House to this Resolution, presumably because he is afraid that if the House does not now sanction it that some other and more pressing question, dealing, perhaps, with affairs in Ireland may take precedence in the coming election. My hon. Friend the Member for Flintshire says we must have Disestablishment first and Home Rule afterwards, but if he appeals to some of his friends on the Irish Benches, they will no doubt say we must have Home Rule first and Disestablishment afterwards. That is one alternative. The other alternative is that my hon. Friend is greatly afraid of the progress the Church of England is making in the Principality; and he thinks that if he cannot get this Resolution passed in this House now, he may find it does not occupy the same favourable position hereafter as it does today. Which alternative does the hon. Member accept? Now, what I want to know is whether this is an election cry or a bonâ fide declaration that the Church is not at the present moment fulfilling its duties as I believe it is. There has been a great deal of talk about statistics. I am not very fond of statistics, and I do not believe that this question is going to be settled by statistics. You say the Church does not meet the wants of the people. I venture to say this: the Church of England in Wales cannot be measured by mere statistics; it must be measured by the comfort it has brought to numberless homes in trouble and necessities; in all those things, and on all those occasions in which we look up to religion to guide us. I cannot consent to defend the Church on the ground mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) in a recent letter. That was said to be a very good electioneering letter; from my own knowledge it was an extremely bad one. I would not go to a Nonconformist meeting and say to the people there that they ought to vote for me on the ground that Home Rule would be brought nearer; though the Member for West Birmingham said in the letter which was read at a Conservative meeting that by voting for a Conservative Government Disestablishment would be brought nearer than it would be brought by voting for a Liberal Member. That is not my view. How that letter ever came to be read out at a Conservative meeting is beyond my ken and my comprehension. While I cannot surrender the position of our Church, I grant to all Nonconformist Bodies, in the freest and fullest and the humblest spirit, that they, too, are working along one straight high road which I trust will lead us all to the triumph of religion against infidelity.

I do not propose to characterise the genial speech of the hon. Member for the Denbigh Boroughs, who has just sat down, with that epithet which he seemed to apprehend so much from these Benches. We all appreciate his position, and the straightforwardness with which he has expressed his views, which are certainly not popular in his constituency. But it is with a totally different spirit that we must approach the speech of the hon. Member for West Denbighshire (Colonel Cornwallis-West.) He has told us that though he has voted time after time in favour of the Motion for Disestablishment in Wales, he all along was opposed to any measure for Disendowment. The House can draw its own inference with regard to that admission, when I say it comes contemporaneously with the announcement that the hon. Gentleman does not propose to go for re-election in that constituency. Of this I am quite positive, that the hon. Gentleman was certainly understood by every supporter in that constituency to say he was prepared to vote for Disendowment as well as Disestablishment, and if the hon. Gentleman does not understand that, he displays a woful amount of ignorance of the views of his chief supporters in that constituency. There is one thing that I have observed in the speeches of hon. and right right hon. Members who have supported Establishment in Wales and that is: that though they challenge our statistics, and tell us the Church is making progress, not once have they given us a single figure upon which we could base an estimate of the progress of the Church. Our own figures have been challenged. The Solicitor General, in his exceedingly able and eloquent speech, told us that the Nonconformist denominations publish annual reports, showing the state of their membership, and it is remarkable that though the Nonconformists publish annual statements showing the number of their adherents for public inspection and correction, the Church has not yet thought proper to publish statistics in regard to her condition in Wales. But the Solicitor General challenged us with regard to the census taken by Mr. Gee, a very distinguished journalist and a Liberal leader in Wales. He undertook a census of the attendance at all places of worship in Wales, both Church and Nonconformist. We have been challenged by hon. Members opposite about that census, and I assume therefore, that it is not a census that they consider to be unfavourable to their position. I propose to produce the figures which were obtained by that census, and this is the result. Throughout the whole of North Wales, the aggregate attendance at all the services of the Church of England amounted to something like one-fifth of the aggregate attendance at all places of worship in Wales. In South Wales, the attendance at Church services amounted to one-sixth of what it was at all places of worship. The aggregate attendance at Church Sunday schools in North Wales amounted to one-sixth of that of all Sunday schools throughout the Principality, and the proportion was one-eighth. I should like to point out to the House the method by which the Church went about whipping up an attendance for this particular Sunday. Mr. Gee announced that he proposed on a certain Sunday to count the attendance at the whole of the churches and chapels throughout the Principality. The Church of England used every subterfuge and device—I am sorry to use the phrase, but that is the fact—in order to fill its churches. This sort of thing was done. Those who attended the Welsh service remained for the English service, and those who attended the English came also to the Welsh services. Another thing that was done was this. Where there happened to be three or four churches in any particular town, those who attended the service in one church having been first counted, ran off to the second church, and so on. (Laughter from the Ministerial Benches.) If I am challenged, I can give the very town in which that occurred, and I shall do so. The congregation of a certain church in Bangor, a Cathedral city, having first of all been counted in the church ran off to the Cathedral and were counted twice over. These are really dodges. And yet this was really done in order to swell the attendance and to create a sort of artificial attendance at the churches on that Sunday. Notwithstanding that fact, the Church simply proved that she possessed at the very best only one-tenth of the whole population of the Principality. A reference has also been made to the second census taken by Owen Owen, but though the Solicitor General has been good enough to allude to the first letter in the Times, he has not alluded to the second, and there is this difference. The first letter contains a census of all the towns as well as of the rural districts. That is a very important distinction. In the towns where the Church is prosperous —but that is simply an argument in favour of the voluntary system—the churches are built by voluntary contributions, and are maintained by the contributions of their members and not by tithes. There could not possibly be a stronger argument in favour of our contention. But the point is this. What is the attendance in these rural districts where the Church is most in evidence, where the Church has to rely mainly on the endowments that belong to the nation? The second census throws a considerable light upon that question. A census was taken of the attendance in something like 78 parishes, rural districts in North Wales, and it was discovered that the attendance at any one service throughout the whole of these parishes came to something like 5 to 5½ per cent. of the whole population. I noticed that some of these results were challenged after they were published, and I took the trouble, in these cases, to discover what was the effect of those corrections. In most instances the clergymen who challenged the census contented themselves with saying it was incorrect, but in some of the instances in which the clergymen gave their own figures, we could verify the results, with the outcome that even deducting the figures given by the clergymen themselves, the attendance in the particular towns where the figures were given came to 15 per cent. of the population, and in the rural districts to 6 per cent. of the population. I can give to the House one or two examples of the way in which the Church of England operates in the rural districts of Wales. Not very long ago some Hussars were sent down to collect tithe in a small mountain parish in Flintshire called Llanelly. On the Sunday morning after the visit a census was taken of the attendance at the church in that parish, and though there were 900 people in the parish, the attendance at that church was only seven, yet the people of Llanelly were to be dragooned in order to maintain the religion of something under 1 per cent. of the population of that parish. I could show an instance of a parish better off, where, however, there was a still smaller minority of the population belonging to the Church. Lately the Bishop of St. Asaph, on a Sunday, visited one of the parishes in his diocese. The service was timed in such a way as to allow the members of the Nonconformist chapels to attend if they desired. A good many availed themselves of the opportunity, but the whole congregation, the majority of which was constituted of the members of the contiguous Nonconformist chapels, only amounted to 32; and, in the afternoon, so disastrous was the Bishop's oratory on the congregation, that only 12 attended, and there was no service in the evening. Another instance. Some time during last winter, I think in the Cathedral Church of St. Asaph itself, there was a service, there was a choir, there were two or three other officials—I do not know what they are called—and there was a sermon by the Dean, but the whole congregation only numbered three, and those three had the satisfaction of going home knowing that £30 had been spent for each of them in the service of religion. The condition of things is better in the towns, but that is, after all, simply a proof that the Establishment as such is ruinous to the prospects of the Church in Wales, and that where the Church simply depends on voluntary effort and contributions, there the Church succeeds. We have been told by hon. Members on the other side of the House that the Church is making considerable progress. But it has not been suggested that she is likely to make sufficient progress to convert her minority into a majority.

Yes

I believe an hon. Member says "Yes." Here we have a Nonconformist population. Is it likely that a Nonconformist country is going to abandon her creed for the sake of another? Is there a case on record of a country abandoning its creed until that creed became utterly decayed and worthless? Are there any signs of the decay of Dissent? On the contrary never did Nonconformity show such signs of prosperity in Wales. During the last 20 years the adherents of Nonconformist denominations have increased by something like 50 per cent.; contributions have increased by 75 per cent.; and yet we are told that Wales is on the point of abandoning Nonconformity for the sake of the Church of England. There is another point I wish to call attention to, and it is this. Not only is Nonconformity increasing its numbers, but it is increasing in influence. At the present moment all the most powerful preachers of Wales are ministers of the Nonconformist churches, and really, with the exception of one notable instance, the Church does not possess a single great preacher in the Principality. Nonconformity is interwoven with every fibre of the national existence, and it cannot be eradicated without hopelessly disfiguring the national character. Then what are the means used by the Church in Wales in order to bring about this proselytism? The poor have been plied with alms and the greedy with bribes; the land hunger has been utilised by the preference shown for churchmen as tenants of farms; and society has been open to anybody who could produce a certificate of apostacy; but that sort of thing can never succeed in the country. Eliminate all those whose poverty exceeds their fidelity to the traditions of the Established Church, all those in whom the love of greed exceeds their attachment to their Creed, and still the nation remains; and I say it is absolutely impossible, it is contrary to all precedent and probability that the Church movement can ever succeed in Wales. What are the facts with regard to this Church? Here is a Church that came into Wales with mailed warriors, whose missionaries were the warriors; and it was imposed upon us by the force of arms, and it is at the present moment buttressed up by police truncheons. In the rural districts the Church cannot command more than 5 per cent. of the population, and in the towns it cannot command more than 15 per cent. of the population; and yet this is called the National Church of Wales. It is high time, in the interests of the Church itself, that it should be rescued from such a false position. An hon. Member on the other side of the House told us that this is an agitation which has cropped up within the last three years, and that it would soon pass by. On the contrary, in Wales it is an old struggle. Cen- turies ago Welshmen claimed religious independence and freedom. Their petition was treated as treason, and they were executed as rebels. This is a great fact in Welsh history, and when I am told this is simply an agitation of to-day, I answer by saying "No; it is an agitation which has been going on for generation after generation in Wales." Several attempts have been made to force us into acceptance of this Church. The last resort was the passing of the Tithes Act; but if Welshmen are not to be terrified by the sword of excommunication, are they going to be subdued by County Court summonses? I appeal to Englishmen for the sake of the dignity of their Church, for the sake of the honour of their country, to concede to us this small measure of right which we have so long demanded in Wales.

I think the House will give the hon. Member who has just sat down credit for the boldness he has manifested this evening in reviewing the long since defunct religious census of Mr. Gee. A word or two of explanation as to who and what is Mr. Gee may perhaps be of interest to the House. Mr. Gee is a very estimable gentleman, who combines in his own person multifarious occupations amongst them, I believe, that of preacher, County Councillor, newspaper proprietor, and editor, and generally the chief priest of the Liberation Society in North Wales. Some years ago, Mr. Gee, being not only an enthusiastic Liberationist, but also a very ardent practical journalist, undertook to gather for publication in the columns of his paper, an unofficial amateur census of the attendances at certain churches and chapels on a certain day; and he undertook by the results of that enumeration to prove the Church to be in a pitiable minority in Wales, and Nonconformity in a superior position. He chose his own day and his own enumerators; and the mode of enumeration adopted was entirely his own; and whereas very full and sufficient notice was given to those religious bodies who are supposed to be friendly to Mr. Gee's views, in a great many cases no notice whatever was given to the clergy or church-going people. By such a census as that no reasonable body of people would expect to be bound. Yet it is only in the most casual and fragmentary fashion that we have been able to secure Mr. Gee's returns, which, for the most part, remain in the pigeon-holes of Mr. Gee's office at Denbigh. We church people, while very properly declining to be bound by an unofficial amateur census of this kind, are quite prepared to submit the immediate matter before us to the arbitrament of a fair and impartial census taken, not by partisans for political purposes, but by cool, impartial officials whose business it is to arrive at conclusions without reference to this party or that. But it is notorious that any proposals of that kind are always strenuously opposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The year before last, when the Census Bill was passing through Committee of this House, an hon. Member made an attempt to secure the insertion of a clause which would provide for a religious census in England and Wales. A number of Gentlemen on this side went into the Lobby with the hon. Member, but hon. Members opposite repudiated any such proposal and thus furnished one more illustration of the unwillingness of their Party to submit these matters to the arbitrament of an official census. The hon. Member for Carnarvon asked whether it was likely that the Nonconformists of Wales would abandon their own Creed and come over to what, I suppose, he would describe as an "alien Church?" My answer to that is, in the first place, whether the hon. Member and his friends like it or not, admit it they must, that of late years there has been a steadily increasing leakage from Nonconformity to the National Church. (Opposition cries of "No, no.") Hon. Members may murmur, but those murmurs do not alter the steady flow towards the Church in Wales. That flow is attested by the Confirmation returns, and by the various other records and statistics which the Bishops and other officials in Wales have at hand; and I confess I could wish for nothing better than that this steady flow, which has been very much larger in Wales than in England in proportion to the population, should be continued at the same ratio for another generation, by which time we would be perfectly secure, so far as the Church in Wales is concerned; by which time the representation of Wales would be changed in this House; and the predominance of the Church would be unquestioned. Then it is asked if the Nonconformists in Wales are likely to abandon their own Creed? But what is the Creed of Welsh Nonconformity? The Creed of the Church of England, I know. The Creed of any Nonconformist body is an unknown quantity, except in so far as Nonconformist bodies have adopted the Creed of the Church of England, and this has been done by the principal Nonconformist body in Wales—the Calvinistic Methodists. If hon. Gentlemen will examine the poll deed of the Calvinistic Methodists, dated 10th August 1826, they will find it is provided that this body was formed by the clergy and laity of the Church; that it is bound to teach and hold all the articles of the Church of England in the Calvinistic sense, and the Apostles' Creed. I now pass on to complain of the constant persistent, unswerving, and unscrupulous misrepresentation to which the Church in Wales is subjected by hon. Members opposite, and by their friends. The hon. Member for Carnarvon made a charge in connection with the recent Church Congress at Rhyl. He made a deliberate charge against the Church Congress Committee that they had made a profit by the sale of intoxicating liquor in the Congress grounds. That charge was entirely unfounded and was made to discredit the Church in Wales. Even when the report was contradicted the hon. Member stuck to his guns and repeated the charge, knowing that if a lie is given 48 hours' start it is a matter of impossibility to overtake it. It was not until the hon. Member was shown that no license was held by the Congress Committee, and that neither directly nor indirectly were the Congress Authorities responsible for the sale of liquors, that he expressed his regret that he had made a mistake.

At the Rhyl County Court a Member of the Church Congress Committee was held to be an agent.

Does that imply that the hon. Member still makes the charge?

Hear, hear.

I can only meet the charge with a most uncompromising denial. The hon. Member for Merioneth, speaking at Bangor, inaccurately stated the amount received by the clergy from tithes in Wales. The hon. Member has stated the total rent charge was £304,000, but it was only £231,500. Taking the depreciation of the value of tithe property, the whole amount received was only £118,000 a year.

My figures were taken from the Tithe Commutation Returns of 1888, and I should like to know where the hon. Member's figures are from?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the figures I have quoted are correct as to the value of tithes in Wales.

Where are the figures from?

The sources of information from which I have taken my figures are open to hon. Gentlemen opposite. There is great misrepresentation on this matter, and the grossest and most atrocious misstatements are made by the Welsh vernacular Press. The head and front of this agitation against the Church in Wales is to be found in the Welsh vernacular Press, which is edited, written, and officered by some Nonconformist preachers of the baser sort. I hold in my hand a translation of some verses which appeared in a Welsh newspaper only last week, and they will show the misrepresentation to which the Church in Wales is subjected by Welsh vernacular journalists.

Read the vernacular.

I am sorry that I cannot oblige the hon. Member. Here lies one of our greatest difficulties in running down these journalistic atrocities, because I am informed by those who have a knowledge of the Welsh language that it is possible for words in Welsh to convey meanings far more extravagant, extreme, and bitter, than those contained in the English language. To show the extreme bitterness of the Welsh vernacular Press towards the Church in Wales, I may state that the following verse is said to be recited in Yorkshire National Schools:—

"I'm not a little Protestant,

As some would have me say;

I'm not a little Romanist,

So call me what you may.

First to confession I must go,

To tell out all my shame,

My list of sins all one by one,

In penitence must name."

Would the hon. Member kindly inform the House who the talented translator may be?

I am not in a position to do that, but I shall he happy if the hon. Member doubts the translation to give him a copy of the original. I can only say that I hold in my hand letters from the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Ripon, and the Bishop of Wakefield, and other representatives of the Episcopal Bench in Yorkshire, together with the Diocesan Inspector, entirely repudiating in the most positive terms that any such verse was ever in use in any of the National Schools of Yorkshire. The whole thing is a mere fabrication, and manufactured for political purposes by the vernacular press of Wales. A population which is led by such leaders and instructed by such teachers is one which needs the pity of every intelligent and right-minded person. In another paper there is the story of how, in a rural parish in Wales, there was a school controlled by the rector and the squire, nine out of every ten of the children attending which were Nonconformists. On one occasion the rector told all the children that all those above a certain age who would learn a certain rhyme would be taken for an outing on a certain date. On that date they were taken out, met a lot more children, and then were taken into a church and Confirmed. The writer, of course, takes the most perfect pains to conceal the identity of this impossible rector, and I have no hesitation in calling it a fabrication from beginning to end; and it is by such fabrications and downright lying that the cause of Disestablishment is supported. At a certain meeting at the Memorial Hall, London, called the "smock frock farce," where managers, lawyers, schoolmasters, and preachers, masqueraded as agricultural labourers, a certain Mr. Bowen Rowlands, not the hon. Member of this House, said that in a certain case there were five churches close together, and a man went down to take a census of the communicants. There were a number at the first church, and when the man had left they were marched to the next, and so on, so that each of them were, for the purpose of the census, magnified into five communicants. Mr. Rowlands has been asked, again and again, for chapter and verse, but has taken care to maintain an impassive silence, which, under the circumstances, is the best possible thing for the credibility of that gentleman. I need not give more illustrations to show that this agitation against the Church in Wales is a manufactured agitation, born largely of political spite and class animosity, and that the agitafion is carried on by the most unworthy weapons of slander, misrepresentation, and downright falsehoods, and I would strongly urge the House not to accept the stories which appear in the newspapers as indicative of the state of things in Wales, for in 95 cases out of 100 they are fabrications, and in the other five they are distortions of actual facts. What good do hon. Gentlemen opposite propose to do the Principality by prolonging the agitation? During this Debate of five hours I have failed to observe the least attempt on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite to give any definition of what they mean by Disestablishment and Disendowment. What kind of Disestablishment do you mean? Such as you had in Ireland? The hon. Member for Carnarvon makes a negative sign at that; he is consistent. At the great meeting at Pontypridd, at which the great Liberal Federation was inaugurated, he said, speaking of the Irish Disestablishment:—

"He would prefer waiting for ten years rather than have such a Bill for Wales. The more agitation they kept up in Wales the better would be the terms of the Disestablishment Bill Parliament would give them."

Many people are deluded into the belief that Disestablishment in England and Wales would mean a repetition of that in Ireland, but those who hold that view will scarcely be prepared for the admission of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that it is a much more drastic measure that they mean. In Ireland the vested interests of the clergy and dignitaries of the Church were respected, and they were permitted to retain possession of their cathedrals and parish churches. Do you propose to go further than that in Wales? Do you propose to disendow or secularise the cathedrals and parish churches? Hon. Gentlemen opposite are very chary about announcing their exact intentions on that point. We know very well that the Radical programme before the General Election of 1885 adopted the scheme of the Liberation Society, which stated that all cathedrals and ancient parish churches in England and Wales should be handed over to Local Boards for absolutely secular purposes or sale. Will you go to the constituencies and tell them that you propose to give to the clergy far harder terms of settlement than in Ireland; that you propose to secularise every stone and timber in their cathedrals and churches? Will right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite thank you for it, and adopt it? Are they, on the eve of a General Election, prepared to repeat the experience of 1885? If you are honest, you will lay frankly before the House what you mean by Disestablishment and Disendowment, and no longer conceal your opinion by soft phrases, and wrap up your desires in smooth generalities. Let us know what proposals we have to fight, then we will fight you—not only on the floor of this House, but in the constituencies; and we wish for no better cry with which to go to the country. I think this must not be separated from the concurrent case of the Church in England. There are not two Churches, but one Church, and that which aims a blow at one aims disaster and danger at the other. As the Church is one in Wales and England, so shall its cause be one in this House, or out of it, and for that reason we on this side, with many allies, I hope, on the other side, go into the Division Lobby to vote against the proposal of the hon. Member for Flintshire.

I will not follow the hon. Member who has just spoken into the newspaper extracts which he has read to the House, for I cannot possibly believe, admitting that the extracts are strictly accurate, that the claims of a nation to justice ought to be refused because two or three journalists have been guilty of want of taste. I was a little startled at the beginning of the Debate by the uncompromising tone of hostility which the Solicitor General took up, for I could not help thinking of a letter written by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham to my constituents, advising them, if they wanted Disestablishment not to vote for me, but to vote for the Party opposite. I thought some sort of concordat had been arranged between the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to look at this question on somewhat broader lines. Now we have had several remarkable occurrences during this Debate, and perhaps the most remarkable has been the fact that, for the first time for 22 years, a Welsh Conservative Member—there are not many of them—raised his voice in defence of the Church in Wales.

I spoke in defence of it in 1885.

But the most remarkable speech in the Debate was that of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, who denied that there was such a thing as a Welsh nationality. I should have thought the Welsh nationality was by far the most pronounced of the four nationalities into which this kingdom is popularly divided, as we are not only divided geographically, but also by the barrier of language. It is too late now to say there is no such thing as a Welsh nationality. I think we have made good our right to be considered a separate nationality; we have again and again passed Bills dealing with Wales as distinct from England, Scotland, and Ireland, Under these circumstances, it seems to me that the question is narrowed to this: Is the Church of England in Wales the national Church of Wales? A deal of interesting historical light has been thrown on this question. The hon. Member for Carnarvon said it was imposed by conquest on Wales; but on the other side it is said that the Church of St. David is older than that of St. Augustine, and that the Church of England is a descendant of the Church of Wales. But the question is not what the Church was 600 or 800 years ago; but what it is in 1892. Looking simply at the present time, I say without fear of contradiction that it is in more than one sense an alien Church. It ministers chiefly to settlers in the country. It is alien to the tone, temperament and genius of the Welsh people, who are democratic in their religion as in their politics. The despotism of the parson, mild and benevolent as it may be, is intolerable to him. The Welsh are too essentially an emotional people, and the Church of England with its "Popish liturgy and Arminian clergy," to quote the famous words of Lord Chatham, does not appeal to them. No Church is entitled to be called national, in other words, entitled to the support of the State, unless it can fulfil two conditions. Unless it numbers a clear majority of the people amongst its members, and unless it is so bound up with the religious life of the nation that you cannot touch the one without inflicting a serious blow on the other. I will assume that it fulfils these two conditions in England; but will any hon. Gentleman dare to get up and tell me that it fulfils these two conditions in Wales? It is not contended by anybody that it holds the majority of the people in Wales; not even by its staunchest advocate. Lord Selborne himself only put the Church at half the number of the Nonconformists, and the late Dean of Bangor, one of the most devoted of Churchmen, estimated the number of Churchmen among the Welsh-speaking population at one-sixth. The Solicitor General said that the Nonconformists were 49 per cent. of the population; does he mean that the remaining 51 per cent. are Churchmen? The numbers taken by the hon. Gentleman only included those actually on the roll of adherents; but by far the larger number of Welshmen are Nonconformists, although not formally enrolled. I do not place much confidence in censuses of the kind which have been proposed, for I am inclined to agree with the old saying that "there is nothing so fallacious as figures, except facts." The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down asks why we do not agree to a religious census? Because I cannot conceive a more childish way of ascertaining the religion of a nation than that. The census which has been proposed by the friends of the Church would, in my opinion, have been valueless and unreliable and in the highest degree misleading; but there is another kind of census upon which reliance can be placed, and that is the Ballot Box. Just observe how remarkable is the progress that this question has made since Mr. Watkin Williams brought it under notice 22 years ago. Then it was only supported by 7 members from Wales, including the Mover and Seconder: 13 voted against it, and the others stopped away. But, ever since, the Welsh supporters of this Motion have gone on steadily increasing in number, and now 27 Welsh Members out of 30 are pledged to Disestablishment, and only 3 oppose it. Not only that, but the six bye-elections have shown how this question has developed, and how it has met with the support of the people. Taking the County Councils, at the last election in every county but one the Nonconformists literally swept the boards. Again, out of 17 Welsh papers printed in the vernacular, 15 are devoted to Disestablishment; only 2 belong to the Church defence party, and of these two one, I believe, is on its last legs. Three or four years ago the Bishop of St. Asaph charged a Calvinistic Methodist Deacon with having sanctioned by his presence a gross and foul outrage upon the Church of England—no less than a parody of the rites of the Holy Sacrament. I challenged the Bishop to name the man whom he alluded to, and when his lordship did not do so, I repeated that challenge in this House. The Bishop then wrote to the Times a letter in which he said he had in his possession "seven sworn affidavits" which proved the truth of his assertions. He did not say by whom those affidavits were made, nor did he say where they came from, or where the occurrence took place; he did not name the Magistrate before whom they were sworn, nor did he show how it came to pass that any affidavits chanced to be sworn in a matter in which there was no litigation pending. But he said he had sent them to Lord Selborne who had written him a letter, in which he said, if the affidavits were true, the Bishop was quite justified in making the charge. Now, everybody knows the value of such affidavits made under such circumstances; every man who has spent six weeks in a lawyer's office knows that such affidavits as these are not worth the paper upon which they are written. It has been pointed out that the Church has been making progress exactly in proportion as she leans least upon State aid. At Cardiff, where the whole of the tithes do not amount to much more than £200 a year, the Church is making progress, but everywhere that she leans most upon State aid, the Churches are found to be empty. This matter was put very well by the late Dean of Bangor, when he said that—

"The Church has made material progress of late. Churches, schools, and parsonages have been built, but how many of the churches are empty!"

When we say that the Church is in a minority in Wales, we are only stating half our case, because the Church comprises not only the minority, but by far the richest part of the community and with them also the poorest. It is not the Church of the poor; it is the Church of the pauper, consisting of those who are most able to give, and those who are most anxious to get, and that accounts for some of those conversions of which we have heard. You must remember that the Church offers bishoprics, palaces, deaneries, and many other prizes, whilst the Nonconformist offers nothing but a clear conscience and the privilege of paying for it. In this regard I am reminded of what an author, dear to every Unionist heart, says. Mr. Lecky says—

"Where certain privileges are attached to any form of religion it may make many converts, but it is perfectly certain to make many hypocrites."

With regard to the second point—the bearing of the Church on the religious and moral life of the people—the Home Secretary knows that Wales has not at the present moment, in proportion to its population, half as many criminals as England, and that scarcely a Judge of assize goes there but comments again and again upon the extraordinary absence of crime. There are, it is well recognised, certain crimes of a grave nature which are altogether unknown in Wales. Since I have acted as a Magistrate, I may say that I have never issued a warrant or a summons against a man for assaulting a woman. Now, I say that this marked absence of crime is mainly due to the influence of the Nonconformists. This was over and over again borne out by Lord Aberdare by the testimony of the Welsh clergy themselves. In my own experience, when acting as Chairman of a large Industrial Society, I was told by the manager of that Association that he always preferred, if he could, to employ Nonconformists, because they were more sober, more steady, and more trustworthy. I have always spoken in the highest terms of the Welsh clergy. I believe them to be exceedingly zealous and exceedingly energetic; but I do say this: that they are more occupied in fighting Dissent than in preaching Christianity, and that explains why so many Churchmen believe that the result of Disestablishment would be eminently beneficial to the Church of Wales. If that be so, what are you afraid of in this Motion before this House? You have on your side all the wealth and social influence of the country. I remember seeing in the Times the other day a letter signed by 20 of the richest noblemen and gentlemen in England, in which they appealed to their English brethren not to leave the poor Welsh Church to starve by robbing it of the endowments. If these 20 noblemen and gentlemen had put their hands into their own pockets and given it one-twentieth part of their incomes, they would have easily set the Church of Wales upon its legs again for the next 20 years to come. Look at what is taking place in the Colonies, in Canada, in Australia, and in Ireland. In all those countries the Church of England has learned to stand alone. Even in Wales, of which you are now hearing, the power and influence of the Church are in exactly inverse proportion to the assistance which she derives from the State, and to say that the richest community of Christian men in the whole world would not be able to hold its own amongst the most God-fearing people in the Kingdom unless it comes carrying a bribe in one hand and a sword of State in the other is a slur upon the Church, an insult to my countrymen, and an unworthy aspersion upon an all-wise and all-powerful Providence.

Anybody who heard the concluding part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech would have supposed that the Established Church in Wales depended entirely for its funds upon the ancient endowments with which the pious in past generations had endowed it. But the right hon. Gentleman might be aware, had he consulted statistics open to every man upon this subject, that during last year the Church in Wales received from voluntary contributions twice as much as it received from endowments secured to it by law; and if that is not a conclusive proof that the members of the Church in Wales have the keenest sense of the duties imposed upon them, and are determined to carry out to the best of their ability the great trust which is imposed upon them, I fail to understand by what reasoning the right hon. Gentleman has arrived at the conclusion that the deprivation of the endowments which already exist could increase the zeal or the resources which the Church has at its disposal. Now the House, or those Members who have listened as I have to the greater part of this Debate, will probably share with me in the gratification I feel in finding that a good many of the old fallacies with which this discussion used to be encumbered have either dis- appeared altogether from the discussion, or have at all events shown themselves in a very much less virulent form. We used to be told that the Welsh Church was an alien Church. I have heard only one gentleman sufficiently courageous to maintain that position this evening. This is an historical fallacy, one of the many which collected round this subject, which I certainly had supposed had been finally disposed of, had been killed off by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian last year. The right hon. Gentleman said nothing but what is familiar to students of British Ecclesiastical History, but he did say a good many things which were not familiar even to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway; and I am glad to observe by the majority of the speeches, and by the general tenour of the Debate, that very few indeed are the defenders still left in this House of the historical absurdity of supposing that the Church in Wales was imposed upon the Welsh people by an armed and an alien population. Another fallacy which I observe looms much less largely than it used to do in our eyes is the statistical fallacy. Many gentlemen have touched upon statistics, but I notice that they have touched upon them lightly. It appears to be ground which they thought it necessary to survey, but which they surveyed as rapidly as they could, and from which they discreetly fled at the earliest opportunity. The Member for Flintshire, who opened in a very exhaustive speech the discussion this evening told us that he would not enter upon the subject of Welsh statistics at all. He confined his attention to the statistics of the Welsh Church in Liverpool and in America; and from the facts which he collected, or thought he had collected, from Liverpool and from America—neither of which is as yet claimed as part of the Principality—he deduced the statistical conclusion that the Welsh Church ought to be disestablished. The hon. and learned Gentleman took what he called a broad view of statistics and the broad view he took consisted of making very broad assertions and bringing forward no proof whatever in support of them. My hon. and learned Friend near me went in detail into the figures that had been supplied by the Nonconformists to the Church of England, and by Nonconformists to their own body; and both from the figures which they had collected in respect of the Established Church in Wales and in respect of the figures—which I presume we may regard as more or less authentic—with regard to the Nonconformist body in Wales, my hon. and learned Friend deduced the conclusion that it was impossible that the majority of the Welsh population—including men, women and children—could be supposed to belong to any of the larger bodies of the Nonconformist body in that country. Has any answer been made to that? No answer except the broad conclusion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen, in which he carefully abstained from quoting a single figure or dealing with a single specific fact brought forward by my hon. and learned Friend near me. But in truth the Nonconformist Party in this House are out of court when we are considering the question of statistics, for they have refused—flatly refused—the only machinery in this matter by which authentic statistics could possibly be obtained. They were offered last year, as they have been offered decennially before, to have a religious census taken in Wales as a religious census is taken in Ireland. Nobody doubts that the census in Ireland gives, on the whole, a substantially accurate view of the relative strength of the various denominations in that country. Why is the same machinery, applied to the same purpose, to be set aside by the right hon Gentleman who has just sat down as worthless when applied to Wales? The fact, which lies broad and patent upon the surface of this controversy, is that the Gentlemen who refuse the census are afraid o statistics; and though in this Resolution they practically base their contention upon the relative strength, which they are good enough to assume, of the adherents of the Established Church and the Nonconformists, they have always, as a matter of fact, refused what we have always offered to them; an authentic, a reliable, and a perfectly conclusive method of arriving at a clear conclusion on that point. For my own art, I should be ready enough to rest the case of the Established Church in Vales upon arithmetical proportion, although I hold that the argument from arithmetical proportion alone is wholly absurd and unreliable. If this House were to take the view, which we are invited to take, that because the Established Church in Wales is the Church of the minority, that, therefore, it should be disestablished, should we pot be driven to the further conclusion that in every diocese, perhaps in every parish of England, the same arithmetical test should be applied, and that in that province, diocese, or parish where the members of the Established Church happened to be in a majority and there only, should the Church be allowed to retain its endowments, and be part of the Established Church of the country? I do not believe that any logical and consistent adherent of Disestablishment will accept that view. I do not believe that those who really, upon grounds I do not agree with, which are relative, historical, and rational, desire to see a severance between Church and State and the Disendowment of the present Established Church—I do not believe that these Gentlemen would for one moment accept the logic which is put before them by Members from Wales, who rest their case, or almost rest their case, upon statistics which they have never verified, and which according to their view prove a majority on the part of all the Nonconformist bodies taken together over the Established Church taken alone. But certainly it appears to me that when we are dealing with an institution, almost the oldest in the country—older far I may fairly say than this House, older certainly than almost all the institutions on which we most value ourselves—when dealing with an institution which it is not to be supposed for a moment is obsolete or dead, or in any way lifeless or extinct, the burden of proof lies with those who desire to destroy, and not with those who desire to sustain it. Now, what is the kind of proof these Gentlemen can bring forward, or have brought forward, who desire to destroy—who desire to disestablish and to disendow the Church in Wales? The hon. Member for Carnarvon rested his case almost entirely upon the fact that the Welsh Church was not the National Church, and he appeared to think that Noncomformity in Wales was national in the sense in which the Church of Wales is not national. The hon. Gentleman showed a total and extraordinary ignorance of the history of this case. Nonconformity in Wales is the growth of a century or two, The Church in Wales has existed for centuries. Not only was it not imposed upon the Welsh people by a large and alien population, but it is a Church which has grown with the growth of the Welsh people, which is identified with their history in every stage, and to which I believe they largely owe the maintenance of their language as the vernacular. (Cries of "Oh, oh.") I believe that, and I believe it on the authority of gentlemen quite as anxious to destroy the Welsh Church as the hon. Gentlemen opposite—Gentlemen who have devoted more time to the study of the Welsh language than the hon. Gentlemen opposite have been able to do, and who believe that the Established Church in Wales is a Church of Welsh growth, identified with it through every stage of Welsh history, and closely bound up with the maintenance and the survival of the Welsh language. Nonconformity—I do not deny the value of the work which has been done by the great Nonconformist leaders in Wales; but I say that Nonconformity is a growth as of yesterday, and that the Welsh Church is not a growth of yesterday. And I say further that the great men who led the Nonconformist party in Wales, the men who have done so much for the revival of religion in Wales, were themselves devoted adherents to the Established Church to their dying day. Therefore I am Justified, I think, on grounds of the history both of the Church and of Nonconformity, in saying that whatever other reasons may be given for the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church, at all events you cannot say that it is to be Disestablished because it is an anti-national Church. Then I ask myself whether those who desire Disestab- lishment desire it because they think that it is a decaying branch of the Christian Church, corrupt and effete, no longer capable of efficient service to the cause of true religion. I gather from the speech of every one who spoke in favour of the Motion to-night, that whatever else may be said of the Welsh Church, that, at all events cannot be said. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen admitted the rapid growth which had been made by the Welsh Church during the last two generations at least; but he said:—

"You will always find that an institution which has to be revolutionised is, before being revolutionised, undergoing a great process of reform, and the fact that the Welsh Church is improving, the fact that it is showing renewed activity and vigour in every branch, is only an indication that it belongs to that large number of institutions which require revolutionary reform, and the fact that it shows this improvement is only another proof of the fact."

And he quoted the French Revolution, and he might have quoted—and I think he might have quoted accurately—a very large number of historical facts, of which he if any Member in this House, is a complete and acknowledged master. The hon. and learned Gentleman drew the inference from this fact, the conclusion that the Welsh Church ought to be at once destroyed and disestablished. I draw a very different conclusion. I admit with him that history shows many examples of institutions which were in a fair way of reforming themselves, which showed every sign of growth and of progress, and whose existence was brought to an untimely end by the hands of so-called reformers. But the deductions I make from these historical facts is that the gentlemen who dub themselves reformers, and are sometimes so described by subsequent historians, have really much less to do with the progress and improvement of human affairs than either they or the historians are apt to suppose. I cannot help thinking that if this process of spontaneous improvement and growth from within were sometimes allowed to continue a little longer by reformers of the complexion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the world would not progress slower, but would progress more rapidly, and certainly much more smoothly, and with much less embittered controversy. I assume then that it is not on natural grounds that the Church is to be Disestablished, nor on the ground that it is not showing the powers of reforming itself. Is it then on the ground that the doctrine it teaches is a doctrine which this country cannot sanction—a doctrine which should be stamped out and suppressed by every means at the disposal of the British Parliament? Of course we on this side of the House do not take this view. Nor do I understand hon. Gentlemen opposite to take it, because they are good enough to assure us that if only we were to Disestablish the Welsh Church it would be stronger than ever, and the doctrine it preaches it will preach with renewed efficacy and increase of life. That being so—and whether it is so or not I will say a word directly—at all events it shows this, that hon. Gentleman do not object to the Established Church because they object to the doctrine taught by the Established Church. But, if they do object to it, then according to their own principle it ought to be maintained, because nothing could so much weaken its strength as to allow it to remain in connection with the State. I quite admit—and I fully and freely admit—that there are a very large number of Gentlemen who are in favour of Disestablishment upon abstract, general, and historical grounds; but I cannot admit, with the facts before me, that those who desire the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church, desire it upon abstract, or historical grounds. They want Disestablishment, because they want Disendowment. Disestablishment is on their lips, Disestablishment is in their Resolution, but what they want is Disendowment. It is not reform they desire, but plunder. Envy, envy, not piety is the motive of their action. Some hon. Gentleman has stood up this evening, and has told us that the Church would be more efficient in a condition of Apostolic poverty. I apply that principle to the Nonconformist Body to which they belong. Do they think that this Nonconformist Body, ii deprived of their endowments, if de- prived of those gifts made to them from time to time by pious and public-spirited members of their congregrations, do they think that the Nonconformist Bodies would do their work more efficiently than they are doing it now? I understand that they are as energetic in obtaining gifts and endowments for their Body, and that they show as much zeal and public spirit as any member of the Established Church; and I fail altogether to understand why, if poverty is to be of so great a benefit to the Established Church, it is not to be applied with an equal hand to all other denominations within the limits of the four seas. The truth is, that behind this cry for religious equality lurks a great fallacy. For my own part, I should desire to see every teaching religious body prosperous, well endowed, and able to carry on to the best advantage the work entrusted to it. That is the equality which I desire, and in religious and in other matters, I also wish to see equality with regard to all sections of the community and all individuals, providing that equality means giving to those who have not what they lack, and not taking away from those that have, that which they can put to a useful purpose. Equality in the one sense is a great political ideal; in the other sense the desire for equality is the meanest of all political passions. I cannot help thinking sometimes those who desire to deprive the Established Church of the property which was from time immemorial given to her by pious members who were of her faith down to the generation and the year in which we live—I cannot help thinking that those who desire to deprive her of those great means of public utility, are, perhaps unconsciously, more animated by the wish to take away from the Church that which she has, than to give to the Nonconformists that which they have not. Now, is it not true that those who desire what is erroneously called Disestablishment, but is really Disendowment, are much more interested in taking away the money which the Church has, than in applying it to any new purposes? They never tell us what they are going to do with it, they never pretend that they have objects of higher and more sacred value than the ends and objects which are now sub-served by those endowments. They do not contend that their notions of equality would be satisfied if the money taken away from the Established Church were thereupon tossed into the sea. I do not say that they would not like to use it for some other purpose, but that rather than leave it to the Established Church they would like to see its whole wealth destroyed from off the face of the earth, and the clergy reduced to that position which they have indicated. We must all of us have seen in countries which have been long inhabited, ancient buildings which have been destroyed and wrecked in order that out of their fragments might be constructed some new jerry building, some new ephemeral structure, intended to meet the passing wants of the moment, and we must all have felt how tragic was the fate of those ancient palaces and churches so misused for baser purposes. Does not experience show that it is the same with the pillage of national Churches? I do not suppose that in these days the plunder would be devoted to increasing the fortunes of a Court favourite. Those days are passed. But I have no evidence that the plunder would be disposed of in a better way. It would be handed over, I presume, as a prey to wire-puller's and electioneerers to be squandered on the object which, for the moment, happened to tickle the fancy of the electorate of the day. A few years would pass, and the endowment made by the pious donors of 15 generations would be dissipated on this or that scheme, and would leave not a trace or wreck behind it, leaving the Church permanently poorer for all the great objects for which she was called into existence. The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen asked us whether we could permanently defend the position we have taken up. He told us that by giving up the Church in Wales we should strengthen the Church in England. We are familiar with that argument. I notice that it is not usually employed by the friends of the Church. I notice that those who are most anxious for the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales, and who spend money to get it Disestablished, are not those who desire to see the Establishment maintained in England. I suppose they know their business to the full as well as the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen; but, Sir, I believe, and I think, that in this respect I speak for every single Member who sits on this side of the House, and for many who sit on the other side, that the fate of the Church in Wales is indissolubly bound up with the fate of the Church in England, and I believe that both in England and in Wales the Church can be, and will be defended by this House. I admit that hon. Gentlemen have had —and doubtless will have in the future—large minorities in the Lobbies of this House. But they belong to a Party which is irrevocably committed to a policy by which so vast a measure as Disestablishment must be placed further and further into the far future; they belong to a Party which is committed to a series of measures which must postpone indefinitely, so far as I can see, even if the country agree to it, the serious consideration of anything so formidable as a Disestablishment Bill. But I have the conviction that the Church of England and the Church of Wales are destined in the indefinite future to maintain the position they have maintained throughout an almost indefinite past, and if I can interpret in any way the currents of public opinion, if I am right in seeing below the surface of Parliamentry Debates and Parliamentary Divisions the true direction in which the thought of this country runs, I do not think that it runs in the direction of Disestablishment. I believe that perhaps after a long re-action men are more and more coming to the conclusion that religion is the essence of society, and that society cannot be held together if religion perishes or is atrophied. While I recognise that tendency, and that current of public opinion, I think I also see that more and more people are disposed to think that if religion be one of the great interests of society, if it be in truth one of the things which we should foster to the best of our ability, it is to an Established Church—not alone, but principally—that that great duty should be assigned.

I do not think, Sir, that the right hon. Gentleman could have more accurately defined the distinction which divides that side of the House from this than in stating that, in his belief, religion principally depends upon Establishment. We are ready, as soon as he chooses to take the opinion of the country on that point. Sir, the whole course of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, if he will allow me to say so, depends upon the fallacy of identifying the Church with an Establishment. In my opinion, an Establishment is not a source of strength to the Church, but a source of weakness, and the attempt to represent that men who are hostile to Establishment are therefore enemies of the Church is to represent a state of things, which, at all events, in my opinion, is contrary to the fact. We have had, in many respects, an interesting Debate, and I thought it a promising Debate when I heard the speech of the Solicitor General. He declared uncompromising opposition to the principles of this Motion. Well, Sir, we have had many uncompromising statements from the Solicitor General, but I have always observed that those statements seriously compromised the situation. It is only a few years ago that, upon another subject, we had an emphatic "No" from the hon. and learned Gentleman, and yet last night we had an emphatic "Yes" from him upon the same subject. Therefore, when I hear of his uncompromising opposition I confess I am not alarmed. We had another speech—a speech which, I suppose, is intended to represent the animus and spirit of the clergy for whom the hon. Member for Bradford is supposed to speak. If you want to know why the Establishment and why the clergy are not beloved of the Welsh people you have only to listen to that speech. The hon. Member complained with acrimony of a language which he did not understand. We are able ourselves to appreciate the acrimony of language which we do not understand. I desire no better illustration of why the Church in Wales is alien to the affections of the people than in that speech which is understood to be a representation of the spirit and traditions of the Church. I confess that I heard with some satisfaction the speech of the Solicitor General, because I observe that the speeches of the Solicitor General resemble that darkest hour which is always supposed to precede the dawn; though the hon. and learned Member's speeches are always ingenious, always eloquent, and always frank—so much I must do him the justice to admit. Now the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury expressed his readiness to rest upon statistics. He thought the arithmetical argument was conclusive in his favour. He complained that there had been no census in Wales upon this subject. Yes, Sir, there is a census which must be taken every seven years, and which will be taken again before long. What is the census of the polling booths in Wales? That census represents every registered householder in Wales; and is it not a singular thing if you maintain that the majority of the Welsh people are in favour of the Established Church, that you should have an almost unanimous voice from the Welsh people against the Established Church? For any man of common sense, that will dispose of the statistical argument. I should like to hear the answer to that. If you have a majority of the Welsh people—if you have the Welsh people almost unanimous—against the Established Church, how can you deny that the majority of the Welsh people are adverse to the Established Church? Then, why do not a majority of the people elect Members in favour of the Established Church? Then the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has another argument—the argument from antiquity. We know the view of the right hon. Gentleman on the subject of antiquity. He gave it to us the other night. He says he has a preference for stupid things that have been done before, which he thinks are better than wise things which are new. There again the right hon. Gentleman has accurately defined the differences between that side of the House and this. The Party opposite are the historical and traditional representatives of stupid things which have been done before, and we are the advocates of the wise things which are new. I am extremely glad to find that I am so entirely at one with the right hon. Gentleman in his definition of the political situation. He says we are proposing to stamp out the doctrine of the Church in Wales because we object to Establlshment and Endowment. Is the doctrine of the Church to be stamped out?

I did not say so.

I have no intention of misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman, but I gathered that from his observations. Well, then, we agree with the right hon. Gentleman that Disestablishment and Disendowment do not affect the doctrine of the Church at all.

Will not stamp it out.

Will not stamp it out. But will it injure the doctrine? If the right hon. Gentleman asserts that the doctrine of the Church will be injured, I cannot agree with him there. Now, upon the question of numerical majority, I cannot set that aside in so philosophical a manner as the right hon. Gentleman does. It has been called to-night by the Solicitor General a separatist argument, and the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian. But where did my right hon. Friend take that from? He took it from the speech of a gentleman whom we are sorry to miss in this House—from a speech made by the present Duke of Devonshire in reference to the Church of Scotland. Lord Hartington declared he was ready to support the Disestablishment of the Church in Scotland as soon as he was satisfied that a majority of the people of Scotland were in favour of that. Well, is that a separatist argument? I do not know whether the representative of the Duke of Devonshire here (Mr. Chamberlain) holds that opinion? I hardly think he will confirm the Solicitor General in the opinion that this is a separatist argument. Why, it is obvious you cannot found a National Church upon a minority of the people—nobody ever dreamed of such a foundation for a National Church supported by the State. What business has the State to support as a National Church a Church which is only the Church of a minority? The old theory of the foundation of a National Church was, that it was the universal religion in the State, and, indeed, it was the compulsory religion of the State in former days. But there is no question about that now. Now, I heard the most dangerous doctrine from the right hon. Gentleman. He wished, he said, to see all religious sects endowed. Has the Unionist party then adopted the principle of concurrent endowment? He wished, he said, to see all sections of religion prosperous. Yes, and so do we; but prosperous through the congregations upon whom they depend, not from the sources the right hon. Gentleman alluded to. We are perfectly in favour of religious denominations, having the support of members of the denominations. I am not going to enter into particulars of the Welsh question, which have been dealt with by gentlemen more familiar with them than I am; but, in the short time I intend to occupy the time of the House, I desire to say a few words upon the question whether or not Establishment and Endowment strengthen a Church. That seems to be assumed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I think we have good reasons for believing exactly the opposite. Nobody acquainted with the present social condition of England can have failed to perceive the enormous difference in the position occupied by the Church of England in the great towns and in country districts. In the great towns of England the Anglican Church is strong, is rich, powerful and influential. It has in my opinion grown in power and influence among the town populations. And why? You know perfectly well that in the large and prosperous towns Establishment and Endowment play a very small part in the history of the Church. The wealth of the Church there does not come from the State or from Endowment, it comes from the munificence of its congregations. There the Church relies upon its own efforts, and there it is powerful and rich. Take this great metropolis outside the City of London. The endowments are insignificant, but the support given to the Church by subscriptions is immense. It is only within the City of London that you find churches with endowments, but without congregations. Turn to the rural districts; is it the same thing there? Why, I might ask the Gentlemen opposite as much as those who sit behind me, is the parson a popular character in rural districts? ("Yes.") Is he? I ask the candidates for the Eastern Counties what they think? I know it is not the fact. I know that the gentlemen who rely on the support of the clergy in rural elections rely on a broken reed. What is the meaning of this unpopularity of the parson in rural districts? It is not the fault of the men, for they are men of elevated character, high education, and they bear blameless lives, and discharge their duties to the best of their ability. (Interruptions.) I should have thought hon. Members opposite would have joined in that view; I am sorry to find they do not. But the position of the Clergy is altogether different in the rural districts from the position in populous towns; for there (in the country) the Church is ostentatiously Established and Endowed, and becomes a Militant Church. It is a Militant Establishment. The Solicitor-General said he thought we had very much improved; that we had got rid of the drinking parson and the gambling parson, and he hoped we should get rid of the magisterial parson. So do I, for I know something of the sentences of magisterial parsons. The Solicitor-General went on to say he thought we were getting rid of the political parson. Now, I have a high opinion of the power of the Solicitor-General; but if he is going to get rid of the political parson, he is going to accomplish a labour equal to the greatest of Hercules'. Are there any signs of our getting rid of political parsons? No; the Clergy are more political now than ever they were in former times. What has inspired the bitter spirit of Party poli- tics in the Church and among Nonconformists? Yes, among Nonconformists too! It is the question of Disestablishment and Disendowment—the defence on one side, the attack on the other. What is it that has made the Clergy from generation to generation the opponents of all reform? When the question of slavery arose, who were the anti-slavery party? The Church party? No; everbody knows that the antislavery party was the Nonconformist party. Why was that? Because at that time slavery was an established institution. Why is it that the Church has always found it necessary to put itself upon the side of vested interests? Because it is a vested interest itself. Why is it that on every reform, whether the reform is upon a matter of religion, which you might understand, or on such questions as the suffrage, you have always found the Established Church opposed to these reforms? (Cries of "Divide.") One has a right to expect from hon. Members opposite that they will listen, though they may dispute on principle. I say it is a proposition no man can deny that the Church has been, as a body, opposed from generation to generation to all measures of reform. In my opinion that has done the Church great injury among the people. Often do we hear the phrase "divorcing the people from the soil," and in my opinion Establishment and Endowment have led to this feeling, and have done much to divorce the Church from the hearts of the people. That is the history of the unpleasantness, the bitterness, which exists against the Church in Wales. Look at the Universities. The Universities have rejected every man who has been a supporter of reform. Lord Lansdowne, Lord Palmerston, Sir Robert Peel, my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian, great and distinguished men, could not represent the Universities. We have now in the House two of the most distinguished men who ever represented Universities—first in science, first in scholarship in England, and, I might say, in Europe; put what chance would these gentlemen have had to represent the Universities here if they had not belonged to he Anti-Reforming Party. All their science, all their learning, would not have availed if they had not been "sound" on the Irish question. I say, then, that Establishment and Endowment have done immense evil, and not good, to the Church. The Church of England being established as a monopoly, has necessarily placed the Church on the side of all monopolies. The Church being itself established and privileged, has ranged the Church on the side of privileges and in favour of many abuses. In my opinion, so far from adding strength to the Church in respect to religious doctrines and influence among the people, Establishment and Endowment have been the greatest hindrances to the Church in influence among the people, and it is mainly upon that ground that I support the Resolution which is now before us.

May I ask the hon. Baronet, who has charge of this Committee to turn the attention of the Committee to the mode in which Irish papers are dealt with? These are always included in the Papers upon "pink" form, so that to get them Members have to specially order them. Now, as the majority in this House are entirely ignorant upon most Irish matters, I think that if there are any papers which should be distributed as a matter of course, they are those relating to Ireland. There are matters nearer home upon which it is more desirable that Members should inform themselves—that upon those relating to distant parts of the world—Japan, Jerusalem, or Madagascar.

The rule hitherto adopted in respect to Irish papers is exactly the same as that which applies to papers upon other matters. Every paper, as a matter of fact, is put on the "pink" list, and is not circulated among Members unless they require it; and the only papers, as far as my recollection serves me, which are distributed without request are Reports of Royal Commissions, Reports of Select Committees, and such papers as have been promised by Heads of Departments on special occasions and in anticipation of particular debates. Should the House agree to the re-appointment of the Committee I will take care that the view the hon. Member has just expressed is put before the Committee, with a view to such regulations as may be required.