I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that there are many thousands of travellers and agents now in the United Kingdom soliciting the diversion of orders from this country to the Continent of Europe and the United States of America; and if he will confer with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the desirability of following the practice of some foreign countries and British Colonies in the levying of revenue from licences to such foreigners or agents of foreigners to trade in the British market for the benefit of foreigners?

I have no doubt that there are many agents in this country engaged in soliciting orders for foreign traders, but I have no means of estimating their number. The regulations applied to commercial travellers in the chief countries of the world (see Foreign Office Report, Commercial No. 14, 1890) show that restrictions are the exception and not the rule. The view of the hon. Member that British trade and labour are injured by the visits of foreign travellers and agents, many of whom come to buy as well as to sell, is not only an erroneous view in the opinion of the Board of Trade, but is opposed to the accepted policy of this country in trade matters. The question of subjecting foreign commercial travellers, or a particular class of them, to special taxation is not one for my department; but so far as my own view goes, it is that any such imposition of licences would be hurtful to British interests and would tend to provoke reprisals in countries where British agents have at present free scope.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that barristers, solicitors, pawnbrokers, and those engaged in a large number of other professions in this country had to pay an Excise licence before they were able to earn their livelihood, and why in that case were foreigners alone to be exempted?

That suggestion does not seem to me to have anything to do with the present question.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that no notice of weights and prices per live cwt. of fat cattle and sheep sold in Glasgow Cattle Market appears in the Board of Agriculture's quarterly report of prices of live stock; whether he receives weekly returns from Glasgow in terms of Section 3 of The Markets and Fairs Act, 1891; whether he is aware that there is insufficient pen accommodation at Glasgow for weighing a large number of cattle and sheep, and if he can state what number of pens for weighing accommodation are provided at Glasgow, and how many at Dundee; whether he can give the percentage of cattle within the market weighed last month at Dundee and at Glasgow; and whether the Dundee weigh-bridge has a dial or steelyard arrangement, and how many seconds it takes to weigh each bullock at Dundee and Glasgow respectively?

We receive from Glasgow the weekly returns required by the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act 1891, but the number of cases in which cattle are weighed in that city is too small to justify their being used to show the course of prices. I understand there is but one suitable pen available in connection with the weighing machine at Glasgow, and I am in communication with the market authority with a view to secure increased accommodation there. I cannot exactly state the number of pens at Dundee, inasmuch as they are apparently varied from time to time according to the requirements of the trade. The percentage of cattle within the market weighed last month was 55 per cent. at Dundee, and 1·1 per cent. at Glasgow. The weighing machines at both places are fitted with steelyards, and I am informed that it takes about 20 seconds to weigh a bullock at Dundee. I regret that I am not able to give the corresponding figure for Glasgow.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what was the total official service of Mr. James Devlin, chief clerk, Quartermaster General's Department, Dublin; and why was his district service unrewarded when it was reckoned in other cases?

The late Mr. James Devlin was an army pensioner who was employed for 17 years in the Quartermaster General's office, Dublin, as a pensioner clerk. He was then promoted to be a civilian clerk, and as such served for 18¾ years until his office was abolished. Under the Superannuation Act he could only be superannuated in regard to his civilian service, but an addition of seven years imputed service was made in consideration of the abolition of his office; and for his services as pensioner clerk his army pension was increased from the date of his final retirement from one shilling to two shillings a day.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will consider the advisability of recommending the Commissioners of National Education, Ireland, to relax the rule which requires an average attendance of 70 pupils for three-quarters of the year ending March 1895, in order that appointments of one or two monitors may be sanctioned, this relaxation to apply only to the March quarter, during which the attendance of pupils was almost impossible in many districts owing to the condition of the roads?

The Commissioners have already taken into consideration the exceptional circumstances, namely, severe weather and epidemics, that injuriously affected the average daily attendance for the quarter ended 31st March 1895; and they have directed that the rules that determine the strength of the recognised school staff by the average daily attendance, shall be relaxed in regard to that particular quarter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) what is the proportion of Catholic arid Protestant policemen in King's County, how many Catholic and how many Protestant constables have been promoted, and to what ranks, in the time of the last two county inspectors; are any of the district inspectors Catholics; is it the fact that on two occasions when a Catholic county inspector was about being appointed remonstrances from certain inhabitants were yielded to and a Protestant maintained; and (2) is there any ground for the feeling amongst the King's County force that men of one religion are favoured while promotion is withheld from Catholics?

The Inspector General informs me that of the 233 men of the Constabulary in King's County, 182 are Roman Catholics and 51 Protestants. The promotions made in the time of the last two County Inspectors were: To the rank of acting sergeant, three Catholics and one Protestant, and to the rank of sergeant two Catholics. One of the District Inspectors is a Catholic. The Inspector General received no remonstrance or other communication of the nature mentioned in the question. Both the late and the present County Inspectors are Roman Catholics. The Inspector General, having made inquiry, finds that no feeling, such as alleged in the second paragraph, exists among the King's County force.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, (1) why the contracts made by the War Office for the supply of foreign meat and foreign forage, and by the Stationery Office for the supply of foreign pencils to the Houses of Parliament and the Civil Service, are not included in the Return presented on 6th May—Contracts with Foreigners; and (2) if he will cause it to be amended by the inclusion, not only of contracts directly made with contractors outside the United Kingdom, but also the orders placed on account of the public with the agents of foreigners, without regard to the Fair Contracts Resolution of 1891.

The Return is for all contracts made in the United Kingdom by Government departments in the year 1894–95 with contractors outside the United Kingdom for articles of home manufacture. The articles mentioned in the first paragraph of the question were not so contracted for. It is impossible to ascertain where all the articles supplied by contractors inside the United Kingdom are manufactured.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of labourers' cottages in the unions of Strabane, Stranorlar, and Letterkenny respectively, which have been condemned as unfit for habitation, the number to be built under the direction of the Local Government Inspector in each union, and the number actually built or commenced, and the dates by which they are to be completed?

In Strabane Union it is intended to build 20 cottages to replace the same number condemned as unfit for habitation; and in the Stranorlar Union it is proposed to build three cottages to replace existing condemned houses. The Inspector, who is carrying out the Labourers' Acts in these two unions, states he is proceeding as quickly as the present law will allow. No application has been received to enforce the Acts in Letterkenny Union, nor does it appear that representations have recently been made to the guardians of that union to build cottages.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the construction of the railway from Stranorlar to Glenties, in the county of Donegal, is not yet completed; that the period originally fixed for such completion has been several times extended; and that the period given by the latest extension is now overpast, can he state at what time the line is likely to be opened for the use of the public?

The line has been inspected and passed by the Board of Trade, and the Donegal Company proposes to open it for traffic on Monday next.

asked whether there were not certain penalties for every day the line was kept shut after the time specified for its opening, and whether these penalties would be exacted?

That is a matter that belongs to the Treasury and not to my Department.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General what a complete year's outfit of a rural postman consists of, and what is the net cost thereof to the Department; whether he has considered the question of making the inquiry which he has promised public; and whether it is necessary that complaints should pass through the hands of postmasters or any officials, or whether the Commission will receive oral or written complaints directly from anyone who is engaged in the Postal Service?

An established rural postman receives two suits of clothes (summer and winter) with a shako and cover every year; an overcoat every two years; a waterproof cape and leggings every three years, and an annual allowance of 21s. for boots. The cost to the Department is £3 10s. 7d. a year. I propose to ask the Committee to consider, as soon as they meet, the other points raised by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state when the final Report of the Royal Commission on Vaccination will be published?

The only information which I can give is that I hear from the Commission that the Report is in hand, and the Commission is busily engaged upon it, but it is impossible to say when the final Report will be published.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has come to a decision as to granting the Long Service Decoration to members of the Yeomanry Force?

The opinion of commanding officers of yeomanry has been sought, and it has not hitherto appeared that there is any agreement of opinion in favour of this decoration being granted.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could say in which direction the balance of opinion tended.

I cannot say that, but there is no such consensus of opinion as would justify action being taken.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture—(1) whether his attention has been called to the case of Hawkins v. Williams, reported in the Times of the 21st instant, in which it appeared that frozen Australian butter invoiced as "guaranteed pure," was found to contain 17 per cent. of foreign fat; (2) whether his attention has further been called to the fact that, in the above-mentioned case the charge failed in consequence of the retail vendor claiming the protection of section 25 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1875, and proving that the adulterated butter sold by him had been purchased with a written warranty of quality, the invoice sent by the importer bearing the words "guaranteed pure;" and (3) whether he will, with the view of protecting the public from being deceived by the fraudulent sale of adulterated frozen butter imported from abroad, insure that examination shall be made at the Custom House of all butter so imported, in the same manner that examination is now carried on at the Custom House in the case of tea, which (as appears from the report of the Customs analyst for the year ending 31st December, 1893) is liable in certain cases to be destroyed when found to be unsound?

I have read the Times report of the case to which the hon. Baronet refers. With reference to the suggestion made in the concluding paragraph of the question, I may say that arrangements have recently been made by which samples of butter will be taken at the ports of importation, and analysed by the Principal Chemist of the Government Laboratories, who is also the Chief Agricultural Analyst. A certain number of samples have, in fact, already been taken, and I am in communication with the Treasury and the Board of Customs with a view to the settlement of the course to be pursued in the event of its being found that any offences under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, the Margarine Act, and the Merchandise Marks Acts, have been, or are likely to be, committed.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would inform the House as soon as he had received the information for which he had asked.

I will, of course, lay before the House any information which I think it my duty to give.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information to the effect that Mr. Shepstone removed all the books of the nation and papers relating to the affairs of Swaziland from the chief kraal to Pretoria, and has not returned them in spite of repeated requests from the king; if so, by what right does Mr. Shepstone retain these books and papers; and will the Government use their influence to secure their immediate return?

Inquiry is being made in regard to the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the police interfered to alter the practice of billeting in Newcastle West, county Limerick, so as concentrate the billets to the advantage of the Potty Sessions clerk, after the local publicans had been previously required to go to expense in providing billets; and that the resident Magistrate of the district, Major Rolleston, and the Petty Sessions Clerk canvassed the officers for the billeting of the horses exclusively for Mr. Dawson; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into all the circumstances of the case?

I am informed by the district Inspector of Constabulary that it is not the case that the police interfered in any way to alter the practice of the billeting so as to concentrate the billets to the advantage of the Petty Sessions Clerk. The police were requisitioned in the usual way to provide billets for men and horses, and, in accordance with this requisition, they notified the publicans and the publicans only. It is quite true that a number of horses were sent to the stables of the Petty Sessions Clerk, but the police were no party to the transaction, and the arrangement appears to have been the result of an understanding between the Major commanding the artillery battery and the Petty Sessions Clerk. I shall bring under the notice of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War the report which I have received in this matter from the District Inspector of Police. I may add that the Resident Magistrate tells me he took no part whatever in the transaction complained of, and that he was not aware that the artillery were to arrive until he saw them in the town.

asked whether, as the police gave notice to the publicans that they would be liable to penalties if they failed to billet the troops, the publicans would be recompensed for their outlay?

I do not think there will be any possibility of recompensing the police.

asked whether the Resident Magistrate denied that he canvassed the officer in command of the troops.

The resident Magistrate informs me that he took no part whatever in the transaction, and that he did not know the artillery were coming until he saw them in the streets.

If we produce evidence to show that Major Rolleston did canvas the officers, will the right hon. Gentleman hold an inquiry?

I will see, but I will not make any promise.

Are the publicans liable to the loss incurred owing to the conduct of the police in this matter?

I must repeat that it was not at all owing to the conduct of the police, who took no part whatever in the matter. It was entirely an arrangement between the Petty Sessions Clerk and the officer in command of the troops.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that at Messrs. Swan's Auction Mart, at Thornton Junction, Fifeshire, where a dial cattle-weighing machine has recently been erected, a Fifeshire farmer, who was exposing fat cattle at the mart, challenged the accuracy of the weight of his bullock as indicated by by the finger of the automatic dial; that Mr. Thomas Swan ordered the bullock to be again placed on the weighbridge when the weight indicated was 1 cwt. 3 qrs. more than the first weighing; and that the second weighing was accepted as the correct weight; and whether he will take steps to prevent the use of dials which vary to such an extent in a few minutes in weighing cattle worth £40 a ton?

I am informed by the auctioneers that on the occasion to which my hon. Friend refers a mistake was made by the man whose duty it was to write on a board the weights of the animals about to be sold, but I do not gather that the error was in any way due to the faulty construction of the machine, or to its being out of order. As I explained the other day to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirlingshire, there ought to be no difficulty in securing the maintenance of these machines in proper working order, the Weights and Measures Acts affording ample machinery for the purpose.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can supply the House with any information as to the total of the sums of money (if any) which have been paid since 1876 by the Government of Canada to Great Britain in respect of duties collected by Canada under the provisions of the Foreign Reprints Act (10 and 11 Viet., c. 95), which permitted the introduction into Canada of Foreign reprints of British books on proper provision being made, by means of a duty to be collected by Canada, for the remuneration of the British author?

I will at once lay a Parliamentary Paper which will give the information desired by my hon. Friend.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that for a long time past the office of Lord Lieutenant of the County of Meath has been vacant, and that the prolonged vacancy has caused considerable inconvenience; and, if he proposes filling the vacancy; and, if so, when?

said, he hoped the vacancy in the Lord Lieutenancy of the County Meath would be filled in the course of the present week.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that Lord Templemore's agent and four bailiffs seized the cattle belonging to two tenants on the Templemore estate on Friday night last, notwithstanding that the tenants offered to pay their rents at the usual reduction or buy their holdings at 15 years' purchase; and (2) whether it is legal to make seizures in the night.

The Inspector General informs me that the seizures referred to in the first paragraph were made after sunrise on the morning of the 18th inst. No police were present at these seizures. I understand that the tenants offered to pay their rents at an abatement of 20 per cent., but that the landlord refused any terms save payment in full or sale on the basis of 18 years' purchase on present rents.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, whether he has received any further information with regard to the proposed evictions at Kinrossie, Perthshire; whether the information that these crofters had made themselves offensive to the proprietors came from the sheriff's clerk who acted as factor for the Messrs. Naine; whether the charge that the crofters had made themselves offensive to the proprietors has been withdrawn; and, whether the sheriff's clerk, who acted as factor to the proprietors had any official knowledge of the eviction summonses.

I have been informed that matters have been amicably arranged between the whole of the crofters and the landlord. I have copies of the agreements signed by the only two crofters who were to have been removed from the estate. Under these circumstances which I regard with much satisfaction, I do not propose to enter any further into the differences between the parties concerned. The summonses of removal would pass through the office of the sheriff clerk in the ordinary course.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, on what grounds was Mr. Thomas Mulvahill, of Whitegate, County Galway, refused a gun licence by the Resident Magistrate of the district?

I regret to have to ask the hon. Gentleman to again postpone this question. Perhaps he will be good enough to repeat it to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that considerable public inconvenience arises from the absence of the clerk of petty sessions, Dromcollogher, County Limerick, without any explanation; and what steps will be taken to have the duties of the office properly fulfilled?

I am looking into this matter and making careful inquiries whether the existing arrangements are satisfactory, and the best in the interests of the general public.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would make inquiries as to the general conduct of this gentleman. He had promised to do so last year.

Very well; I will inquire.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the £50,000 proposed to be paid to the Imperial East Africa Company by Her Majesty's Government will be retained until it has been decided whether any indemnity will have to be paid to the French Government on behalf of Roman Catholic claims in Uganda, arising out of the operations of Captain Lugard, as servant of the Company?

The answer to the hon. Member's question is in the negative.

gave notice that, in consequence of the hon. Member's answer, he should move the rejection of the Vote.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether there are any considerable arrears of audit of the accounts of the Parish Councils; if he could state when the forms to be prescribed by the Local Government Board for the accounts of Parish and District Councils, and of parish meetings for parishes not having District Councils, will be issued; when will the audit of these accounts to 31st March last be begun; and whether the work of the district auditors is very much in arrear generally through the country; if so, whether he will, in view of the large addition of audit work arising under the Local Government Act of 1894, and of the importance of an audit of all accounts very shortly after they are closed, arrange for the appointment of an adequate number of additional auditors?

Forms for the financial statements of Parish Councils and parish meetings for the period for which their accounts have to be audited have been prescribed by the Local Government Board, and the audit of these accounts will be begun without delay. Fresh forms are not required for the accounts of Urban District Councils, and the audit of these accounts is being proceeded with. The work of the district auditors generally is not in arrear. I have provided for the increased work caused by the Local Government Act 1894, by appointing five additional assistant auditors, and by arranging that the auditors shall have the help of extra clerks.

As I did not catch the drift of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, will he be so kind as to furnish me with a copy of the answer?

I am sorry I was not distinctly heard by the hon. Member. I will give him all the information I can.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what steps (if any) are taken to ensure the observance in accoutrement contracts of the Resolution of the House of 13th February 1891; and, whether he is aware that both time and piece work wages are at variance in respect to the several contracting firms in the London district?

The Resolution forms a portion of the conditions of every contract; but since, as suggested in the question, accoutrement work is one of the trades in which no universal rates of wage have been fixed under agreement between the workers and their employers, it is only possible to act in the spirit of the Resolution by ascertaining, when complaint is made, that the wages paid do not involve what is known as sweating.

asked whether his hon. Friend would consider the advisability of circulating copies of the entire Resolution, instead of part of it only?

Yes.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the National Education Commissioners have refused to accept the suggestions made to them by the Government in reference to the Christian Brothers' Schools; and whether, as this is a purely Irish matter, the Government will follow the advice of the majority of the Commissioners, including the Catholic and Protestant Archbishops of Dublin?

The correspondence on this subject is still proceeding, and I am not without hope that an accommodation may be effected after further discussion between the views of the National Board and the views of Her Majesty's Government.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether his attention has been called to a published Report of an inquiry held by the Inspectors of Fisheries at Banogher, on Saturday the 18th instant, on the subject of eel fishing in the River Shannon and its tributaries, at which Mr. Cecil Roche, an Inspector of Fisheries, is reported to have stated, in reference to the use of lines for the capture of eels, that it is clear that they are illegal; and Mr. Hornsby, another inspector, is reported to have stated that these lines are manifestly illegal, and that the magistrates had the remedy in their own hands; (2) if he will explain under what law lines for the capture of eels are illegal; (3) is he aware that if the law as laid down by the inspectors be correct, it will have a very serious effect on poor fishermen who now follow this mode of fishing for eels in the north of Ireland; and (4) whether he will take steps to prevent the Inspectors of Fisheries from laying down the law on subjects on which there has been no legal decision by any Court of Law?

I am informed that the facts are as stated in the first paragraph. The law is clearly laid down in section 31 of the 5th and 6th Vic. chap. 106, and in the 11th and 12th Vic. chap. 92. The capture of fish by the means referred to is most injurious to all legitimate fishermen, as fish are taken in large quantities whether in condition or not.

Is it expedient or right for Fishery Commissioners to give legal decisions on questions that do not come before them?

I should think that prima facie it would not be expedient, but I am not aware that these Commissioners do give decisions of the kind.

Did they not do it in this very case?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the condition of the people in the Kilkaskin Electoral Division of the Bantry Union; whether he is aware that a number of these people are suffering from typhus fever, and that the Guardians of the Bantry Union unanimously passed a resolution attributing the cause of the disease to want of food; whether he is aware that Colonel Kirkwood, Local Government Inspector, stated last March that distress prevailed in the Kilkaskin Electoral Division of the Bantry Union, and that he would procure employment for the people there; and seeing that the potato crop has been exhausted since last Christmas, what steps will be taken to avert famine and disease from the population of the district referred to?

Several reports have been made to the Government regarding the condition of the people in the district mentioned. An outbreak of typhus fever has recently occurred in a portion of this district, and the Guardians have passed a resolution in the terms stated in the question. The Medical Inspector of the Local Government Board has made careful inquiries and reported that the people amongst whom the fever was prevalent had not suffered from want of food or other necessaries. Provisional relief has been given where required, and the outbreak of fever was due, I am formed, to the unsanitary condition of the houses. I have called upon the Inspector for a report as to the third paragraph of the question, and have also asked him to make further inquiry as to the present and future prospects of the poorer classes in this locality.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the list of cesspayers in county Fermanagh, from which is selected the six who sit with the justices of the peace in each barony at the various Presentment Sessions, contains 95 names, three only being Catholics, and that there are a large number of Catholics with higher valuation than those of other denominations placed on the list; and will attention be directed to this matter with a view of having the existing state of affairs altered?

The Secretary to the Fermanagh Grand Jury reports that the selection of the Cesspayers associated with the Justices at Presentment Sessions is in strict accordance with law. The Executive has no powers over the Grand Jury, nor is that body responsible to the Executive for the manner in which it performs its fiscal business. The Secretary to the Grand Jury informs me he has no means of ascertaining the proportion of Roman Catholics on the list in question.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can state if he has completed his inquiries, as promised, into the case of John Gilchriest, the late post messenger from Granard to Fennea, and with what result?

Gilchriest's place at Granard was abolished owing to the substitution of a mail car for the walking post. On arrival at Athlone, Gilchriest asked the Postmistress to recommend him some lodgings and, in order that she might direct him to the house of a co-religionist, she inquired his creed. This, so far as I have been able to ascertain, is the only foundation for the allegation implied in the question. It is not the case that he received no instructions. He took little or no pains to learn his duties, he caused trouble by his indifference, and on the 1st of May he left for America.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield (Sir ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT) I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can inform the House if any form of Boer Administration has yet been established over the Swazi people?

The South African Republic have an Administrator in Swaziland who is conducting the administration in accordance with the terms of the Convention of 1894.

said, I know that the hon. Baronet generally calls the Government of the South African Republic the Boer Government, but the proper title is the Government of the South African Republic.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can now give more definite information as to the regulations proposed to be issued for dealing with the cab traffic of the Metropolis, especially as to the course to be taken as regards the future arrangements for cabs at railway stations?

I hope to be able to make a further statement on the subject in the course of a few days.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if arrangements could be made for allowing carriage traffic during the season to cross Hyde Park until 2 a.m.?

It is impossible for me to entertain this proposal, on account of the great extra cost and inconvenience which would be involved in lighting, watching, and fencing the roadway. It would be most undesirable to keep the whole park open later than at present, and gates would have to be provided where the road across the Serpentine intersects the other roads.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, when the powers of Parish Councils will be conferred upon District Councils of parishes, technically urban, but really more rural than the average of rural parishes, such as Westbury-on-Severn; and, whether he is aware of the anxiety which exists in many parishes for this extension of powers?

The Local Government Board have conferred upon the Westbury-on-Severn Urban District Council the power of appointing overseers, and they are in communication with the District Council and the overseers as to the further powers which the Council wish conferred upon them. The case shall be disposed of as early as practicable.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will introduce at an early date a Bill to carry out the Report from the Departmental Committee on the treatment of inebriates, or if he will introduce at an early date a Bill embodying the main recommendations of that Committee, to which he referred on 3rd August 1893; and, if he is unable to introduce such a Bill in the House of Commons, if he will procure the Introduction of such a Bill in the House of Lords?

This Bill has been introduced and read a first time in the House of Lords.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General, with reference to the proposal of the Post Office Authorities to alter the spelling of Leigh near Tonbridge to Lyghe for postal purposes, whether he is aware that a parish meeting was held at Leigh on 26th March last to consider the proposed change, at which 32 persons voted against the change, and only 12 for it; and, whether, notwithstanding the overwhelming majority of inhabitants against the alteration of the spelling, it is his intention to carry it out, as announced, on 1st June.

The proposal to which the hon. Member refers, had its origin in a Memorial from the locality, and was supported, as I was given to understand, by the Parish Council. Under these circumstances I agreed to it. As, however, there appears to be a difference of opinion in the parish on the subject, it may be best to adhere to the present spelling of the name, and I have given directions accordingly.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is aware of the fact that in the year 1884 the Member for the Wokingham Division retired from a County Court judgeship on a life pension of £1,000 a year, upon a certificate of the Lord Chancellor that he was afflicted with a permanent infirmity, disabling him from the due execution of his office; and, whether, now that the hon. Gentleman has so far regained his health as to be able to undertake the onerous duties of Chairman of the South Eastern Railway Company, he proposes to continue to pay the aforesaid pension out of public moneys?

I have received a letter from the hon. Member for the Wokingham Division, in which he says:—

"I have just by chance seen the question proposed to be addressed to you this afternoon with reference to my pension. I am sure you will give me credit for being unwilling to receive a pension from public funds to which I am not justly entitled, and, having received the pension in question from Lord Selborne, I should be happy to leave the matter entirely in the hands of the present Lord Chancellor for his decision after he had been made acquainted with the whole facts of the case."

I think that is a very satisfactory answer, and one worthy of the hon. Member. It is a matter which lies in the decision of the Lord Chancellor, and he will, no doubt, deal with it in due course.

said that, with reference to what had been said by the hon. Member for the Wokingham Division as to having only seen the question by chance, he had sent the hon. Member private notice of his intention the moment the question was put on the paper.

I wish to ask the Postmaster General whether an agreement has been come to between his Department and the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company in the matter of the Irish Mail Service, and, if so, whether he can state the annual amount of the subsidy, the term of years, the acceleration of speed, and the power of the boats to be employed?

I cannot give the hon. Member all the information he requires, but it is a fact that I have received a communication from the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company accepting the offer I made them. The company suggested that the matter should be referred to a gentleman at the Admiralty who has had great experience in these matters. The whole question was referred to that gentleman, and the opinion he gave has been accepted both by the Department and the company. The effect of the agreement will be to secure an acceleration of half-an-hour in the sea passage in addition to the half-hour already secured in the land portion of the journey. The subsidy will be £100,000 a year, with certain deductions similar to those in the last contract. The contract is for a term of 20 years, after which there will be a reduction in the amount paid. The whole of the facts will be laid before the House and the contract will require its sanction.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could say whether under the new arrangements provision would be made for the better accommodation for passengers, particularly the second class?

replied, that larger vessels would be provided, and that in all probability the accommodation for passengers of all classes would be better. That provision, however, was not part of the contract.

I think it will be for the convenience of the House if the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House can now give us some idea as to the duration of the Whitsuntide holidays. I think he will admit that he got all the business he hoped for on Thursday and Friday last, and possibly he would be able to regard our hopes with a more favourable eye and give us a fairly lengthened period of leisure. While the right hon. Gentleman is answering the question, perhaps he will also tell us what the Government propose to do with the Naval Works Bill?

We have not quite exhausted everything that I hope to get done before we adjourn; but I rather gather that to-night it is not desired to debate the Finance Bill further on the Third Reading. If that is so, the Bill can be taken at the end of the evening, and I understand that arrangements have been made for it to be taken to-night in the House of Lords. With reference to the question about the Naval Loan Bill, I gather also that the discussion on the points in that Bill will not now require a very long time, and I should propose to adjourn the Debate on the Welsh Bill at about half-past Ten to-morrow with a view to finishing the Committee Stage of the Naval Loan Bill. If that is considered convenient, then, as I have said before, we could take the Vote on Account and the Report upon it on Thursday and Friday, and, if that were accomplished, I should hope the House might adjourn on the Friday until the following Monday week.

said, that an hour-and-a-half was a very short time to allow for the consideration of the Naval Bill. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the opposition to the Bill came from his own side. Hon. Members on the Opposition side would not take very long in what they had to say on the Bill, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adjourn the Welsh Debate at Ten o'clock.

I will try to do that. I shall not quarrel with either side of the House for half-an-hour.

in the Chair.

said, he did not rise to object to the Amendment, but to say that he thought it would be convenient if the right hon. Gentleman would give the House a rather more detailed statement as to the scheme he proposed with regard to Queen Anne's Bounty. He had already put down a series of Amendments with reference to Queen Anne's Bounty, and to a certain extent, though to a very small extent he was afraid, the right hon. Gentleman had met this difficulty. This Amendment appeared on the Paper for the first time on Saturday, and that made it impossible for him to put down any Amendment to it; though he had handed in some consequential Amendments which would, in the opinion of him and his friends, be absolutely necessary in dealing with this question on the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's subsequent Amendment. His object now was to ask the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement which would enable the House to understand his policy as to Queen Anne's Bounty. The first important point was to consider whether or not there should be any account taken of the funds given by Queen Anne's Bounty at all, assuming that he was in a position to establish that Queen Anne's Bounty had overpaid to the Church in Wales an amount far in excess of anything received from Wales. Assuming, that was to say, that it should turn out that, from every source which could possibly be claimed as being a source of Welsh income and property, Wales had received from Queen Anne's Bounty a very much larger sum than she had paid. There had been paid over under the statutes relating to Queen Anne's Bounty a certain portion of income, but that amount, and far more, had been paid back for Welsh purposes. He asked, did the right hon. Gentleman admit or deny that such an account ought to be taken? From the account he proposed should be taken, he excluded all money spent on residences. With regard to Queen Anne's Bounty, they desired to maintain that any money given by it was as much a private benefaction as any other gift; and it would be a convenience to the Opposition to know what was the view of the Home Secretary. They had to consider cases in which glebe had been purchased by money received from Queen Anne's Bounty. Almost invariably such grants had been made to meet private benefactions equal to, or larger than, the grants. They desired to know how the Home Secretary proposed to deal with those cases, in order that they might be the better able to appreciate and discuss Amendments when they came to them. There are some smaller matters with regard to specific funds held by Queen Anne's Bounty; but these it would be more convenient to discuss on the Amendments. It might be convenient for the purposes of the Home Secretary that he should make a statement now; and they would be glad to have it, as it might shorten future discussions.

asked whether the effect of this Amendment, coupled with one which followed, would not be to hand over the property of Queen Anne's Bounty in Wales to the Disestablished Church?

said, it would be more convenient to discuss these matters when they came to the subsequent proposals, and to confine themselves to the present clause so far as it affected the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. But as the hon. and learned Gentleman thought it would be desirable to have a preliminary explanation, he should be happy to give it. It must be understood, however, that he could not go into detail or argument. The answer to the question of the right hon. Gentleman behind him would be, that the effect of the present Amendment would not be to give the property of Queen Anne's Bounty to the Disestablished Church; on the contrary, the effect of it would be to convey from Queen Anne's Bounty to the Welsh Commissioners everything that, under the system adopted by the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, was property now devoted to Welsh ecclesiastical purposes. This property was first to be conveyed to the Welsh Commissioners. Then they came to the question to be disposed of under Clause 5—how much of it was to be headed as private benefaction which ought to be passed on to the representative body of the Disestablished Church? Their own opinion was, that first of all they should ear-mark, so far as language could do so, the whole property in the hands of the Queen's Bounty which could fairly be headed as Welsh ecclesiastical property. After carefully considering the matter, he had come to the conclusion that to require an account of the transactions between the Welsh Church and Queen Anne's Bounty, from the foundation of that institution to the present day, would be impracticable and unjust. The practice of Queen Anne's Bounty, as he understood, was to make no distinction at all as to the source from which its various funds are derived in the appropriation of those funds to different dioceses and benefices in the Church. At various times the Governors had considered the necessities of Wales, and had concluded that its ecclesiastical and spiritual necessities were greater than those of their English dioceses. It might very well be that, in the sense in which the words had been used, they had overpaid the Church in Wales as compared with the Church in England. In their judgment, the proper way of dealing with the matter was not to rip up their past transactions and to make what must be a purely fictitious account; that was not the system which Queen Anne's Bounty had adopted; and in their judgment the proper course was to ascertain what, at the present day, was regarded by Queen Anne's Bounty as property appropriated to the use of Welsh benefices. They are the best judges in this matter. They had acted in this matter fairly and equitably according to the different requirements they had had to meet; and he believed there would be found in these books, not a large sum, but a substantial sum, which was treated in their books as if it were appropriated to Welsh benefices and Welsh ecclesiastical purposes. To apply the other test—what would have been the state of things if this Bill had not been proposed—was not necessary, for there was no pretence for saying the Governors would have taken any of these funds appropriated to Welsh purposes and transferred them to England. In their judgment they ought to take the matter as it stands, and whatever is now credited to particular Welsh benefices and dioceses ought to be treated as Welsh ecclesiastical property. The gifts that had been received from private sources would be treated as private benefactions. Where glebe-lands have been purchased partly by money derived from first fruits and tenths or from Parliamentary grant, and partly from private benefactions, in those cases there ought to be an apportionment, and the machinery for that was provided by an Amendment he had put down to Clause 5.

said, the right hon. Gentleman dealt harshly with the Church in the proposals he submitted, and he was not consistent in the principles upon which he acted. They had been told that the principle of the Bill was to utilise money in the places from which it was derived, so that localities might have the benefit of national property. It was laid down by the second subsection of Clause 9, that—

"In the application of property under this Act, due regard shall be had to the wants and circumstance of the parish in which the property is situate or from which it is or has been derived, and generally to the circumstances of each particular case."

Where the money came from was to be the test in one set of cases; but, when it was found that Queen Anne's Bounty had given to Wales more money than it had received, then the test would be the application of the money at the present moment. This was treating the Church in an unfair manner. The right hon. Gentleman said he regarded the funds as public money devoted to public purposes. Whatever else might be said about them they were funds belonging to the Church; and on that side of the House they would decline to believe that the funds of Queen Anne's Bounty could be national property in any sense whatever. It was not the corpus of Church property, it was income saved for a particular purpose; and it was never used for national purposes. It was once exacted by the Popes, and then given to some favourites of Henry VIII.; but it was never used for any national purpose. The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that he was going to take from the Church the Parliamentary grants between 1809 and 1820 in aid of Queen Anne's Bounty. He could not conceive a more unfair proposal. They were taking the Parliamentary grant to the Church, but the money which had been given between 1722 and 1845, amounting to £207,000, to the Nonconformists in the shape of Regium donum doles was not to be touched. What then was to become of religious equality? It had totally disappeared from the Treasury Bench. The Welsh share of £1,100,000 granted by Parliament in aid of Queen Anne's Bounty amounted to £167,000. Of that sum £49,131 had been spent. This was to be taken away, together with the rest of the £167,000 that had not been spent; and yet they were precluded from touching any part of the £207,000 granted in the form of Regium donum by Parliament to the Nonconformists. He protested against the scheme of the Government, and still more against the original scheme of the Bill. He trusted that the Home Secretary would reconsider the question, and would yet be able to insert Amendments to the Amendments of which he himself had given notice.

thought that the Government were asking the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to do what was practically impossible. The meaning of the word "forthwith" in the clause was "immediately." The Ecclesiastical Commissioners had not only to deal with property vested in them, but also to declare as to the property to be vested in them by Clause 21. This would involve a long inquiry, because with reference to the property in Clause 21 not vested in them they possessed no official information. A fishing inquiry would, therefore, have to be the result. He moved, therefore, the omission of the word "forthwith" in order to substitute "as soon as may be after the passing of this Act."

thought that the hon. Gentleman had imagined a number of difficulties which did not really exist. The words were necessary in order to bring within the scope of Welsh ecclesiastical property the produce of property, now in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, from the sale of Welsh tithe rent-charge and Welsh glebe lands. The amount actually dealt with under these words represented, as he was informed, a capital sum of about £80,000, which was quite easily traceable in the books of the Commissioners, and as to which there would not be the least difficulty in administration.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had not dealt with the cases put by his hon. and learned Friend. It was no use telling the Committee that other property would not be included. It might be that the draughting of this Bill was impossible. It was, in fact, one of the main contentions of the Opposition that the two parts of the Church were so interwoven with each other that they could not be separated. Property might have been bought in Wales with English money, and then sold again; and the fact of selling property in Wales would, under the Bill, constitute the fund property situated in Wales, although the original money had been English. Did the right hon. Gentleman think that such property should be included as property situate in Wales?

did not think that either of the cases put came within the words which the Amendment proposed to omit. They were here dealing only with property invested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who had only been appointed about 60 years. Neither of the cases put came within this category at all.

said, that if words were inserted to limit it to 60 years that would make it clear, and would go a long way to meet the objections raised in the Amendment.

instanced the case of a man who had made a large fortune from the tinplate industry in Wales, and then allocated a part of his fortune to some object in England or in Wales. The fund so given would be money derived from property situated in Wales.

pointed out, in the first place, that the property could not be vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and, in the second place, that it would be a private benefaction.

said, there was no provision in Clause 5 to send back to England anything that was found not to have been a private benefaction, but which had originally come from England.

admitted that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were only established 60 years ago. But property might have been derived 100 years ago, and as an English endowment vested in the Commissioners. The endowment might have been derived from English or Welsh sources, and as this was determined, it might be allotted to secular uses in Wales or not.

submitted that the words under discussion did not bear the interpretation that had been placed upon them. He suggested words which would confine the operations of the Bill to property vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and which had been dealt with by them.

suggested that the words might be so altered as to catch the exact fish the Home Secretary wanted, and miss the others.

said, the Commissioners had bought property in Lancashire. Suppose the money with which the property had been paid for was derived in Wales, would property such as this come within the clause?

replied that the clause would only apply to property locally situated in Wales or Monmouthshire and vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and which had been dealt with by them by way of sale.

said, that as he understood the clause it seemed to propose fresh Disendowment of the Church in Wales. It meant, practically, that all property derived from English sources which had hitherto been devoted to Welsh interests was henceforth not to be devoted to them but to the interests of English dioceses. If so, he should have to vote against the proposal.

said, the point was one of drafting and not of principle. As there was a question of substance to be discussed, he suggested that they should leave the drafting of the Amendment where the Home Secretary had left it with the introduction of the words he had suggested and pass on to the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Cambridge University.

proposed to amend Clause 4, which provided that after the passing of the Act the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty should declare what property vested in them consisted of or was derived from property in Wales or Monmouthshire by leaving out the words following:—

"In whatever manner the same is applied, whether in England or Wales,"

and inserting—

"which is applied to the purposes of the Church in Wales."

He first, however, asked the opinion of the Chairman on a point of order submitting that the words he proposed to amend were beyond the title of the Bill, and therefore the Committee could not consider them.

said, that the words to which the right hon. Gentleman had called attention were in the Bill at the time when it was read a second time, and committed by the House to this Committee. It was too late to take any objection; if necessary, the Bill could be considered in Committee.

pointed out that the clause not only affected Wales, but involved partial Disendowment of the Church in England. It proposed that any property held by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, if it were geographically situated in Wales or Monmouthshire, should be treated as Welsh Ecclesiastical property. Property in Wales was held by Christ Church, Oxford, in trust for purposes connected with Christ Church, and by the Bill this would have to be declared as Welsh ecclesiastical property. It was perfectly clear that it was not the geographical situation of property which made it Welsh property, but the purpose for which the property was held in trust. He suggested that the extremely wide words he proposed to amend should be omitted, and the clause should be confined to property which was applied to the purposes of the Church in Wales, and should not apply to property which was held in trust for the purposes of the Church in England.

said, that he was rather surprised at the objection which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Gorst) had taken to the words in the clause. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of them as though they amounted to a Disendowment of the Church of England? The right hon. Gentleman was probably not aware that much larger sums went from England to Wales than went from Wales to England. The fact was, that under the existing system some of the tithe rent-charge which was received in Wales went to the Church of England; and some of the tithe rent-charge, to a much greater amount, that was received in England went to the Church of Wales; and that the effect of the clause would be to free the sum of £44,000 a year, now received as tithe rent-charge in England, which at present went to Wales, and to hand it over to the English Ecclesiastical Commissioners, for the purposes of the Church of England. Therefore, so far from the Welsh Commissioners gaining by the proposed arrangement they would lose very considerably by it. If the Amendment were accepted the right hon. Gentleman would find that the result would be that the somewhat considerable sum to which he had referred would be forfeited by the Church of England. There were a good many parishes in Wales in which the tithe rent-charge collected was paid over to the Church of England; while, on the other hand, there were parishes in England the tithe rent-charge of which was paid over to the Church of Wales. It would be a much more equitable and satisfactory arrangement if the tithe rent-charge received in Wales were to be paid over to the Welsh Commissioners, and if the tithe rent-charge received in England were to be paid over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. If the arrangement were adopted the Church of England would be a considerable gainer by the transaction.

said, that it was a perfectly well understood and an equally well known fact that certain Welsh tithes were paid to the English Church, and that certain English tithes went to the Welsh Church. In his opinion, therefore, it would make but little difference one way or the other if instead of the existing arrangement being continued the Welsh tithe went to the Welsh Church and the English tithe to the Church of England.

said that, as far as he could understand, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary showed how difficult it was to effect a separation between the Church of England and the Church of Wales, and to divide fairly property which had been for the last 800 years one and indivisible.

could not understand what compensation the Church of England was to get for what she was to surrender under this Bill. There could be no doubt that, under Clause 4 of the Bill, the property belonging to the Church of England which was situated in Wales would be vested in the Welsh Commissioners. What compensation was the Church of England to receive for being deprived of that property. He thought that the provisions of the clause were all against the Church of England.

said, that it might be perfectly true that on a balance of what was to come to England from Wales, or to Wales from England, there might be a balance in favour of one side or the other, but he did not see how those individual benefices that lost their Endowments would have their loss made up to them, unless the case of each individual benefice was to be considered separately.

said, that he did not think that the fears that had been, expressed by hon. Members on this subject were well founded. He believed that as the Bill now stood, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would have to give compensation from their common fund to any English Ecclesiastical Corporation which was deprived of revenue by the operation of the Bill; but if there was any doubt on that point, a clause could be inserted making it clear. On the whole he thought that the Committee would be well advised if they left the clause where it was.

thought that there should be a very clear distinction made between what was Welsh ecclesiastical property and that which belonged to the Common Fund. If they took the case of property in England forming part of an Endowment of the Welsh Church, that would go to Wales under the Bill.

No.

said, that undoubtedly such property would go to Wales under Clause 3. On the other hand, if they reversed the proposition, property in Wales forming part of an English Endowment would also go to Wales.

said, that at the present moment, as regarded this clause, the Committee only dealt with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty. Under the existing system the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were entitled to receive a certain amount of English tithe rent-charge, which was paid over to the Church of Wales; while, on the other hand, they received a certain amount of Welsh tithe rent-charge, which was paid over to the English Church. The object of the clause was to ensure for the future that all tithe rent-charge arising from Wales should be handed over to the Welsh Commissioners, and that all tithe rent-charge arising in England should be handed over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and that the common expenses should be paid out of the common fund.

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

thought the effect of this proviso would be to make no distinction between capital arising from Wales and capital from England, which would be very mischievous to the Church in England.

said, this was a very technical matter, and he did not think the hon. Member appreciated the effect of the Amendment. It did not matter in the least in this case where the money came from, because it was all to go over, through the Welsh Commissioners, to the representative body.

said, the object of the Home Secretary was clear. He thought the point of the hon. Member for Wigan might be raised more appropriately at a later stage.

said, the Amendment was a monstrous violation of private trusts.

said, it was somewhat discouraging to them that a proposal, which was entirely in the interest of the representative body to secure to the Church private benefactions, should be received with so much suspicion and hostility.

said, the Committee would remember that some days ago he put down an Amendment directing that Queen Anne's Bounty should take a certain account, and in accordance with the result of that account, should or should not hand over sums to the Welsh Commissioners. If he was consistent and loyal, the Home Secretary must accept the principle of the Amendment he was going to propose. He proposed to leave out all the words after the word "declare," so that the Home Secretary's Amendment would read in this way:—

"To leave out all the words after the word 'declare,' in line 2, to the end of the proposed Amendment, in order to insert the words— 'Firstly, what property (other than money the produce of parsonage houses sold or paid under the Dilapidations Act, 1871, or property constituting private benefactions) is, at the passing of this Act, or has at any time been, vested in them, which consists or consisted of, or issues or issued out of, or is or was the produce of, or is or was derived from property situate in Wales or Monmouthshire; and, secondly, what money (other than money constituting private benefactions) has at any time been expended by them in the acquisition of tithe rent-charge or glebe-land (other than residence houses) for the purposes of the Church in Wales;' and the balance (if any) by which the value of the property firstly ascertained exceeds the moneys secondly ascertained shall be Welsh ecclesiastical property for purposes of this Act."

He respectfully protested against the doctrine that all the property in question was ever intended by the Crown to be public property, and therefore open to the attack of those who desire Disestablishment of the Church. He would quote three lines from the book of that great man, the late Lord Selborne, whore on page 166 of the fourth edition, he said:—

"Queen Anne's Bounty, therefore, was in substance an act of restitution, rather than a donation. The revenue so granted had never been used for any national or public purpose."

If, as he contended, what was now left in the hands of the Commissioners no longer could be said to be the produce of what had come from Wales, on what principle could they say that more should be handed over to the Welsh Commissioners for secular uses? He believed the total receipts since 1703 from first, fruits and tenths in Wales was £139,050; proceeds in the hands of Queen Anne's Bounty, £123,338; from tithe redemption, £6,600—making a gross total of £268,988. There was an expenditure out of the general fund of £290,699, and a further amount of Parliamentary grants of £75,160, making a total of £365,859. The result was this, that Queen Anne's Bounty had expended in Wales, excluding what was being spent upon residence, £365,859, or applying the principle laid down in connection with the last Amendment, an excess of expenditure other than what had come from Wales of £96,871. Out of that there had been expended on parsonages £84,215, leaving an excess of expenditure over anything which had come from Wales of —12,656. He had excluded entirely on both sides any expenditure which had come from private benefactions. He had also excluded the sums spent on parsonage houses and parsonages, because that money would come back to the representative body under the scheme of the Bill. The difficulty he had in the matter was that he could not perceive a shadow of justice in the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. He had pointed out that the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty had their general fund the same as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, arid that, having regard to the poverty of Wales, they felt an interest in increasing the existing Endowments by the purchase of tithe, glebe, and so on, out of the moneys at their disposal. If the figures he gave were substantially accurate, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would not say that Queen Anne's Bounty would put before the Committee figures which were not justified—the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty would be asked by the proposal of the Bill to go through the form of making declarations and orders in order to ascertain that they should not be called upon to pay over anything further than met the tithe and glebe; and he maintained that they could not be asked by the Home Secretary to pay more than the tithe and glebe existing to-day, unless the right hon. Gentleman could say that the Governors held unexpended moneys received from Welsh sources. The case he put forward he believed to be founded on simple justice, and he submitted it with confidence to the Committee. He appealed to hon. Members below the Gangway opposite from Wales, who had disclaimed over and ever again the idea of desiring to obtain certain moneys for secular purposes. If the Amendment were not carried, the right hon. Gentleman, in addition to having sums of money which at present represented the Endowments of Welsh livings, would be asking to receive money which had been contributed by members of the Church of England out of property situated nowhere in Wales. He was perfectly satisfied that when the case was fully inquired and examined into the injustice of the proposal would be perceived. He had endeavoured to state the case in a way in which the right hon. Gentleman might be able to argue it, and if he had failed to make himself perfectly clear he should be glad to give further explanation. If the balance were as he had stated, by every principle of justice Queen Anne's Bounty should not be made to contribute as proposed.

said, he was sorry to have to again trespass on the Committee, but he would endeavour to state briefly, repeating much of what he had already said, the grounds upon which he asked the Committee to object to the Amendment. With reference to the passage his hon. and learned Friend had quoted from the late Lord Selborne, in regard to Queen Anne's Bounty being given to the Church in restitution, and not as a donation, he would point out that the word "restitution" signified something being handed back to a person to whom it previously belonged. Now, inasmuch as those "firstfruits" and "tenths" had never previously been enjoyed by the Church of England—that they were first paid to the Church of Rome, were then paid over to the Crown, and finally handed over by Queen Anne to the Church, the grant could not be said to be a "restitution." In the judgment of the Government the Bounty was public property in the same sense as the other Endowments with which the Committee had been dealing in the course of the Debates. He could not agree with his hon. and learned Friend that any of the provisions embodied in other parts of the Bill would render the "taking on account" either logical, necessary, or imperative. Queen Anne's Bounty never held, and did not hold, any land in Wales at all. They might have purchased, but they were certainly not the original holders of anything but tithe rent-charge. Every endowment, such as they were, was entirely derived from this tax upon livings, supplemented by Government grants and private donations. They received those amounts on account of the Church in England, and they had invested them from time to time—sometimes in Government funds and railway stock, sometimes in loans and mortgages, and at other times in the purchase of tithe rent-charge and free lands; but, so far as his information went, they had never treated the question of the source of those funds as having anything to do with the manner in which they were appropriated. The funds were treated by the Governors in their books as a matter in which the whole Church in common was interested, and they had appropriated certain portions of them—no doubt with due regard to the necessities of each particular case—now to one diocese and now to another. He would call attention to another Amendment which stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member, because he thought it went to show that the hon. and learned Member was hardly consistent in this matter, and because it was material to the discussion, and showed the view which Queen Anne's Bounty and their advisers took of the proper dispensation of those funds. On page 50 of the Amendments the hon. and learned Gentleman had put down the following new clause:—

"Nothwithstanding anything in this Act or in any Act of Parliament or Charter contained, it shall be lawful for Queen Anne's Bounty to make such payments as appear to them required for preserving the interests of persons interested in such payments at the passing of this Act, and in the discretion of the Governors to continue after the cesser of existing interests to apply for the purposes of the Church in Wales in the same manner as heretofore all or any part of such property (if any) as is at the date of Disestablishment applied for such purposes, and shall not be transferred by this Act as Welsh ecclesiastical property, or to transfer the whole or any part of that property to the Welsh representative body at such times and subject to such conditions and provisions as may be agreed upon between that body and Queen Anne's Bounty."

Very well, what did this mean? It meant that while his hon. and learned Friend would save the whole of this property, which was appropriated to the benefit of the Church in Wales, from the grasp of the clause under discussion, he would seek, by a later Amendment, to empower the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty to hand over the whole of that same property to the representative body. By what title? The only ground on which it could be justified was that the Church in Wales had an equitable title to the enjoyment of the property, and that it had been used for ecclesiastical purposes. Yet, by his hon. Friend's own argument, if an account were taken now in this matter it would be shown that there was nothing in the funds of the Bounty coming from Wales. Unless it could be shown that the property in question was Welsh ecclesiastical property, which he contended it was, and had been appropriated by Queen Anne's Bounty for the benefit of the Church, it could not be dealt with in the manner proposed by his hon. and learned Friend, and if it was Welsh ecclesiastical property for one purpose it was so for another. The Government had included in this clause a great deal of property now in the hands of Queen Anne's Bounty appropriated to Welsh purposes, which were the fruits of private benefactions. They included it in this clause because it must pass to the Welsh Commissioners before it could finally reach the hands of the representative body. Therefore, for the purpose of this discussion, it was surely sufficient to point out that, whatever was retained by the Welsh Commissioners under this clause, would be, in the first place, property now treated by Queen Anne's Bounty as part of the endownments of the Welsh Church, and only such part of that property as had been derived from public and national sources. That was a just proposal, and he could not recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment.

observed that the right hon. Gentleman had put the question they had to answer in a very clear shape. He said: Was this ecclesiastical property or was it not? Was this contribution out of Queen Anne's Bounty part of the endownments of Wales in any true and equitable sense? He ventured to say that, in deciding this matter it was not at all necessary to go into the question of whether this was a public fund or not. What was the argument of the right hon. Gentleman? He had told them that this fund was a common fund belonging to the whole Church, and he had said that if the managers of the fund chose to give a certain part of that common fund for the Welsh dioceses then it ought to be considered as part of the Welsh property; and as they were dealing with Welsh property they ought to deal also with that contribution. That reasoning was fallacious. This was, no doubt, a common fund derived from ecclesiastical property in England and Wales given by the bounty of the Caown for certain purposes connected with the benefit of the Church. It was distributed by those responsible for the contributions on the ground of necessity. If the Welsh Church got more than its share, if more were given, to the Welsh Church than was contributed by it, then it was because the Welsh Church happened to be that part of the Church which was most in need of assistance. Therefore, if they examined the argument of the Government and probed it to the bottom, they would find that the Welsh Church was going to be robbed of this money because it happened to be most in need of it. It was the poverty of the Welsh Church, and that alone, which was made the ground of the robbery. He had often heard wealth made a ground for robbery, but he had never heard poverty made such a pretext before. It certainly appeared to him that the very fact on which the right hon. Gentleman had based his argument—namely, that the Welsh Church was more in need of a common fund than the other part of the Church in England—should be a reason why this source of income should be dealt with in a generous spirit and why the Government should not yield to the solicitations of their Welsh friends and try and take away, not merely the endownments proper of the Welsh Church, but every contribution of any sort common to the Welsh and the English Church on which they could lay their hands. That was the root of the matter. He did not care to argue where Queen Anne got the money to give the Church, but this money was given by the royal bounty to the Church as a whole, and because one part of the Church which they proposed to disendow, on account of its necessities alone, received more than its proportionate share he did not think they ought to consider that was the property of that part of the Church, which should be dealt with like the other parts of the property they proposed to take away. The fund was distributed according to the views of the public needs involved, and he did not think they had any right to suppose. And it never had been supposed that the Welsh had a right to the particular allocation of the money until it suited the Government to discover that these were funds which by this clause might be appropriated in the manner proposed in the clause. The hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight had pointed out that the Government had gone on an entirely different principle in dealing with Queen Anne's Bounty to that adopted with regard to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but the Home Secretary had not even condescended to notice that point. In the earlier part of the clause it was distinctly provided that the origin of the money was to determine its distribution. Subsection 1 of this clause as amended took for England all the money which had its origin in England and left for Wales all the money that had for its origin ecclesiastical property in Wales. That might be good or bad; but if they adopted it in Sub-section 1 of Clause 4 why should they throw it out in Subsection 2 of the same clause? The Home Secretary had never explained why he thought the principle of origin was a sufficient ground of distribution when they were dealing with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and was to be thrown to the winds when they came to deal with money belonging to the Church funds. The Government should be consistent, and as they had laid down a principle in the first part of the clause, which had been unanimously adopted, he thought that principle should also govern the second part of the clause; and the Government should not introduce suddenly, without reason or argument and against all the dictates of natural justice, a method of dealing with Queen Anne's Bounty which seemed to him to have no motive at all except that of diverting to secular purposes as much as they could get of property which was at present devoted to sacred and religious uses.

replying to a remark of the Home Secretary, pointed out the sense in which the late Lord Selborne had described Queen Anne's Bounty as "substantially an act of restitution." First-fruits and tenths were imposts laid on the clergy by the Pope (with the sanction of Edward I. and later kings), not for the general purposes of the Papacy, but for a special and temporary purpose, viz., the support of the Crusades. When Crusades had ceased the tax was continued. Henry VIII. Assumed the place of the Pope in levying that tax—as the head of the Church in England. Queen Anne's Bounty was (in Lord Selborne's phrase) "substantially an act of restitution," because it restored to a religious use funds originally levied for a religious use.

observed that, without following the hon. Gentleman in his argument as to first-fruits and tenths it was quite certain that at the time of Henry VIII. the Pope, to whom they belonged, was disendowed, and these funds were handed over to the Crown, not as private property but as part of its general revenues. The sovereign used them for national purposes, and so things stood until the time of Queen Anne. Queen Anne handed the money over for the benefit of small livings, and certainly she did not do this in the character of a private benefactor. He thought hon. Members were mistaken in supposing that any part of Queen Anne's Bounty was vested by the Governors in land in Wales. What happened was that the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty years ago, for all practical purposes, allocated certain portions of the fund subject to their control for the benefit of each diocese, and the dioceses of Monmouth and Wales had received a very considerable proportion of the fund. He ventured to say that the effect of that act of the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty had been to make the fund a Welsh fund, and to treat it as anything in the shape of a private benefaction would be simply absurd. It was, in fact, a Welsh fund, and as much Welsh property as Welsh glebe or tithes. That being so, to accept an Amendment to treat the fund as a private benefaction, and hand it over to the Disestablished Church in Wales would be to run counter to the whole principle of the Bill.

remarked, that with reference to the argument of the right hon. Baronet who had last spoken he would like to ask him this question: Supposing that the Queen Anne's Bounty money were taken from the Pope and made over to the Crown, what did the Crown do with the money during the long series of years that elapsed between the time of Henry VIII. and Queen Anne? Was the money not used for the private benefit of the Crown, and as the private property of the Crown?

In those days there was no distinction between the public and private property of Crown. The Sovereign dealt with both indifferently.

asked, whether, in the time of Charles I., the Commonwealth, Charles II., and James II. there was no distinction between the money which belonged to the Crown as private property, and the resources placed at the disposal of the Crown by Parliament? Surely there was. Queen Anne's Bounty through all these generations remained the private property of the Crown, and he would not admit that it ever was public property. When it belonged to the Pope, it belonged to him as his property; when he transferred it to the Crown, it was used by the Crown as private property. It was made over by the Crown to the Church for reasons stated, and the fact that the benefaction was made by a Royal person did not deprive it of the character of a benefaction. There was no definition in the Bill of the phrase, "ecclesiastical property for the purposes of this Act," but no doubt it meant all property made over to the Welsh Commissioners, to be transferred by them to the local authorities for secular purposes. He, therefore, gathered that a sum of money from Queen Anne's Bounty would be handed over for secular purposes. If that was so, it became a very serious question. A very able financial argument had been advanced, and the only answer given by the Home Secretary was a plea of a very special character. Even after they allowed for the outlay upon parsonage houses, which would be handed over to the new Ecclesiastical Body, the sum expended in Wales out of Queen Anne's Bounty exceeded by at least £12,000 the amount derived from Wales. Therefore, there was, at this moment, no money to be handed over from Queen Anne's Bounty to the Commissioners. With regard to the second part of the Amendment, there were certain benefactions made over by private donors to the Cathedral Corporations, or other corporations, for specific purposes. These sums of money were to be saved from the net of the Welsh Commissioners, and were to be handed over to the new Church Body. But they might be devoted by that body, not to the specific purposes for which the benefactors gave them, but to the general purposes of the trust. That was not fair to the trust, and was a danger against which they ought to guard, and in placing the matter before the Committee they did not in the least desire to display any undue suspicion.

said, he could not understand how firstfruits and tenths, which had been assigned by Queen Anne to the service of the Church, could be regarded as public money. Up to Queen Anne's time the fund had formed part of the privy purse of the sovereign; and had been wasted by previous sovereigns. But Queen Anne suspended the annuities in which, most of the funds had been spent, and of her own individual bounty handed them over to the Corporation, which she then founded, for the use of the Church. It was a free gift of the sovereign to the Church; it never lost that character, and he had no hesitation whatever in the saying that the country had no claim to it. He ventured to say further that it was a common fund, belonging to the whole Church, and not to the Church of Wales alone, as was proved by its distribution, which had been common to England and Wales. That argument was, he thought, a strong one against the proposal of the Bill. It was one instance of what a tearing asunder of things closely united, would arise under the Bill. The sums contributed out of the Bounty to Wales had been contributed in all good faith by the Governors. The fund was a common fund, the property of England and Wales alike; but an undue proportion had been given to Wales because of the poverty of the Church in Wales; and for the Government to contend that because of the favour which had been shown to Wales a large portion of the fund should now go to Wales, was most unjust. He had no doubt that if the Governors of the Bounty could have foreseen this result of their liberality to Wales they would not have given so much to that country. The conduct of the Government in regard to this trust must inevitably create distrust and instability in the affairs of the Empire, and shake that public confidence which was most essential to its progress and prosperity. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners had been dealt with in a previous part of the clause; and he thought the Government were in logic bound to treat alike the property of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the property of the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty. One of the chief arguments used in the course of those discussions by the supporters of the Bill was the argument of Welsh nationality. That was a somewhat new discovery. Welsh nationality had not been much heard of until it was devised for political purposes. But if the principle were to be accepted that Wales was a separate nation they should carry the principle to its logical conclusion. If Wales were to be regarded as a separate nationality they must have a separate account for Wales. Wales could not enjoy at the same time the advantage of being independent and the advantage of being part of England. Again, so far as he was aware, Queen Anne's Bounty had no landed property whatever in Wales, which was another reason why a separate account should be taken, inasmuch as there was no difficulty in ascertaining the value of investments money, and the account could easily be completed.

said, that the Amendment raised a question of intricacy and complexity, and one of the difficulties in dealing with it was, that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment had only been placed on the Paper on Saturday, and the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend (Sir R. Webster) only appeared that day. The consequence was, that hon. Members who were following the progress of this Bill with some care found themselves in the greatest difficulty in the attempt to understand the real merits of the two Amendments. One thing, however, was clear, apart from the legal technicalities in which the Home Secretary had indulged—the Church had been in possession of this property for 200 years. Was there, then, to be no Statute of Limitations? Were titles to be continually called up and reconsidered? The Home Secretary proposed to take from the Church the title by which the Church had possessed this property for a length of time. The Home Secretary had told the Committee that one of the main reasons why he thought he had a right to seize upon this property was because certain Parliamentary grants were made to Queen Anne's Bounty, and, therefore, this Bounty was created a public fund which the State could at any time recall. Had the right hon. Gentleman forgotten the Parliamentary grants to Dissenters, and was he prepared to take back the property given to Dissenters under Parliamentary grant? The right hon. Gentleman said, that the Parliamentary grants made to the Dissenters were nothing like the amount granted to the Church. He did not, however, seem to be aware that the Parliamentary grants to Dissenters had been larger and had continued for a longer period of years than the grants made to the Church. They amounted in the aggregate to £2,637,000. He disputed the accuracy of the Home Secretary's statement that firstfruits and tenths could not possibly be considered Church property, and remarked that the Government were hiding their real intentions in legal formularies. How much property was the right hon. Gentleman really going to take away from the Church? Could he not be explicit and state the facts in figures? Did the right hon. Gentleman intend to lay hands upon the capitalised property of the Church, as represented by Queen Anne's Bounty, or, did he only intend to take the Revenue? But the right hon. Gentleman was not only going to deal with Wales. He was going to take the firstfruits and the tenths from English benefices, and to sweep them into his net. The corpus of this property he had already taken. He had taken the tithes and the glebe; what else did he claim? The right hon. Gentleman had treated Queen Anne's Bounty in a wholly different way from that in which he had treated the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. There ought to be uniformity in these matters. The right hon. Gentleman had clothed his design in legal phrases. This clause, in itself, transgressed every principle upon which the right hon. Gentleman had brought for ward and founded his Bill. It transgressed the principle that private endowments should be held sacred; it transgressed the principle that since the year 1703 all endowments should be held sacred; it transgressed the principle that English property should not he touched, but only Welsh; and it violated that canon which had been laid down from the Treasury Bench that equality of treatment should be dealt out to the Dissenting bodies as well as to the Church. It proposed to take away from the Church property which she had enjoyed undisturbed possession of for 200 years, whereas every Dissenting community could claim the benefit of a statute of limitations after only 25 years.

said, that the argument put forward by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Denbighshire had no foundation in fact. He had the highest authority for saying this. The Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty had never appropriated these funds by dioceses, and Wales had received a large share of the funds simply because she was poor. The historical argument would, it was true, have to be further dealt with in Clause 5; but the Home Secretary, in his speech, had treated firstfruits and tenths as property that had never belonged to the Church, but if they referred to history, it would be found that at the time when Henry VIII. appropriated these funds, he issued a Commission to ascertain the nature of the benefices. This would hardly have been done if the same funds had been previously paid to the Pope, so that it would be quite incorrect to say that Henry VIII. merely appropriated to his own purposes that which the Pope had previously received. These funds were, in fact, treated as a special tax on the clergy. and to take from the Church that portion of Queen Anne's Bounty which originated from firstfruits and tenths would be an act of immorality such as Parliament had never yet perpetrated. Then that part of the Bounty which was derived from private benefactions would be confiscated in the absence of absolute proof of title. That was treating the Church quite in an exceptional manner, for if Dissenters could prove possession for a comparatively short period their title was made absolute by statute. As to the third component part of the Bounty, namely, the part originating in Parliamentary grants, he would point out that in the whole history of this country up to the present time one Parliament had never taken away a fund given by a previous Parliament when that fund had been used for the purposes for which it was intended. The Government were manufacturing new precedents for the purpose of diminishing the scanty resources which the Church in Wales hoped might be left to it. While the Government were prepared to treat the Church in this heartless and cruel way, they did not propose to touch the sums given to Dissenters by Parliament. The Church was selected to suffer this exceptional confiscation. Against this spoliation the Opposition would protest to the end.

said, that though the Home Secretary had argued this matter from his point of view with its usual fairness, he clearly did not understand how deep was the feeling existing on the Opposition side of the House by these proposals respecting Queen Anne's Bounty. When these Debates were read on future occasions in connection with other Bills, this provision regarding Queen Anne's Bounty would be considered the most objectionable and most indefensible of the provisions of the Bill. The funds derived from Queen Anne's Bounty ought not to be treated in the same way as funds which belonged absolutely to the Welsh Church, and which, therefore, stood on a different footing. The distinction between the Bounty funds and the other revenues of the Welsh Church was clear. In the case of the latter, the Home Secretary was dealing with funds which were Welsh in their origin, but in the case of the former he was dealing with funds a large portion of which came from English sources. Had the Welsh Church any legal property in the funds administered by the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty? Did they even form an integral portion for any legal purpose of the benefices to which they had been assigned? Supposing an incumbent were to get into financial difficulties, could the funds allocated to his benefice out of Queen Anne's Bounty be sequestrated or used for the purposes of his creditors? He believed they could not. Perhaps the Solicitor General, who was in his place, would tell them whether there was this legal lien on funds which had been assigned by the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty to certain Welsh benefices. If there was no lien of the sort upon them, then these purely voluntary funds could be withdrawn at any moment. He believed the law officers of the Crown would bear him out in saying that these funds were not the legal assets of the holders of the benefices which they augmented; and if they were not legal assets, on what ground did the Home Secretary propose to administer these funds in the same way as those other funds of the Church which were to be taken away unrighteously, as he believed, from one object and devoted to another? He did not believe that these funds were the property of the Welsh Church any more than they were the property of the right hon. Gentleman himself. It would be worth illustrating the position of these funds by reference to others voluntarily contributed. There were funds given to the English Church, and, perhaps, to the Welsh Church, by different public bodies in this country. One such body gave every year £5,000 or more in support of religious services and institutions in places where soldiers were quartered. These were public funds given annually, and never taken away. When a Bill for the Disestablishment of the Church of England should be brought forward, would it be proposed to hand over funds of that kind to the appointed Commissioners? The funds of Queen Anne's Bounty were voluntary funds, free from the control of the Government. If the Governors of the Bounty chose to withdraw them to-morrow the Government could exercise no pressure upon them. The Government had no control whatever over Queen Anne's Bounty; they did not appoint the Commissioners, and were not represented on the Commission. [Mr. ASQUITH. "I am a Governor of Queen Anne's Bounty."] But the right hon. Gentleman had told the House he did not attend these meetings. [MR. ASQUITH: "Hear, hear!"] He believed that one of the objects of putting on some of the most hardworked Members of the Government was that they should not attend the sittings of the Commissions, but merely give them their moral weight. If the Queen Anne's Bounty Commissioners were to take any course the Government could not put pressure on them to take another course. Any day the money now given from the Bounty to Welsh benefices could be taken away. This proposal must be regarded as an indication of the Government's determination, not only to take all the revenues which legitimately belonged to the Church in Wales, but to make it impossible that there should be in the hands of those who were friendly to the Church, revenues sufficient to replace that which had been taken away. To take away funds which those who administered them could devote to other purposes at any time was high-handed spoliation, beyond that which was demanded by the Bill. It was spoliation for which there was no precedent, and he hoped the House would resist it to the uttermost.

said, that the principle of Queen Anne's Bounty was very easy to understand. For nearly 200 years past, clergymen who had been in- stituted into certain livings had been compelled to subscribe a sum to these funds. This money had been accumulated and used to improve the livings of certain small parishes, a large number of which were in Wales. On what principle of equity and fairness could this money be taken away? Supposing that men in the army, or any other branch of the public service had subscribed a certain sum on appointment, and that the amounts so contributed had been accumulated for certain men of the same class who were not so well off, could that be considered a fund which Parliament had a right to take for some other purpose? Supposing that the Commissioners, instead of employing the money wisely as they had done, had spent the corpus; then there would have been no fund for the Government to seize. Surely it was the greatest discouragement to any wise administration of funds for it to become known that Parliament might comedown at any moment and seize the funds for other purposes. This money was accumulated by the subscriptions of persons in the Church—subscriptions levied as a sort of tax to relieve poorer brethren; and it was now to be applied to altogether different purposes. If it had ever been supposed that this money would be taken away for this "baths and wash-houses scheme," it would not have been accumulated. It would have been used from year to year for the advantage of the Church. Though Parliament—but fortunately not the House of Commons alone—had the power to do this iniquitous act, it had no moral right. It was an act of absolute robbery, and none the less so because it was proposed by a Government instead of by a private person. Parliament had a right to disestablish the Church, but it had no moral right to appropriate money which had been put apart for special purposes by persons in the Church. When the history of this Government came to be written, people would be amazed that there should have been a proposal to take back money which Parliament had voted for the Church. Yet that was the other aspect of the Government's proposal. Children in a Kindergarten school understood better the principles of a gift. Savages might take back a gift by force; but they would not go through the farce and pretence of saying that they had a legal right to do so. It was absolute robbery, and when it was remembered that the much larger sum voted by the House for the Nonconformist bodies, and used by them, was not to be taken back, it appeared to be one of the most bare-faced actions ever proposed by any Government. The country ought to know of it, and he was sure that the great bulk of the Nonconformists would resent the Government's action. He had a great number of Nonconformist friends arid constituents, and he knew that they would not wish to be thus dishonest. No doubt they wished to abolish the advantage which the Church enjoyed for being established, but they did not wish to take away the money subscribed to and for the Church by Churchmen, or the money voted by Parliament to the Church concurrently with other money voted to the Nonconformist bodies. The Nonconformists would condemn any Government which made such an outrageous proposition.

said, that he had some ground of personal complaint against the Government for the manner in which they had taken this matter. Earlier in the evening he had moved an Amendment, in which he declared that the true test of whether ecclesiastical property belonged to the Church in Wales or to the Church in England was the purpose to which it was appropriated. The Home Secretary did not at all endeavour to combat the argument; but I stated that the principle of the Bill was not that of the appropriation of property, but that of its geographical situation. All that which was in Wales was Welsh, and that which was in England was English. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was possible to get more out of the Government scheme than out of the other; and he seemed to think anyone foolish who preferred justice to mere self-interest. But his right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol thought it was better to leave the Bill on the Government principle, and, therefore—perhaps sentimentally—he withdrew his Amendment without taking the sense of the House upon it. In this clause the geographical principle was applied both to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and to Queen Anne's Bounty, and he was simple enough to suppose that this principle was to be applied all through. But now it appeared that where it was for the disadvantage of the Church, the geographical principle was to be applied, as in the case of the Bishops. [Mr. ASQUITH: "No; it was for the advantage of the Church."] But in regard to Queen Anne's Bounty, the Government left the geographical principle, and returned to the principle of regarding the purpose to which the money was devoted. The Government applied the principle not of legal appropriation, but appropriation at the discretion of Queen Anne's Bounty, and thought that because the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty had thought fit in their discretion to devote a certain part of their common property to ecclesiastical purposes in Wales it should be held to be Welsh ecclesiastical property. Could anything be more unjust or unreasonable? His hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight proved conclusively by figures that everything which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners possessed which had been derived from Wales had been returned to Wales with a considerable surplus, and therefore, if the Government adopted anything like a geographical plan, the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty had got nothing from Wales which they had not returned. But the Government proposed to make over to the Welsh Commissioners, to be devoted to secular purposes, funds derived from firstfruits and tenths of English benefices, and where, owing to the poverty of the Welsh dioceses, a certain portion of English ecclesiastical property was devoted to Welsh purposes, that property should be stereotyped as Welsh ecclesiastical property. The Home Secretary had been challenged to explain the different principles which the Government had adopted in the two cases. He tried to answer a good many of the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight, but this point he passed by. Then the Leader of the Opposition pointed out the omission, and asked him to make it good. Everyone in the House must have noticed the hiatus. The Committee would come to the conclusion, and the whole country, too, to-morrow, that there was no answer; that the Home Secretary had for purposes of his own, thought fit to apply one principle in one case and another in another.

said, that he was willing to accept the Amendment, which appeared to him to be a reasonable one.

On the question of order and convenience I will not say much, because I do not profess to have a strong opinion, though, speaking off-hand, I should say that the two questions of Parliamentary grants and private benefactions are widely different topics, and ought to be kept apart. I should have thought it more convenient to leave the cases of private benefaction and public grant in different categories; but, leaving the question of order, and coming to the Amendment, I cannot help thinking the right hon. Gentleman must have felt rather embarrassed in opposing the Amendment. In the first place, he told us that, a week ago, the Opposition had voted for giving up the Parliamentary grant to the tender mercies of the Welsh Disestablishers, and for saving the ordinary Endowments of the Church. He considers it the grossest inconsistency that we should put the question of Endowments on one side, and endeavour to keep the Parliamentary grants. Was ever such an argument addressed to the Opposition by the Gentleman in charge of a Bill? Here we have to deal with a case of highway robbery. The gentleman of the road demands from the traveller his purse. The traveller puts in the plea: "Leave me my purse and I will give you my watch!" "Not at all," says the gentleman of the road, "I will have your purse," and his purse he takes. Then the question comes up of the watch, and the unfortunate victim says:—

"Very well, spare my watch. If you will, give me back my purse, but in any case spare my watch."

Says the gentleman of the road:—

"What inconsistency! We decided the question of the purse over the watch at an earlier stage in our proceedings, and it is absurd to put in a claim for either one or the other after we have had the arguments out at an earlier stage."

Leaving this argumentum ad hominem of the right hon. Gentleman, and turning to the objection he raised to my hon. Friend's arguments, the whole matter could be put into a nutshell. Partly in the early part of this century, or chiefly in the early part of this century, Parliament gave large sums of money both to the Church and to the Nonconformist Bodies. ["No, no!"] To which suggestion does the hon. and learned Member object?

The larger part of them went to the Church. Only a small proportion went to the Nonconformist Bodies.

The hon. and learned Gentleman could not have heard what I said. I said that in the early part of the century Parliament gave large sums both to the Church and Nonconformist Bodies. The exact sum I understand to have been, in the case of the Church, —1,100,000, and in the case of the Nonconformists, —208,000. I take the figures that have been supplied to me. These two respective sums, given to different denominations, had precisely the same source. Both these funds were spent for the purposes of the denominations to whom they were given. It appears that the Nonconformist Body spent their money within a year, or, at all events, within a short time; but the Church, acting from economic motives, which now turn out to have been very improvident, capitalised the money, and devoted the income to the purposes for which the fund was given. Both methods for spending the money were legitimate, but I think, in the interests of the body concerned, the financial procedure of the Church was better than that of the Nonconformists. The method of the Church, in dealing with this money, would certainly make it go further and do more good than the expenditure of the money in a few years. That was exactly what happened in the case of the Church. Some 80 years afterwards come the Government and say:—

"These two funds may have had the same origin, they may have had exactly parallel objects, they may have been used more or less for corresponding aims, but, one having been spent, I cannot appropriate it to secular purposes. The other not having been spent, I can appropriate it to secular purposes. One set of gentlemen I can rob, the other set I cannot rob. I do what I can."

That really is no travesty and no exaggeration of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. I never heard anything like it in the western part of the civilised globe. In Oriental countries I have heard something very like it. It is precisely the operation by which the Turkish Pasha, or perhaps, to avoid any international complications, I should say the Oriental Pasha, or the Chinese or the Mongolian successfully prevent the accumulation of capital value in the countries which they respectively govern. He can and does take any form of accumulated property, but the annual produce of the annual harvest spent in the year escapes, or almost escapes, his beneficent action. Why should we initiate these Oriental methods? Why should we, in other words, treat income which is spent differently from income which is capitalised? They have precisely the same origin, they have precisely the same object, and they are used for precisely the same purposes. Unless the Government are prepared to tell us that they would have taken these Nonconformist Endowments if they could, but which have only been saved from their clutches by the fact that the judicious Dissenting bodies to whom they were given, with a felicitous foresight of the policy of the Party to which they belonged, spent the money. Unless the Government are prepared to tell us that, I cannot imagine upon what principle they can justify the action they have taken. It appears to me that here the Government have really an opportunity of showing that they are prepared to follow out those principles of religious equality of which they make such loud profession. If they persist in keeping the Bill in its present form, if they refuse the Amendment of my hon. Friend, either in regard to this clause or some other clause—for my hon. Friend, no doubt, would withdraw his Amendment if there were some prospect given of redress at a later stage—if they refuse now or later any prospect or hope of redress, then it is only a vague and empty pretence for the Government to tell us that their one desire, the one animating desire of all their policy, is to treat the Nonconformist bodies precisely as they treat the Church of England, and to mete out the same measure of justice to both. Here is a practical opportunity for the Government to show what they will do. If they persist in telling us that they mean to deal with the Church funds, and I am sure they will not pretend to tell us that they would deal with Nonconformist funds, for they have not the power—we shall have a perfectly conclusive test of the exact value of all those professions on the strength of which this Bill has been read a second time, and on which they mean to drive it through Committee and through all the remaining stages in the House.

failed to see that the course being taken by the Home Secretary in this matter was in keeping with the declarations he had made. He had stated distinctly that the Disestablished Church in Wales should be placed in precisely as good a position, as regarded privileges, as every other religious community in Wales. On another occasion, he repeated the statement over and over again that he would certainly apply the same measure of justice to the Church that he would apply to the Dissenting bodies. The Under Secretary had said much the same thing—that exact equality should be established between all religious denominations. The right hon. Gentleman had certainly miscalculated the amount of the Parliamentary grants that were given to the Nonconformist bodies. They amounted to more than two millions. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh, but had they seen the returns of 1840 and 1843 with reference to grants to ecclesiastical establishments, meaning to all religious denominations? If they looked at them they would find that the money which was granted to the Church was ear-marked. It was for Church building, and the money granted to the Nonconformists from 1723 to 1850 was not ear-marked. The Nonconformists had had their cake and had eaten it. Still, the effect was just the same to those who had provided the cake—namely, Parliament, by means of the grants. For his own part he had never asked for anything in the course of that Debate but equality of treatment between Nonconformists and Churchmen—simple justice, and that was the very principle upon which so many Nonconformists opposed the Bill. How could the Home Secretary come forward now with a policy which treated the Church differently from the Nonconformist bodies, when he had over and over again declared that he intended to treat them all exactly alike?

said, the Government was proceeding on the ground that the property in question was that of the Church in Wales. How did it ever become so? The Home Secretary had overlooked the fact that there was really no Church of Wales at all. There was a Church of England having vicarages and benefices in Wales. A rector or an incumbent might be entitled to certain property. It was proved that he could recover a debt on that property, and that fact was a test of property. Consequently, it was not denied that the Bill might appropriate the property either of glebe or other lands, or funds attached to the rectory or vicarage of a parish or of a cathedral corporation. There they would be dealing with the property of the Church. But who were the owners of the property under discussion? Not the Church, but Queen Anne's Bounty. Was there anyone representing the Church in Wales who could enforce payment from Queen Anne's Bounty? The sums referred to were given only in the nature of grants, and might be revoked by the Governors at any time. Suppose Queen Anne's Bounty said, with respect to any particular vicarage:—

"You have now a large congregation—sufficiently large to provide your wants, and you do not need any longer our grant,"

and they withdrew their grant. They had a perfect right to so act; their grant was revocable at any time. Well, that was a test of property, and it could not be said, under such circumstances, that Queen Anne's Bounty was the property of the Church. The Governors could exercise their discretion over the whole range of the Church; they might dispense the money in any way which their judgment best commended. Payment could not be enforced from them, and where there was no power of action there was no property. It might be said that certain sums had been contributed by the congregations, which went to swell up the income. The various Churches in Wales had a right to accept contributions from rich men in the district. Were these contributions to be capitalised and taken as Church property? Nothing of the kind. Even the Home Secretary did not say so, and therefore when the right hon. Gentleman said they took this as the property of the Church in Wales, he said it was not the property of the Church. There was no more a case of property in this than there was on the part of those who obtained alms according to the discretion of those who had the administration of a trust. He submitted, therefore, that the claim of the Government in this matter was groundless.

characterised the policy laid down in this proposal as a discouragement to, and a plunder of, thrift. The contention of the Home Secretary seemed to be that if money were spent recklessly it should escape altogether, but if it had been husbanded and carefully looked after, as was the case with this fund, it was to be plundered. If the House of Commons were going to look round in order to plunder a particular fund because it had been well managed and had for many generations done good work, then there would be a distinct discouragement given to endowments. In his judgment there was a danger of this at the present time. There was a system growing by which everybody felt that endowments and provisions of this sort were not secure. If the feeling spread abroad that endowments were to be appropriated simply because the Government of the day were ordered to take that course by a certain number of votes which kept them in Office, then it would be a very serious matter for the future. He had too high an opinion even of the present Government to think that even they would have thought of doing this if it had not been that they were forced to do it by their Welsh allies. This was a policy of absolute robbery, and although he himself believed that, do whatever they might, they could not injure the Church permanently, he said emphatically that to set about a system of discouraging every plan by which the wise administration of funds had been secured in the past was wrong in principle and mischievous in its consequences. Because it would tend enormously to discourage endowments of every sort in the future and was the beginning of a most mischievous course of procedure, he hoped the Committee would divide against the proposal of the Government.

drew attention to the fact that the Home Secretary had not joined issue with the Mover of the Amendment, but on the contrary, admitted his facts. What was the object of the Amendment? It was that if this Bill passed into law, and there was to be confiscation, such confiscation should be carried out with an equal hand. Amendments in a Bill did not admit the principle of a Bill. A Bill was in fact only one long "question proposed." The hon. Member who moved the Amendment submitted that if Parliamentary grants which had been made to the Church or to Queen Anne's Bounty in aid of clerical men were to be taken away from the funds which, by careful husbanding, had been invested in order to make permanent provision for Church purposes, then that the like funds given to the Nonconformists should be dealt with in the same manner. The Home Secretary did not deny the facts. On the contrary, he said—

"True both denominations have received these grants, but they have received them in very different proportions."

But that was not a reason why this Amendment should not be carried; it was a reason why, if the knife was to be put in, it should be put in it a proportionate degree. The right hon. Gentleman said that the funds which were given to the Nonconformists by the hand of Parliament were only one-fifth of those given to the Church. Then why was that one-fifth not to be brought into hotch-potch? Either that should be dealt with in the same manner or the Church should be let off to the extent of an equal sum. That was the proposal which was comprised in the Amendment, and the Home Secretary had not made any case against it. He must take exception to the reviling manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had met the Amendment. He had taunted the Opposition with having last week voted that other endowments should be allowed to be retained and only Parliamentary grants dealt with. But because they proposed Amendments in a confiscating Bill they did not agree in the confiscation. They only said that if the Government were going by their superior strength to carry the Bill, it was at least their right to modify it as much as they could. They proposed their Amendments with a view to mitigate the confiscatory effect of the Bill, therefore it was rather out of place for the Home Secretary to taunt them with the fact that last week they opposed the confiscation of the other property and that this week they opposed the confiscation of Parliamentary grants. It was competent to the Opposition in one week to oppose the one and in the next to oppose the other, and it was not inconsistent, because the ground of his hon. Friend's Amendment was this: that if you take away Parliamentary grants from the Church you must also take it from other people. He submitted that the Government had admitted the case of his hon. Friend in principle, and the only case they had made against it was one of degree. And they had not proposed any Amendment themselves by which that degree of injustice was remedied.

said that it was a mistake to suppose that the Regium donum was a capital sum. It was always an animal grant, originating in the days of Sir R. Walpole, and amounting to nothing more than £1,600 a year and it was not regarded at that time as an ordinary Parliamentary grant, but as a compassionate gift on the part of the sovereign, out of the hereditary revenues of the Crown. As far as his knowledge extended, it was never voted to any Nonconformist bodies as such, but was simply paid to individuals, by distributors appointed by the Crown, and there were Nonconformists who strongly protested against the grant.

But did they take it?

No; certain individuals took the grant, but the Nonconformist bodies, as bodies, were never in receipt of it. And half-a-century ago the Nonconformists besought that House again and again to withdraw the grant, and eventually it was discontinued. That was, he thought, the first time in history that recipients of a Parliamentary grant had come to this House and asked that it might be withdrawn, and the precedent had not been followed since.

thought it desirable that the extraordinary historical statement just made should be met at once. The hon. Member had drawn a graphic picture of a gentleman going about with £1,600 in his pocket, and making a distribution of it against the will of the whole Nonconformist body particular Ministers who happened to receive it. That was a statement which hardly did credit to Nonconformist Ministers. Was the hon. Member aware that the grant (the Solicitor General would correct him as to the exact figure) amounted altogether to at least £208,000? Was he also aware that there was a similar grant made to Presbyterian Churches in Ireland which amounted to no less than £2,000,000, and which, under the Irish Church Act, was made the subject of express compensation, for which Irish Presbyterian Ministers received between £5,000,000 and £7,000,000. The statement of the hon. Member that this was unwillingly forced on Nonconformist bodies was, therefore, not supported by historical facts. The Church was entitled to as much consideration as was shown to the Presbyterian bodies under the Irish Church Act.

in answer to the appeal of his hon. and learned Friend, stated that the right hon. Member for Manchester had somewhat overstated the amount. He found that, according to the 1842 Return, the grant was £141,000, as against the £208,000 quoted, and the grant to the Church of England at the same period was £2,935,000.

said, he had not investigated the matter very closely, but his authority for his statement was the late Lord Selborne, who mentioned £270,347 as the sum received as the Regium donum before 1845 by English Nonconformists, and that for the period after that date £216,660 would be a safe estimate.

stated that the College of Maynooth received £26,000 a year, and the Presbyterian Church of Ireland £45,000 a year as the Regium donum.

proposed to insert after the word "sums," in line 8 of the proposed Amendment, the words "constituting private benefactions within the meaning of the Act." He explained that the object of the Amendment was to put Queen Anne's Bounty in exactly the same position as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

hoped the hon. and learned Gentlemen would not press the Amendment; not because he was opposed to it in principle, but because there would be a discrepancy between the first and second sub-sections if it were carried.

said, that to keep the sums dealt with in the third sub-section in the hands of Queen's Anne's Bounty would be to run the risk of a deadlock. He would have the words "as from the date of disestablishment" inserted in reference to the third sub-section.

asked whether this proviso exhausted all the possibilities of the case.

said, he would cause inquiry to be made into the point.

said, he must ask the Committee to express its opinion on this sub-section. When he presented an Amendment earlier in the evening, he was met by a speech on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, who stated that in his view the substance of the Amendment was practically disposed of by a clause which appeared in his name subsequently on the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman also said, because he had put down a clause in the interest of Queen Anne's Bounty, the language of the Amendment stamped it as being ecclesiastical property. He thought that this inference was not correctly drawn, and it was not intended to be conveyed. He had been consulted by the heads of Queen Anne's Bounty as to whether or not the Bounty would be entitled to give any grants at all to the Welsh Disestablished Church. Having taken advice with regard to their Acts of Parliament and Charters, he came to the conclusion that it would be illegal and contrary to the constitution of the Bounty that any grant should be made to the Disestablished Church after Disestablishment. He thought it right, however, to give the Bounty power to continue at its discretion grants to the Disestablished Church in Wales; but he did not intend to suggest that, because grants were now being given, therefore, the Bounty should give the same amount or that it should be made from the same source. The largest portion of the grants were out of the general fund. They did not deny that under the scheme of the Government, where the Bounty had spent money in tithe or glebe that was to go over to the Welsh Commissioners. Their protest was different. To take a concrete case. Assuming that £700 had been received from Wales for first-fruits and tenths. That sum was vested by Queen Anne's Bounty in tithe or glebe for the benefit of a particular parish. It would go over to the Welsh Commissioners. Suppose that in the same time the same sum had been contributed out of English first-fruits. According to the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman, the Welsh Commissioners would get both the sums, and he contended that there was no right or justice in that. The right hon. Gentlemen had no right, and it was not within the scheme of his Bill to have, in addition to the money which was now represented by existing Church property, money in the hands of Queen Anne's Bounty, which never came from Wales at all. If it were shown that the managers of Queen Anne's Bounty had paid away in Wales more than they had ever received from the Welsh Church there was no principle upon which that charity ought to be called upon to make any contribution from the funds in their hands towards the purposes of this Bill. He asked the Home Secretary to give some explanation of the principle upon which he justified the rejection of his (the speaker's) Amendment, and he would ask the Committee, failing such explanation, to express their opinion upon the subject. This was one of the parts of the Bill which showed that the right hon. Gentleman had not acted upon any principle, but that he had moulded and changed the provisions of his Bill according to the dictates of hon. Members from Wales, and that he was not dealing with the Welsh Church in the same way as the Irish Church was dealt with.

said that the Opposition had over and over again appealed to the Home Secretary to give some reason why he had treated property vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in a different way from property vested in the Managers of Queen Anne's Bounty. The right hon. Gentleman had given no reply to the reiterated appeal. The right hon. Gentleman only gave them the closure, and he hoped they might even yet receive some answer to their questions.

We have heard I do not know how many speeches, and I have explained to the best of my ability, certainly three times, and with the greatest detail, the grounds on which the Government have made this proposal. I decline to take up the time of the Committee with repeated arguments.

I do not deny that the right hon. Gentleman has made a great many speeches. The question is whether any of them have been to the point. I really do not wish to introduce unnecessary heat into this Debate; but I ask my opponents who have been present during the Debate whether they have heard any one word from the Home Secretary dealing with the point? [Cries of "Oh!" from the Ministerial Benches]. The point is this. The Government bring in a clause dealing in two subsections with two great central funds. One of these is administered by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; the other by Queen Anne's Bounty. The principle on which the Welsh share of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners has been appropriated to secular purposes is that money coming from Wales is taken away from the Church, while money not coming from Wales is left to the Church. Having so dealt with that central fund, we ask the Government, in dealing with the other central fund, to take that portion which comes from Wales and to give it to ecclesiastical purposes. They refuse, and take up another position, and adopt a wholly different and absolutely unjustifiable course, the only conceivable ground for a distinction being that they get more money by changing their principles than they would if they remained consistent in regard to their original proposition. Our modest request, made three or four times, is that they should explain upon what the difference which they are making depends. I say boldly that in all the numerous speeches which the Home Secretary has made he has not in any single instance alluded in the most faint manner to that distinction, nor has he given us the slightest information in regard to it. That is not the way to treat an Opposition anxious to argue out the points raised in this Bill, and not to obstruct it by irrational objections. In treating us in this way the Government are not adopting the best means for transacting the business of this House with speed and decorum.

desired to corroborate every word that had fallen from the Leader of the Opposition. The Home Secretary had never answered the questions put to him. [Cries of "Oh!"] Some hon. Members near him dissented, but he had heard several of them say that they could not hear what the right hon. Gentleman said, so how could they assert that he had replied to the arguments addressed to him? The tactics of the Government with reference to this question had been very curious, and as to the Home Secretary's "innumerable" speeches the box on the table in front of him might have heard them, but they could not be heard in the part of the House where he sat Time after time hon. Members near him had expressed the wish that the right hon. Gentleman would speak up. The conduct of the right hon. Gentleman was not such as was likely to shorten debate. He would not answer questions satisfactorily, and when pressed took refuge in the closure.