To call attention to the Report of the recent Committee on Metropolitan Poor Law Schools, and to the draft Order of the President of the Local Government Board relating to such Schools; and to move a Resolution.—[Tuesday, 9th March.]

To call attention to the Land Question in Great Britain; and to move a Resolution.—[Tuesday, 9th March.]

To call attention to the question of Railway Rates; and to move a Resolution.—[Tuesday, 9th March.]

To call attention to the hardships of the Small Occupying Freeholders in Wales; and to move a Resolution.—[Tuesday, 9th March.]

That, in the opinion of this House, the Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Financial Relations between Great Britain and Ireland discloses a serious grievance which affects all classes of the people of that country, and demands the immediate attention of Her Majesty's Government with a view to meeting the just claims of Ireland in respect thereof.—[An early day.]

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state in how many instances during the year 1896 the Fishery Board for Scotland received complaints of trawlers working at night without lights, or on other occasions with their names and numbers concealed; and, if he can state in how many such cases prosecutions have been instituted, and in how many cases convictions have been obtained?

I am informed by the Fishery Board that the number of complaints received in 1896 of trawlers working at night without lights was 14, while six were complained of for concealment of letters and numbers. Eight prosecutions were instituted, and convictions were obtained in seven cases. Two of the latter were for concealing letters and numbers.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, having regard to the fact that the Secretary for Scotland intimated on the 23rd November last that a policy was being arranged for the better policing of the seas on the coast of Scotland, he will state whether any difficulty has arisen with either the Admiralty or the Treasury in the negotiations, and how soon he expects to be in a position to announce the nature of the projected provision for the better protection of the interests of the line fishermen?

As the hon. Member is aware, I promised him last Thursday to announce the arrangements for sea policing at the earliest possible opportunity. I do not think that the lapse of five days warrants the apprehension of a difficulty which does not exist.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what number of compassionate pensions have been granted during the last three years to men who served in the Crimean and Indian Mutiny campaigns; how many men in receipt of such pensions have died during the same period; and what changes, if any, have been made during the last 12 months in the regulations under which these compassionate pensions are granted?

During the last three years 1,539 special campaign pensions have been granted, and 279 have lapsed by death. The conditions of grant have been altered during the last year, by including in the minimum of qualifying service a portion of that given under age and of that forfeited.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can arrange that in the published accounts of the Controller of the Patent Office a fair proportion of the charges for salaries, printing, stationery, and buildings, should be apportioned under the three separate headings for patents, trade marks, and designs, so that the surplus under each heading may be clearly seen?

I am afraid I cannot comply with the request of the hon. Member. In an endeavour to make "a fair proportion" the Controller could not be even approximately accurate, and it would be a misfortune to prepare accounts for publication on a basis which might lay them open to adverse criticism.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has been informed that more than 200 memorials from officers of the Indian Staff Corps have been forwarded in the regular way to the Commander-in-Chief in India, praying for a reopening and reconsideration of the question of supersession of Staff Corps Officers by juniors in the British Army in India; whether the Commander-in-Chief has forwarded their memorials to the Government of India; and, whether the Viceregal authorities have made any representations on the subject to the Secretary of State?

I have no information as to the submission of any memorials by officers of the Indian Staff Corps regarding their supersession by officers of the British Army in India, nor have I received any representation on the subject from the Government of India.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is possible to inform the House as to the nature of the instructions given to Her Majesty's inspectors with regard to the new Truck Act, and arising out of the recent publication of lists of lines at Belfast; and whether test cases are to be taken into court?

The instructions referred to are of general application and were issued before the Act came into operation, and, therefore, before the dispute at Belfast, arose; I shall be glad to lay them on the Table for the information of the House. I am watching closely the course of events at Belfast, and do not propose at present to take any test cases into court. Some of the items in the original list against which the workers struck are, I think, inconsistent with the Act; but most, if not all of these, have now been withdrawn. The points which remain in dispute are for the most part outside the operation of the Act, but I trust that a satisfactory settlement will be arrived at.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will give an assurance that, in any steps which may be taken consequent on the Report of the Tweedmouth Commission on Post Office Establishments, nothing shall be done to in any way prejudice the prospects of the clerical staff, who were expressly debarred from giving evidence before the Commission?

No class of Post Office servants will suffer for want of any evidence which they might have desired to lay before Lord Tweed-mouth's Committee, but it is obviously impossible to say that the clerical staff, or indeed any other section of the Post Office staff, may not regard as a grievance any changes which may be made in the organisation of the service.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade intend to make a special Report with reference to the Railway Clearing House Incorporation Bill?

If the Committee on the Bill desire any information from the Board of Trade with regard to any of its proposals, such information as far as the Board possess will be available, but it does not devolve upon the Department to make any Report on, the Bill.

asked whether that referred to the Committee of the House of Lords or to the Committee of the House of Commons?

said it referred to either Committee.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade why his Department, which between 1888 and 1894 made four Reports to Parliament as to its proceedings under Section 31 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, has allowed nearly three years to elapse since the last Report as to the success attending the Board's efforts at conciliation between the Railway Companies and complainant traders was published; and, when the next Report on this subject may be expected?

A very large number of complaints were made to the Board under the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894, and the Department had hoped to include them all in one Report. The fate of a large number of these cases, however, has depended on the result of litigation before the Railway and Canal Commissioners, which is not even yet at an end, and the Board have, therefore, come to the conclusion that it would be inexpedient to longer defer making a Report. A draft has been prepared and is in type.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what action the Government propose to take on the resolutions passed at a conference between the Hull and Grimsby Fishing Vessels Owners Association, held at Hull on the 6th January, at which a representative of the Board of Trade was present, in reference to the right of navigation of British fishing vessels in Icelandic waters, and the request for a British squadron to protect their rights?

said he thought that was a question that ought to be addressed to the First Lord of the Admiralty.

asked whether the Board of Trade would receive a deputation on this subject, as this fishing was about to commence?

said he knew the matter was largely one for the Board of Trade, but the particular question which the hon. Gentleman desired to put was one in regard to which the Board of Trade had no jurisdiction. If the hon. Gentleman addressed the Question to the First Lord of the Admiralty he had no doubt his right hon. Friend would be able to give an answer.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing the great services rendered to the British fisheries by Commodore Atkinson of the training squadron in Icelandic waters during the summer of 1896, the Government will consider the request of the fishing trade to send a similar squadron into these seas for the protection of English fishermen during the coming season?

A ship will be sent into Icelandic waters in the forthcoming summer if circumstances at the time admit.

asked whether the Government would consider the advisability of sending ships to protect the line fishermen on the coasts of Scotland instead of sending them to these isolated waters?

I think that question is hardly supplemental to the one I have answered.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty how many naval pensioners are now receiving the Greenwich Age Pension; how many naval pensioners have been placed on the list as eligible or are otherwise entitled in accordance with the regulations but are not in receipt of this pension on account of insufficiency of funds; and whether it is the intention of the Government to ask for a grant sufficient to meet the claims of all who are by regulations entitled to this addition to their pension?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that a large number of seamen and marines are qualified to receive the Greenwich Age Pension, but nevertheless are not receiving it for want of funds assigned for that purpose, the Government will carry out the recommendation of the Report from the Select Committee on Greenwich Hospital Age Pensions, that an additional sum of £3,200 at present appropriated for pensions of officers and the education of their children, be transferred to the fund out of which the Greenwich Age Pensions are paid?

The number of naval pensioners receiving Greenwich Age Pensions on January 1 last was 9,904. This number will be increased by the end of the financial year to the full number, 10,010, provided for in the Greenwich Hospital Estimates for the current year. There are 1,100 candidates on the list of applicants to whom it has not yet been possible to award a Greenwich Pension. The Admiralty have recently obtained the sanction of the Treasury to the payment of an increased rent for the use of part of Greenwich Hospital as a Naval College, which will enable more pensions to be granted. The Admiralty are not prepared to give effect to the suggestion that an additional sum of £3,200 a year at present appropriated for pensions of officers and educational grants to their children should be transferred to the fund out of which Greenwich Age Pensions are paid. I should add that the Select Committee made no recommendation on the subject.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can inform the House what expressions of opinion he has received from the various Boards of Guardians in the Metropolis as to the proposed new Board for the care of various classes of children chargeable to the rates?

The number of definite answers received is very few. Some are in favour, some disapprove of the proposed new Board, and in several cases they have asked for further time to consider the proposals before definite action is taken. But so far as I can judge at present the proposals of the Board would be preferred to those of the Poor Law Schools Committee by a large majority of the authorities.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would have any objection to lay any of the answers of the Guardians on the Table?

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether it is the case that, under the Parochial Records Act, 1876, an order was made that every parish in Ireland which was not provided with a suitable safe should send up its register of baptisms, marriages, and burials to the Record Office in Dublin; and whether, in the case of an incumbent of a parish who is willing to provide safe and suitable accommodation for the parish records, these will be returned by the Record Office to the parish, if application is made to the Master of the Rolls?

Under the Parochial Records Act, 1876, every parish in Ireland which, was not provided with a suitable safe, sent its register of baptisms, marriages, and burials to the Record Office in Dublin. The Master of the Rolls had no power to order them to be returned, and I am not aware that there are any means of securing their return.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade have taken any steps to compel the proper working of the electric motor power of the Giant's Causeway, Portrush, and Bush Valley Railway and Tramway, in accordance with the Report and recommendations of Major P. Cardew, the Board of Trade inspector, dated the 3rd October 1895, and made by him after holding an exhaustive inquiry into the working of the Tramway; and if the Board of Trade have not taken any such steps, whether they intend to do so; whether it has come to the knowledge of the Board of Trade that the Giant's Causeway Tramway Company are working the line in a similar way to what they had been doing when it was so severely condemned by the Board of Trade's Inspector, and which was characterised in the Report as a danger to the public and an annoyance to ordinary traffic, and that although almost a year and a-half have now elapsed since the issue of the said Report they, the Company, have made no effort whatever to carry out any of the Board's inspector's recommendations; and whether it has come to the knowledge of the Board of Trade that no car of any description whatever was run on the 19th of January, and for some clay's previous to that date, and that the public were greatly inconvenienced thereby?

The Board of Trade are not in a position to compel the tramways company to adopt the recommendations of Major Cardew. They understand, however, that the Company are prepared to do so as soon as they are able to raise the necessary capital. The Board have repeatedly urged upon the Company the importance of ceasing to work the line by electricity until the alterations have been carried out. The Company have not, however, complied with this suggestion, but they have stated that during the winter the electric working would be restricted to two runs of one electric car each way and at a reduced pressure. I have received no information as to a recent stoppage of the traffic on this tramway.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman could say why the Board of Trade were not in a position to compel?

I cannot say why Parliament has not intrusted the Board with that power; but, as a matter of fact, they are not so intrusted.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how long the Royal Irish Constabulary have been in occupation of the new barracks in Musgrave Street, Belfast; how many cases of fever have occurred since the Constabulary entered into occupation of the place, and how many of the men have died from fever therein; and what steps have been taken by the authorities to check or prevent the spread of fever since the first case occurred in the barracks in question?

Eight cases of fever have occurred in this barrack since its occupation on the 12th December 1893. Four men, two of whom were in delicate health, have died from fever since that date. On the occasion of each outbreak of this disease (typhoid fever) the Public Health Department was informed, and the Medical Officer of Health and his assistants accompanied by the Medical Attendant to the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Officer of the Board of Works, by whom the barrack was built, made a careful examination of the barrack premises, drains, and sewers, with the result that they could not find that the disease had originated from any defect in the sanitary arrangements. As I have already informed my hon. Friend the hon. Member for East Belfast, the Officers of the Public Health Department, the Constabulary Medical Officer, and the Board of Works are at present making further investigations into the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the case of Mr. William Bird, who prosecuted an organ grinder at Westminster Police Court on the 2nd instant, in which case it transpired that, on the prosecutor requiring the man to remove and giving his reasons for so doing, he was met in the first place with gross insult, and secondly had his life threatened by the offender; and, whether, as the case was dismissed, he will consider of strengthening the law in these cases?

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he had seen the report of this case in The Times, and that there was not a word about "insult," gross or otherwise, or of the utterance of threats?

I don't think I have seen the report in The Times. In answer to the Question on the Paper, my attention has been called to this case. The summons, which was for playing an organ to the annoyance of the prosecutor, was dismissed, so I understand, by the magistrate, on the ground that, in his opinion, the prosecutor had failed to prove that any of the conditions existed which are required by the Statute before a musician can be ordered to depart. I cannot interfere with this decision, nor do I think that it affords a sufficient ground for amending the law. The use of threatening, abusive or insulting language is a different matter entirely, for which provision is also made by the Police Acts; but I do not gather that any charge was made by the prosecutor in regard to this.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the decisions which had been given recently, he was aware that the majority of the people who grind these organs in the streets were foreigners, and—

Order, order! That does not arise out of this Question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that five conductors of the Ordnance Store Department, who were selected and transferred from Army to Naval Service, and by Order in Council, had their rights and privileges guaranteed, complain that the conditions have not been fulfilled; and, whether he will take steps to have their claims considered?

In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that the question is still under consideration.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state when the inquiry regarding the loss of the Puffin will be held; whether it will be public, and will the evidence be taken on oath; and whether a guarantee will be given that employees giving evidence shall be protected from any unpleasant consequences?

Instructions have been given to hold the inquiry regarding the loss of the Puffin forthwith, but no date has yet been fixed. The inquiry will be public, and the evidence will be taken on oath. The hon. Member may rest assured that every possible protection will be afforded to employees giving evidence.

asked the right hon. Gentleman if he was aware that the ship was lost so long ago as October, and what was the cause of the delay?

I am quite aware of the fact mentioned by the hon. Member, but difficulties arose as to our holding an inquiry. Those difficulties, in consequence of representations that were made to me, I felt bound to endeavour to overcome. I have overcome them, and the inquiry will be held.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Commissioners of Irish Lights have refused to sanction the use of a fog bell at the new harbour of Bray; whether he is aware that the Commissioners were willing to arrange that it should have a sound perfectly different to that of any fog bell on the coast; and, whether he can state the reasons for refusal?

I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that the close proximity of the bell at Kingstown on one side, and of another bell at Wick-low on the other side, precluded the Commissioners from entertaining the application of the Bray Harbour Board for a similar fog signal. The Commissioners, however, inform me that they are quite prepared to consider any alternative proposal.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has yet to hand the Report of the Commissioner of the Local Government Board who has been making a special inquiry into the nature and extent of the distress at present existing in the west of Ireland;if he has so received the Report, can he state the conclusion arrived at by this Commissioner as to the condition of the people living in the unions of Belmullet, Killala, and Ballina?

The Report of the Commissioner of the Local Government Board has been received, and I have also had the advantage of a personal interview with him on the subject. The result is to confirm the conclusion already arrived at, that there is no reason, at present, to anticipate that the opening of relief works will become necessary in any of these Unions.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether, in Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the Dublin Corporation Bill, the word "occupier" includes persons of both sexes, and whether women will thereby be entitled to exercise the municipal franchise in Dublin.

I regret that I am unable to answer the hon. Member's question, as to do so would violate the practice that the Law Officers should not answer abstract questions of this kind.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will agree to the Return relating to Pawnbrokers in Ireland, which stands on this day's Paper?

It is necessary to make local inquiries as to the practicability of furnishing the Return referred to, and as there has not been sufficient time to complete those inquiries since the Notice appeared on the Paper this morning, I must ask the hon. Member to repeat the Question on Thursday next.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) is he aware that the Mayor of Cork was denounced on Sunday from the altars of the Roman Catholic churches in Cork, in consequence of his having attended officially at the consecration of the Bishop of Killaloe on the previous Tuesday; and (2) that, in St. Fin Barr's Chapel, the Right Rev. Monsignor Maguire, the Mayor's parish priest, declared that the Mayor would hand down the chain of office stained with the memory of the outrage committed; and (3) whether, considering the effects previously produced in Ireland by altar denunciations, the Government propose to take any action in these cases?

asked Mr. Speaker's ruling upon this question. As it contained an innuendo against the characters of two distinguished priests, was it not a form that transgressed the rules of order?

I understand this to be a case in which the hon. Member states certain facts upon his own authority, and he must take the responsibility of doing so. ["Hear, hear!"]

It is the second paragraph of the question to which I specially call attention. ["Hear, hear!"]

I do not see anything contrary to order.

I have seen a newspaper report of the addresses alleged to have been delivered on the occasion in question, but I have no other information as to the nature of the language used. The Government have no intention of taking any action in the matter.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Cork Corporation—two-thirds of whom are Roman Catholics—authorised the Mayor to attend officially at the consecration of the Bishop of Killaloe? [Cries of "Why not" and "What has that to do with it?"]

I do not see that that makes any difference or affects the question so far as the Government are concerned. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state when the work of constructing the promised fort on Barry Island is to be commenced?

Delay has arisen pending a satisfactory settlement with the District Council as to firing rights over a road in front of the intended battery, but as soon as this can be overcome it will be proceeded with.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will state how many soldiers have been conveyed between Scotland and London, and vice versâ annually since 1890; how many were conveyed by rail, and how many by steamer; and, if he will state the cost of conveying each soldier by rail and by steamer re spectively?

A Return giving the particulars stated in the question can be compiled if my hon. Friend moves for it; but its preparation will give considerable trouble, and I am not aware that it will answer any useful purpose.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the amount of money levied up to the present time on cesspayers in the county of Leitrim who gave a guarantee in connection with the Cavan, Leitrim, and Roscommon Light Railway; can he state the yearly poundage in Leitrim since the cesspayers were called on to pay the guarantee; and can he hold out any hope of an early release of the cesspayers from the present tax?

The answer to this Question is too full of figures to be conveniently given across the floor, but I will send the hon. Member a written statement on the subject. As he will have gathered from my previous answers on the subject, the matter is not one with which the Treasury has anything to do beyond paying to the Grand Jury their share of the guarantee as fixed by law, and fixing the amount to be paid in commuting that share.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to a case tried before the Borough Magistrates at the Falmouth Police Court on the 4th instant, when the captain of the sailing ship Hornby Castle was convicted for having, in August 1896, committed certain acts of gross cruelty upon a seaman named John Smith whilst serving on board the said ship, which acts covered and included placing the seaman in irons with his hands behind his back, striking and kicking the helpless seaman, unchaining a ferocious dog and setting it on to worry the seaman, and belabouring him with a loaded stick; and that the only penalty inflicted was a fine of £5; and whether it is his intention to order an official inquiry into this case with a view of dealing with the captain's certificate.

My attention has been called to the case to which the hon. Member refers. Full inquiries are being made, with a view to enable the Board of Trade to decide whether the certificate of the Master should be dealt with under the Merchant Shipping Act.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the estimate which has been published of 1,312,500,000 ounces, as the silver savings of the inhabitants of India, is approximately correct; whether he is aware that in former famines such savings were usually exchangeable into rupees weight for weight, but now they have been depreciated about 700,000,000 rupees, or equal to £44,000,000 sterling, owing to the mints being no longer open for the coinage of silver, apart from any further deduction by the native dealers to cover their risk of the market; and whether the Government have any scheme in view to remedy the loss to the people in their distress?

I cannot undertake to give any opinion as to the value of the estimate to which the hon. Member refers, or as to the total amount of the depreciation in relation to rupees of the uncoined silver held by natives of India. But, as I have already pointed out in reply to a question in this House, although there is now a greater divergence than formerly between the gold value of coined and uncoined silver in India, it does not follow that the purchasing power of silver bullion in that country has correspondingly fallen. The Government of India are sparing neither effort nor expenditure to assist the people in their distress, but such assistance will not be based upon the considerations mentioned in the hon. Member's Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that he has recently promised a Return showing the cost of the Crofters' Commission up to the present time, he will also arrange to grant a Return showing the number of holdings the Crofters' Commission have visited in the counties of Argyll, Inverness, Ross and Cromarty, Caithness, and Orkney and Shetland respectively, the number of cases upon which they have adjudicated, the total amount of reductions they have made, and the total amount of arrears they have cancelled?

As the hon. Member only put down this Question last night, I must ask him to postpone it till Friday next.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Mr. Cecil Rhodes had on Saturday afternoon a long private interview with two convicts, Sir John Willoughby and Major White, now undergoing a term of imprisonment in Holloway Prison; and whether, seeing that private interviews are not allowed under the prison rules to Irish treason-felony prisoners now confined in English gaols and their friends, will he explain why this privilege was granted to the prisoners in Holloway?

It is the case that Mr. Rhodes had an interview with the two prisoners named. The visit lasted an hour, but was not, as suggested in the Question, of a private nature, being both in the sight and in the hearing of a prison officer. Permission for the visit was given by the Visiting Committee of the prison, who have, under the prison rules, in the case of first-class misdemeanants, the power of prolonging the period of a visit or allowing additional visits as they may deem advisable.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the provisions of the Voluntary Schools Bill, in the event of its becoming law, the claims of Scotland in the matter of further assistance to education from Imperial taxation will be considered, and adequate provision made to meet them?

I stated some days ago, in answer to a question on this subject, that if the Voluntary Schools Bill became law no doubt fair aid would be given to education in Scotland, in such manner as may be suitable to the educational requirements of that country. That is, I think, an answer in the affirmative to my hon. Friend's Question.

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether Clause 3 of the Education Bill, which exempts Voluntary Schools from the payment of any local rate in respect of any land or buildings used exclusively or mainly for the purposes of the schoolrooms, offices, or playground of a Voluntary School, will also exempt such schools from the payment of the charges for the paving and sewering of public streets which surround such school premises?

A reference to the definition of "local rates" in the definition clause of the Bill will show that the exemption would not extend to such charges as are mentioned in the Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that an acceleration of the Stornoway mail between Dingwall and Strome Ferry would not only benefit the important fishing community of Stornoway, but would also expedite the delivery of letters to the people of Strome Ferry and places served from that office, the Islands of Skye, the Uists, Benbecula, and Harris, as well as districts on the western mainland of Rossshire, where the Stornoway steamer calls; and whether, in these circumstances, he will reconsider the advisability of incurring the expenditure necessary for improving the service?

An earlier arrival of the mail at Strome Ferry would not benefit the Uists, Benbecula and Harris, but it would afford a slightly earlier arrival of mails at places served from Strome Ferry as well as at some parts of Skye. This had not been overlooked by the Postmaster General in considering the matter, but he is still unable to incur the heavy cost of a special train from Dingwall to Strome Ferry which, in his judgment, would be quite unjustifiable.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the Turkish Government has granted to Crete all the concessions asked by the Powers, Great Britain and the other Powers will take efficient steps to protect the Mussulman inhabitants, especially in the interior, from pillage and massacre?

Her Majesty's Government, in concert with the other Towers, are using their best efforts through their Consuls to re-establish public order and tranquility in Crete, without reference to party or creed. The migration of Mussulmans from the villages in the interior is due to the alarm arising from their being in a minority there. There is a corresponding movement of Christians from the towns, where the Mussulmans are in a majority. There is nothing, however, to show that the Mussulmans have so far been the chief sufferers.

May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman has any official information from the naval authorities to the effect that the attack was begun by the Christians upon the Mussulman population?

No; I have no information as to that.

Is it a fact, as the Question seems to imply, that the Turkish Government have carried into execution all the reforms demanded by the Powers?

Obviously that is not so, there has not been time. As I have said, and the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, two Commissions, the Gendarmerie Commission and the Judicial Commission, are continuing their labours to carry out the reforms, and we hope later on all will be executed.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the telegram published in the newspapers, and purporting to come from the naval Commander-in-Chief is not correct—that the attack was begun by Christians?

I do not know what telegram the hon. Member refers to. These attacks take place every day. On one day the attack will, perhaps, be commenced by Christians, and on another day by Mahomedans.

When the right hon. Gentleman states the Powers are taking steps to protect the inhabitants, can he inform the House whether any arrangements have been made for the provision of a sufficient force to maintain order in Crete by the Great Powers?

That is the exact object of the Gendarmerie Commission which has been sitting in the island, and it is with pleasure I inform the House that the Gendarmerie have been constituted, and that Colonel Bor, the temporary commander, took up his functions yesterday. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office has received any confirmation of the statement that a provisional government has been formed at or near Halepa, and that its members have proclaimed a union with Greece and have hoisted the Greek flag. ["Hear, hear!"]

No, Sir, we have heard nothing of such a provisional government. The only information bearing upon the point that has been received is to the effect that the Greek flag was said three days ago to have been hoisted by a party of the insurgents at Akrotiri, who were also reported to have proclaimed the annexation of the island to Greece. This remains unconfirmed. The latest news from Canca is that order is being rapidly re-established, and that business has recommenced.

I beg to ask the Attorney General how it is proposed to make good to the Queen's Bench Division the loss occasioned by the withdrawal of Sir Richard Henn Collins from his ordinary duties in consequence of his membership of the Venezuelan Arbitration Tribunal?

It is wholly premature to consider at present the question of supplying the place of Sir Richard Collins. The sittings of the arbitrators will not, I believe, take place before the middle of 1898, and I have no doubt that the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice will, when the time comes, consider whether any arrangement is to be made in consequence of the learned Judge being a member of the Arbitration Tribunal.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if, having regard to the tenfold increase ill the importation of foreign manufactures in recent years, and the necessity for retaining the supremacy of British manufactures, he will afford facility for the consideration of the recent Report by the Board of Trade on Foreign Competition.

I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that the Report raises matters of great interest, but I think he will concur that the Government are hardly in a position at the present moment to promise any facilities for Debate on these or any other questions outside the important subjects brought before the House.

I beg to give notice that I shall raise the question on every opportunity. [Laughter.]

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Bill to amend the Law with respect to compensation to workmen for accidents in the course of their employment will be introduced?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any pledge in regard to date. We must finish the Bills now under discussion before that Bill is seriously proceeded with. ["Hear, hear!"]

Do I understand that this Bill must be postponed in favour of the Military Works Bill and other military proposals?

I said nothing about other military proposals. It cannot be brought in at present while the Education Bill and the Works Bill are on hand.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH), I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what is the sum total of rates paid in respect of elementary schools other than Board Schools, distinguishing counties and boroughs, in the last year for which such Returns are available?

I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the facts that he asks for, because the Question having been passed over, and thinking it was not going to be put, I have torn up the answer. [Laughter.] If he will kindly put down the Question again I can give him the precise figures with regard to London, but as to the country, I can do no more than give him the result of the reports of inspectors who have gone into the question, taking at random, as it-were, a great number of specimen schools with which I shall be glad to furnish the hon. Member. Replying to Mr. J. G. TALBOT, who asked what day it was proposed to take the Second Reading of the Education Rill,

said that Thursday was the day that had been fixed. He thought he had once or twice made that statement, but he was, of course, glad to make it again, so that, there should be no mistake about it. [Laughter.]

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government is aware that woollen manufactured articles are being imported into this country from the plague-stricken districts of India; and whether, looking to the general consensus of opinion that the great plague of London derived its origin from woollen manufactures brought into this country from infected countries in Asia Minor and the East, Her Majesty's Government will take immediate steps to compel all wools and woollen manufactures coming from India to be thoroughly disinfected before they are allowed to be landed?

In answer to my hon. Friend, all I have to state is that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India is in communication with the Indian Government on this subject, and the Indian Government are thoroughly alive to the responsibility which rests upon them. I am sure that every precaution will be taken, and I trust that nothing will be either said or done in this country which may unnecessarily hamper the course of trade.

rose to call attention to the evils resulting from the union of Church and State, and to move:

"That it is expedient to Disestablish and Disendow the Church of England both in England and Wales."

The hon. Member said he had undertaken a difficult task, for which he asked the indulgence of the House. He had ventured to call in question the usefulness of one of their oldest institutions, one deeply rooted in the habits, traditions, and affections of the English people, nor was it possible to do justice to this theme without touching on some of their most sensitive nerves. The House would, he was sure, extend to him fair play and patient attention whilst he laid before it the reasons which had led many of them to the conclusion that the cause of religion stood best upon its own merits, unaided alike by State patronage and unhampered by State control. The Motion he had drawn covered the whole ground of the union of Church and State, and the Resolution he begged to move was at least free from ambiguity. They had in recent years debated both the Welsh and the Scottish Disestablishment questions. The previous Parliament affirmed both those principles, but the question of English Disestablishment had not been submitted to the judgment of Parliament for many years—not since 1873 by the late Mr. Miall; yet the questions it raised were of far greater importance, for they went to the very root of the subject, and demanded the most drastic treatment. The union of Church and State was a survival of mediaeval times. It arose in ages when absolutism was the rule both in Church and State; it arose before the growth of human liberty, before the individual man was conceived of as having rights of his own, and when he was merged in the society or state to which he belonged. The perfection of the system was reached when autocratic Popes dominated Western Christendom, and when the State was regarded rather as the appendage of the Church than the Church of the State. Exactly as human freedom extended, so the alliance between the Church and State weakened, and to-day, at the close of the nineteenth century, it had become an anachronism and was as certain to pass away in Western Europe as it had passed away in the United States and the British Colonies. He submitted that the evils of the State Establishment in England were more keenly felt now than in former ages, when the abuses were really much greater. For nearly 300 years the National Church was buttressed by cruel and unjust disabilities imposed both on Roman Catholics and Protestant Dissenters. These had been removed, little by little, always against the strongest opposition by the Anglican Bishops; yet to-day there was more dissatisfaction with the abuses of the Established Church than ever before. A large section within the Church was now calling out for Disestablishment, that it might carry sacerdotal doctrines still further; and a much larger section outside the Church demanded Disestablishment that it might free the nation from complicity with these doctrines. The fact was, the national conscience was more sensitive than it formerly was, and was becoming more and more alive to the moral blemishes of the present system. He would summarise the chief objections which Protestant Nonconformists, and many Churchmen as well, had to the present system. They held that the Christian Church was a spiritual body, responsible only to its Divine Head, that it should be free and self-governing in all spiritual things, that religion lay between the individual soul and God alone, and that no secular authority was entitled to intrude into this sacred domain. Now what was the actual relation between Church and State in this country? The Sovereign was by law the Head of the Church; the Bishops were appointed by the Prime Minister of the day; the formularies and ritual of the Church have all been settled by Act of Parliament; the appointment of the clergy was in the hands of patrons, some private, some public; the right of advowson was a valuable pecuniary privilege which was bought and sold like any other form of property. The support of the Church was mainly drawn from national property allocated by the State in Roman Catholic times, and continued to the Reformed Church in the sixteenth century. He could not conceive a constitution of the Church more repugnant to the principles laid down in the New Testament. It bore some analogy to the Jewish system, but not the faintest resemblance to the Christian dispensation. At every point the secular power overrode the spiritual. In proof of this he would quote the Bishop's oath of homage as given by Earl Russell in a letter to The Times:—

"I, ….., Doctor of Divinity, now elected, confirmed, and consecrated Bishop of …., do hereby declare that your Majesty is the only Supreme Governor of this your realm in spiritual and ecclesiastical things, as well as in temporal, and that no foreign prelate or potentate has any jurisdiction within this realm; and I acknowledge that I hold the said Bishopric, as well the, spiritualities as the temporalities thereof, only of your Majesty. And for the same temporalities I do my homage, presently to your Majesty. So help me God."

Surely no one nowadays could defend so naked a subjection of the spiritual to the secular power; but this subjection was of the essence of the system. The recent election of Bishop Temple to be Archbishop of Canterbury had brought out the farce of giving a Congé d'élire to the Dean and Chapter. The Chapter offered a prayer for Divine guidance and then read the "letter missive," in which the Sovereign designated the person to be elected: the statute required the Dean and Chapter "with all speed and celerity to elect and choose the person named in the said letter missive and none other" under peril of incurring the penalties of prœmunire. It was not to be wondered at that a reverend clergyman once used these words:—

"It was painful to think of the real act of blasphemy which was committed against the Holy Ghost every time a Bishop was appointed. He recently examined the official documents relating to the appointment of Bishops, and in them were directions to the Dean and Chapter that they were to invoke the Holy Spirit in making a right and proper choice."

He was sure that of late years the Prime Ministers of this country had used their great powers of appointment under a deep sense of responsibility; but this did not obviate the damning fact that the character of the National Church largely depended on the accident of who wits the head of a secular administration. Lord Palmerston, advised by Lord Shaftesbury, appointed an Evangelical Bench of Bishops: subsequent High Church Premiers had almost revolutionised the Bench in an opposite direction; some subsequent Premier might be a Freethinker, and might appoint Broad Church Bishops. Could anything be more opposed to the teaching of the Divine Head of the Church? Nothing but long habit had reconciled us to this scandal, and the time was near at hand when the conscience of the nation would not endure it any longer. He would ask the House to allow him to make one quotation from the Diary of Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, which drew the curtain aside and disclosed how the Apostolic Succession was carried on in this ancient branch of the Christian Church:—

"Much talk with the Dean of Windsor. He talked with great reserve about the late appointments, but said: 'The Church does not know what it owes to the Queen. Disraeli has been utterly ignorant, utterly unprincipled; he rode the Protestant horse one day, then got frightened that it had gone too far, and was injuring the county elections, so he went right round and proposed names never heard of. Nothing he would not have done… Disraeli recommended—for Canterbury, but the Queen would not have him; then Disraeli agreed, most reluctantly, and with passion, to Tait… Disraeli then proposed Wordsworth for London. The Queen objected strongly,… then she suggested Jackson, and Disraeli chose Jackson. The Queen would have greatly liked—, but Disraeli would not hear of him. You cannot conceive the appointments he proposed and retracted, or was overruled… He had no other thought than the votes of the moment; he showed an ignorance about all Church matters, men, opinions, that was astonishing, making propositions one way and the other, riding the Protestant horse to gain the boroughs, and then, when he thought he had gone so far as to endanger the counties, he turned round.'"

He was sure there was not a Member of that House who did not feel the shame of this exposure; yet he was certain that such scenes would recur, again and again, till the unholy alliance between Church and State came to an end. Next to the choice of bishops, he impeached the election of the parochial clergy as utterly contrary to the teachings of Christianity. No Church that he knew anything of exacted so small a modicum of theological knowledge from candidates for the ministry; it was trifling compared with the long and thorough curriculum that Presbyterian ministers had to pass through, nor were the safeguards for moral and religious character any more thorough. The Bishop of Liverpool said:—

"It cannot be denied that numbers of young men take Orders every year who are thoroughly unfit for the sacred office they enter. It is mere affectation to ignore these things; every man of common sense knows them."

The Rev. Baptist Noel said:—

"Chosen by Peers and squires, by colleges and Church corporations, by chancellors and State-made prelates, many are made pastors by a corrupt favouritism, many are allured to an uncongenial employment by the income which it offers them, and many embrace the profes sion of a pastor because they are too dull, inert, or timid for any other."

The fact was, so long as the patronage of livings was a marketable commodity, often held by men of no religious character, it was impossible to keep up a high standard of clerical fitness. Did the House realise the fearful evils which resulted from the traffic in livings? A feeble attempt was made to cure it in the Bill of last year, but it encountered so much opposition—even from Churchmen—that he much doubted if any successful attempt would be made hereafter. Would the House allow him to quote from the evidence of Mr. Emery Stark, one of the principal clerical agents, given before the Royal Commission of 1878? He said:—

"The Commissioners are well aware that the sale of an advowson with the understanding that immediate possession is to be given, is, according to the law, illegal. Three-fourths of the patrons with whom I have come in contact, and among them clergymen of the highest standing, do not recognise any moral crime in an infraction of the present law of simony, and the consequence is that they freely and unhesitatingly sell and purchase advowsons with the understanding that immediate possession is to be given, not looking upon it as any sin. When I say clergymen of high standing, I have had business with ex-colonial Bishops, Canons, and other dignitaries of the Church, who, of course, would be above suspicion in every way."

Mr. Stark was asked by the Bishop of Peterborough (Dr. Magee) whether these "pious and good clergymen deliberately break the law," and he answered "Yes, men of the highest standing." Pressing the witness further, the Bishop asked—

"These moral clergymen, who first ask you to break the law, then take an oath that they have not broken the law?"

The answer was "Yes;" and the Bishop added:—

"so that every one of these clergymen of high standing and of high moral character has been guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury."

The whole case is so well put by the late Dr. Magee, Archbishop of York, that I must ask leave to quote from one of his charges:—

"First there are one hundred patrons in England, not presumably better or wiser than other patrons, who have the right to keep the parishes in their gift as long as they please without a pastor, who, when he is appointed, need produce no evidence that he is even in Holy orders, no testimonial as to his character, and who may buy from one of these patrons the right, without cheek, hindrance, or so much as question from any human being, to enter upon a cure of souls, and who, moreover, by that purchase, may have been enabled to complete some nefarious transaction respecting some other piece of Church preferment, of which he may be the owner.… Again, it is a fact that a certain number of patrons are in the habit, whenever their livings fall vacant of selecting the oldest and most decrepit clergymen they can find, after the most careful search and inquiry, and putting them into their livings, in order to enhance the selling value of these in the market—a proceeding which I regard as one of deliberate and enormous wickedness, and yet which, at present, may be, and is, adopted in defiance of parishioners and of Bishop, for there are absolutely no limits in law to the age or decrepitude of a presentee.… Again, it is a fact that any parishioner knowing of any immorality in the clergyman about to be appointed to his parish, dare not represent it to the Bishop through dread of an action for libel.… Again, it is a fact that immoral and scandalous clerks are sometimes presented, as I personally know, to Bishops for institution by patrons who are well aware of their character.…Again, it is a fact that an infant in his cradle may be nominated to the largest and most populous parish in England, that it shall be kept open for him by a resignation bond until he attains the ripe age of twenty-four, when he forthwith enters upon the duties of the parish, the temporary incumbent being turned out to make room for him; or, if he is not at once removed, remaining the life-tenant of the patron, and liable to ejectment at any moment."

He need not add a word more to show the intolerable evils of the present system of patronage; that religion in the Anglican Church had survived them was a singular proof of its vitality. Certainly the union of Church and State had not done much to keep it alive, and no real reform of this shocking state of things would come to pass till that unholy alliance was dissolved. It might be said that public patrons exercised their powers better. There were nearly 6,000 benefices in the hands of public patrons, such as the Crown, the Lord Chancellor, the Bishops, Cathedral Bodies, and the Universities. No doubt they were free from some of the grosser evils of private patronage, but they were marked by other evils nearly as bad. One of these was that much of this patronage was bestowed for political purposes. He had seen it stated that in some of the Cathedral Bodies it was customary to cast lots for the right of presenting to the livings in the gift of the Chapter. He condemned the whole system of patronage root and branch as a upas tree which poisoned the National Church, and he saw no chance of removing it except by separation of Church and State. But there were other and very weighty grounds upon which he condemned the entire system of State establishments or religion. He asserted that they were in their genius and essence hostile to freedom and popular rights. No one who knew anything of English history would deny that this was true of the Anglican Church. In the days of the Stuarts it was the servile advocate of the divine right of kings; during the Hanoverian period it stoutly opposed any relaxation of the civil disabilities of Roman Catholics and Protestant dissenters; up till 1828 no one could sit in a Town Council or hold an office of trust under the Crown, without taking the sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England; the Bishops vehemently opposed the abolition of this test; they opposed the anti-slavery movement in its earlier stages; they opposed the reform of the criminal code when its severity was extreme; they opposed Catholic emancipation, the Great Reform Bill, the commutation of tithes, the repeal of the Corn Laws; they opposed the repeal of Jewish disabilities, the opening of the Universities to dissenters; they opposed the Burials Bill, and the marriage of dissenters in their own places of worship. There were three distinguished historians who had scats in that House who had described in classic language the reactionary character of the National Church. He was tempted to quote an eloquent passage from the writings of the learned Member for Dublin University (Mr. Lecky):—

"It is to Puritanism that we mainly owe the fact that in England religion and liberty were not dissevered; amongst all the fluctuations of its fortunes it represented the alliance of these two principles, which the predominating Church invariably pronounced to be incompatible.

"The attitude of this latter Church forms indeed a strange contrast to that of Puritanism. Created in the first instance by a Court intrigue, pervaded in all its parts by a spirit of the most intense Erastianism, and aspiring at the same time to a spiritual authority scarcely less absolute than that of the Church which it had superseded, Anglicanism was from the beginning at once the most servile and most efficient agent of tyranny; endeavouring by the assistance of temporal authority, and by the display of worldly pomp, to realise in England the same position as Catholicism had occupied in Europe, she naturally flung herself on every occasion into the arms of the civil power. No other Church so uniformly betrayed and trampled on the liberties of her country. In all those fiery trials through which English liberty has passed since the Reformation, she invariably cast her influence into the scale of tyranny, supported and eulogised every attempt to violate the Constitution, and wrote the fearful sentence of eternal condemnation upon the tombs of the martyrs of freedom."

Could anyone explain this chronic hostility to liberty except by the blighting influence of National Establishment? The Church had produced many great, noble, and pious men, whom Nonconformists honoured and even loved, yet its influence had commonly been cast on the wrong side. Surely the inference was obvious; it was no wonder that kings always preferred Prelacy to Presbytery, for the one made for privilege, and the other for freedom. What he might call a subsection of this argument was the tendency to arrogance and exclusiveness which National Churches showed to their nonconforming brethren and other bodies of Christians. It was difficult for one brought up in this country to conceive how much sweeter was the religious life of the United States and our great colonies, from the footing of equality on which all religions stood to one another. The odious words "dissent" and "non-conformity" were unknown there; it was like living in a different world, and he believed, if the experiment were tried here, after a short time no one would wish to go back to the reign of privilege and assumption. No one wished to do so in Ireland they knew. On this ground alone the gain to charity and brotherly love would be incalculable. He passed over many counts in his indictment for want of time, but he must call the attention of the House to what, in the eyes of many, was the crowning evil of the Anglican Establishment—he referred to the portentous growth of Roman doctrine and ritual. A revolution had taken place in the last fifty years which had practically stamped out the Protestant character of the Church in most of the parishes of the land. Doctrines were taught and ceremonies were practised which were in absolute contradiction to the 39 Articles, which every clergyman had solemnly subscribed; those very practices which the Prayer-book stigmatised as "blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits" were taught in thousands of pulpits. The greater part of the clergy repudiated the word Protestant, notwithstanding that the Coronation Oath bound the Sovereign of this country, who was by law the head of the Church—[Cries of "No!"]—to the maintenance of the "Protestant Re-formed Religion." He would read to the House the formula employed on this occasion. The Archbishop said:—

"Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?"

The Sovereign answered, "All this I promise to do," and then took a solemn oath to that effect. In addition to this the Sovereign also subscribed a declaration against Transubstantiation, a doctrine which was taught to-day in thousands of pulpits. [Cries of "No!" and "Hear, hear!"] It would be hardly becoming to refer to this point more fully in that House, because the subject was too sacred. ["Hear, hear!"] No historian would deny that the Church settlement in the time of Elizabeth was a Protestant settlement, yet now a great part of the clergy disowned the Reformation of the sixteenth century and eagerly longed after reunion with Rome. In a great many Anglican churches the service was now practically Roman. They saw the Confessional set up, and the Mass, and the invocation of saints, and prayers for the dead, and other practices which were forbidden by the law of the Church, were observed without let or hindrance by most of the Bishops. Lest anyone should think that he was exaggerating, he asked permission to quote from Cardinal Vaughan:—

"The doctrines of the Catholic Church, which had been rejected and condemned as being blasphemous, superstitious, and fond inventions, have been re-examined and taken back, one by one, until the Thirty-nine Articles have been banished and buried as a rule of faith. The real presence, the sacrifice of the mass, offered for the living and the dead—some times even in Latin—not infrequent reservation of the sacrament, regular auricular confession, extreme unction, purgatory, prayers for the dead, devotions to Our Lady, to her immaculate conception, the use of the rosary, and the invocation of saints, are doctrines taught and accepted with a growing desire and relish for them in the Church of England. A celibate clergy, the institution of monks and nuns under vows, retreats for the clergy, missions for the people, fasting and other penitential exercises, candles, lamps, incense, crucifixes, images of the Blessed Virgin, and the saints held in honour, stations of the cross, cassocks, cottas, Roman collars, birettas, copes, dalmatics, vestments, mitres, croziers, the adoption of an ornate Catholic ritual, and now recently an elaborate display of the whole ceremonial of the Catholic Pontifical—all this speaks of a change and a movement towards the Church that would have appeared absolutely incredible at the beginning of this century. And what is still more remarkable is, that the movement has been stronger than the rankest Protestantism, stronger than the Bishops, stronger than the lawyers and Legislature. A spasmodic protest, a useless prosecution, a delphic judgment, and the movement continues and spreads, lodging itself in Anglican homes and convents, in schools, churches, and even cathedrals, until it is rapidly covering the country."

These statements of the Cardinal were, perhaps, exaggerated, but no one denied that they were very largely true, and in his opinion they were ominous of great danger to the nation. In such an assembly as this they could not enter into theological argument, but this, at least, was relevant to the case: the Church of England, as by law established, was a Protestant Church; her Articles denounced in the strongest terms the doctrines and practices of Rome; she held her vast national endowments on these conditions; she could not alter a line of her Articles and formularies without the consent of Parliament; yet she acted as if she could ignore the Protestant Reformation, in spite of Parliament, and in spite of the great majority of her own laity. The position to which they had come was this. They had a National Church, enjoying an enormous revenue and immense prestige from its union with the State. It held its property and its privileges on condition of observing its side of the contract. Yet it had broken it in the most flagrant manner. Where was redress to be found? He knew of no place but the High Court of Parliament. He knew it was a most unfit Court to decide cases of theology; but this was one of the consequences of having an Established Church; the State could not wash its hands of it; it had but two courses open to it, either to reform the Church or disestablish it, either to mend it or end it. He was convinced that the days of reformation by the State had passed away, never to return. This Parliament would never again frame a Confession of Faith; but there was one thing this Parliament would do, perhaps not to-day or to-morrow, it would refuse to consent to the destruction of our Protestant faith, even should it cost the Church Establishment. He concluded in the words of the late Dean Alford:—

"Whether years or decades of years, be taken for the accomplishment of the severance of the Church from the State, however it may be deprecated and however opposed, accomplished it will certainly be. History has for ages been preparing its way; God's arm is thrusting it on and man's power cannot keep it back."

[Cheers.] He moved the Resolution standing in his name.

in seconding the Motion, hoped that no words of his could possibly be found to excite any kind of resentment on the part of Churchmen in the House. He had been brought up in the Church of England, and he was now a member and communicant of that Church; and, if he believed that the policy of Disestablishment, if carried out, would ruin or even injure the Church of England as a spiritual body, though he might be compelled by a sense of justice to advocate it, he should necessarily do so with the deepest possible pain. It was, however, his conviction, founded he thought upon the teaching and experience of history, that disestablishment, so far from weakening or injuring the Church of England would, he believed, free it for still greater efforts and still greater strides in its spiritual progress in future. They were not altogether without experience even within the Church of England itself. Of all matters of progress which had been so marked during the long reign of the Queen, there was probably no line of progress which had been more remarkable than the progress made in what he might call the spirituality of the Church of England. He supposed that everyone, whether Churchman, Dissenter, or Agnostic, would admit that during the past 60 or 70 years the Church of England had enormously improved in character, in earnestness, in efficiency, and in the excellence of its work. ["Hear, hear!"] Not only had the Church of England progressed in that way, but the constitution of the Church of England and the relation of the Church itself to the State had very largely changed in that time. In earlier days no office could be held by anyone who was not a member of the Church of England, either as Town Councillor, officer of Excise or Customs, or parish constable; and he could not hold office unless he proved his membership by actually taking the sacrament before entering upon it. He called attention to a speech of Lord John Russell, in 1828, in proposing the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, wherein he described the common scandal that attended the process of "qualification" for office. Men collected in beer-shops near a church when service was going on. A messenger would come in from the church and would say to the assembled people—sometimes in a half-drunken condition—that the time had arrived for them to "qualify," and then they would enter the church to take the sacrament. They, with their experience of the Church of England today, looked back to those times with a sense of horror; but, concomitantly with the improvement in the Church of England during the Queen's reign, there had gone on a partial disestablishment of the Church of England. The Test and Corporation Acts had been repealed; the disabilities against Dissenters, Catholics and Jews had been repealed; and the Church of England could no longer he held to be establshed in the detailed and minute manner of earlier years; and he maintained that this partial disestablishment which had been going on, Measure by Measure, during the past 60 years was the most important motive power which had brought about the increased spirituality of the Church of England itself. [Cheers.] They heard it said that the dissenting bodies of this country subscribed for their church purposes sums of money which might put to shame the members of the Established Church. To some extent that was true, because, no doubt, the bodies who subscribed most were for the most part distinctly poor, like the Wesleyans. Nevertheless, it was the fact that the amount raised by free subscriptions within the Church of England by its members was far larger than people generally supposed. The late Archbishop of Canterbury, in a speech delivered a few years ago, mentioned the astounding fact that within the last 50 years upwards of £100,000,000 of money had been raised in subscriptions. This was at the rate of £2,000,000 a year for Church extensions, buildings, new en dowments, and other Church purposes. Where had that money been raised? If they looked abroad it would be seen that the Church of England had its strongest hold in the large towns of the country which had grown up in the last 150 or 200 years. If he were asked to lay his finger on the spot where the Church was probably strongest in the hearts of the people, he would point to the city of Manchester. Why was this? The fact was a strong argument in favour of disestablishment. In pre-Reformation times, when the old endowments of the Church had been already given and completed—["No!"]—he had the authority of the Bishop of Oxford for the statement—there were practically only two large towns in the country, London and Bristol. The vast majority of the population existed in the country districts. Therefore the old organisation of the Church was fitted and planned for the country districts mainly. All the modern endowments and all the fitting out of the Church in those towns where she succeeded in carrying out her mission with the greatest success had been effected under the influence of that voluntary enthusiasm which be desired to invoke through the whole Church by the process of disestablishment. [Cheers.] He denied that disestablishment would involve a certain loss of dignity to the Church. This year there was to be celebrated the 1,300th anniversary of the formation of the See of Canterbury, and on the throne of St. Augustine the Archbishop of Canterbury would preside over a pan-Anglican synod. That synod would be composed of members nearly all of whom represented sees which had been created within the reign of her present Majesty. No longer would the Archbishop preside over bishops from 31 sees within England and Wales; he would preside over upwards of 150 bishops from 150 sees, and exactly 130 of these would be bishoprics within the limits of the British Empire itself. Those 96 bishoprics outside England and Wales, nearly all of which had been founded within the reign of her Majesty, and all of which had been founded within the limits of the empire, represented every one of them a free Church in a free State. [Cheers.] The spiritual energy of the Anglican Church certainly had not been diminished in Ireland by disestablishment, and certainly it was not less strong in the free bishoprics which exist in every one of our great self-governing colonies. These examples and illustrations convinced him that the Church would lose nothing whatever by the process of disestablishment. He as a loyal Churchman felt aggrieved that establishment seemed to have diminished to some extent the moral enthusiasm and moral energy of the leaders of the Church of England. ["No!"] Nothing was more remarkable in the course of the present reign than the popularising of the great institutions of the country, the progress of democracy. At every point that progress had been opposed by the Bench of Bishops. In such moral questions as the abolition of slavery, again, reformers had had to meet at every step the opposition of the Bishops in the House of Lords. [Cries of "No!"] The Resolution, of course, made no reference to endowment. [Cries of "It does," and laughter.] He was afraid he had seen an early draft of it—[Ministerial laughter]—and was under that impression, but the circumstance made no difference to his argument—[laughter]—because he recognised that disendowment was the logical consequence of disestablishment. On this point his contention was that as the State gave the tithe, so the State could take it away. He was utterly at a loss to imagine how any hon. Member could deny the fact that the State should as a matter of fact by legislation endow the Church with the tithe. ["No."] He admitted there were many high authorities on this subject in the House, but even the collective learning of the House on a question of English ecclesiastical history could scarcely equal the learning and the authority of Dr. Stubbs, who was, it was well known, in political agreement with hon. Gentlemen opposite. Dr. Stubbs pointed out that—

"The recognition of the legal obligation of tithe dates from the 8th century both on the Continent and in England,"

and that after that time "it was enforced by not infrequent legislation." How then was it possible to say that the State did not endow the Church? From apostolic times the clergy of the Church had been accustomed to preach that it was the duty of the people to give a tenth to the Church, but it was not done, and the clergy did not even venture to enforce it by ecclesiastical penalties, and then came in the State and made it a matter of law. The thing was as clear as could be. The argument therefore, that it was robbery to take away the money given to the Church under these circumstances could not hold. The State gave it, and the State could take it away. ["Hear, hear!"] There was no proposal to take away the great endowment which had grown up in the course of the present century. As he had already pointed out, over one hundred millions of money had been raised in 50 years to aid the Church in the large towns, where its work was most valuable, and where it had the strongest hold on the hearts of the people. He at least, as a Churchman, was not going to believe that in the richest country in the world the Church that was possessed of the richest members of the community was likely to be allowed to fail in its spiritual efforts, and in the spiritual good it did, for want of more money, which could be easily raised amongst its own people. He looked upon the Resolution, not as an attack by enemies on the Church, but as a policy by which, if successful, the Church would be free to be animated by and inspired by those voluntary efforts which within the last 50 years had enabled it to do great good; and he looked upon it as a Measure that would finally remove from the Church of England the last trace as a branch of the Civil Service and leave it simply and solely what it was—a branch of the Church of Christ. [Cheers.]

who was loudly cheered on rising, said: We have but little cause to complain of the tone of the last speaker, at all events. But I think everybody who has sat through the two speeches which have just been delivered must admit that this Debate is little better than a sham. ["Hear, hear!"] We had a brief discussion the other night on the advantages of giving to the House of Commons occasionally the opportunity of discussing abstract resolutions, and that it may be an ad-advantage now and then I am prepared to admit; but I deny that it can be an advantage to discuss, as we are discussing to-night, the propriety of carrying through what is little short of a great political and social revolution—["hear, hear!"—in a House constituted as this is at the present moment. ["Hear, hear!"] The occupants of the front Opposition Bench were, through the whole of the speech of the Mover, and through nine-tenths of the speech of the Seconder, conspicuous by their absence. [Cheers.] Hardly the faintest interest appears to be shown in the Debate by those who might be supposed to be in favour of the Motion, and who in different circumstances might be expected to come down and support it by their presence and by their cheers. When, therefore, I look upon the deserted state of the Benches opposite it seems to me the House of Commons is wasting its time, and is neither adding to its dignity nor to its efficiency in occupying itself with arguments of which., for the most part, it would be far too high a compliment to say that they were academic. [Laughter and cheers.] The Mover of the Motion spent the greater part of his speech in one of two occupations. He was either making an inaccurate survey of the past or he was hazarding the most perilous prophecies for the future. [Laughter.] I do not propose to travel with him over the very difficult, lengthy, and controversial questions of ecclesiastical history that he has raised. But I must say, parenthetically, that I dissent when he and the Seconder agree in describing the present position of the Church of England as the result of State endowments.

No, tithes.

I beg pardon. In saying that the tithes of the Church of England are the result of State endowments they have against them not only every authority—I was going to say every investigation into the subject—including the present Bishop of Oxford, who has been so courageously quoted by both hon. Gentlemen—[laughter and cheers]—but they have also against them, a great authority in itself, but an authority that ought specially to appeal to hon. Gentlemen op posite —I refer to the late Home Secretary, who, I remember, in the Debate on the Welsh Church, gave specific and categorical utterance to a doctrine on the subject of tithes the very opposite to that we have heard to-night. [Cheers and cries of "No!"] I think every one who refers to the Debates will see that, though I quote from memory, I am not misrepresenting what was then said by the late Home Secretary. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman, however, is here to answer for himself. But that is a parenthesis. I do not mean to go into the wearisome details of the subject. The two hon. Gentlemen who are responsible for this Motion, and especially the Mover, expended a great deal of eloquence in attacking what were described as the vices of the Church of England. Sir, an institution which, like the Church of England, has lasted for these many hundred years, which has been bound up, like the Church of England, with the growth of a great country, of course has episodes in its history which we should wish otherwise. ["Hear, hear!"] After all, every assembly composed of men must be liable to some of those weaknesses into which an assembly composed of men must inevitably fall. But because the Church of England has been less zealous sometimes for the spiritual welfare of the people of England than we should wish; because some members of the Church have sometimes advocated causes of which we disapprove, are we to rake up all those ancient occurrences and say, because they at one time happened, therefore we are now to deprive the Church of a large part of the machinery by which she does her work among the people of this country? [Cheers.] The hon. Gentleman appears to conceive that there is something in the condition of Established Churches—I think he meant all Established Churches—which make them the natural supporters of slavery, of tyranny, and of all things which we regret—[laughter]—whilst, on the other hand, he asserted that throughout the history of Nonconformity in England it was quite obvious that the members of those religious bodies which had separated themselves from the Church of England were one and all—from the very nature of their religious creed—advocates of toleration and liberty. [Laughter.] If the hon. Gentleman will give a deeper study to the history of this country and will examine more in detail precisely what has been done by non-ecclesiastical bodies in England when they had the power of the State behind them, he will be able to check the view he has expressed to-night—[cheers]—and he will probably come to the conclusion to which all impartial historians have arrived—namely, that all religious bodies, all communities, religious and irreligious, have worked themselves up to their present views of freedom and liberty of thought by a gradual and painful process; and that it is the height of historical injustice—I will go further, and say it is the height of historical absurdity—to make the Church of England responsible in the present day for the errors—if errors there were—she has committed in common with the whole of the rest of the civilised world. [Cheers.] The hon. Gentleman having surveyed in his own peculiar fashion and with his own peculiar views the ample held of history, went on to indulge in prophecy. [Laughter.] He said we ought at once to disestablish a Church in which the Bishops are appointed on the advice of a Minister of the Crown, because a time would certainly come when that Minister of the Crown would be an atheist, and that, therefore, we might expect to see persons holding these negative views appointed to the highest offices in the Church. [Laughter.]

I said we might see a free-thinking Prime Minister, and that it was possible he would appoint Broad Church Bishops. [Laughter.]

Well, we have no reason to believe that Broad Church Bishops would hold views more in harmomy with the late Mr. Bradlaugh, who was the particular statesman quoted by the hon. Gentleman, than the present occupants of the Episcopal Bench. [Laughter.] I have not myself the gift of prophecy with which the hon. Gentleman is endowed. [Laughter.] I do not pretend to be able to say from what class the Bishops of the remote future will be appointed, what opinions they will hold, or what character of men they will be. But I would ask the House, can anything be more exquisitely ridiculous than to ask us to disestablish and disendow the Church of England at the present moment because in some remote and unknown future that Church may have placed at its head by Ministers of the Crown Bishops unworthy of their position? [Laughter and cheers.] What we are concerned with, if this Resolution means anything at all, is not with the remote past nor with the remote present, but with the actual present, and on the actual present we heard not a word from the Seconder, and nothing at all, until he got towards the end of his speech, from the Mover. But we have to judge the merits of a Resolution by seeing what would happen if it were carried out. This Resolution—as the Seconder to his surprise discovered at the end of his speech—[laughter]—proposes the disendowment as well as the disestablishment of the Church. It is a remarkable fact that of the few Gentlemen on the other side of the House who think it worth while to come and listen to the Debate, the one who, next to the Mover, might be supposed to take most interest in it was unacquainted with the terms of the Resolution. [Laughter.] I am sure the hon. Gentleman has by this time discovered that he is asking us to vote not merely for the disestablishment of the Church but for its disendowment. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] Now it has dawned on the Seconder of the Resolution that the endowments of a Church or its possessions are necessary instruments in its utility; for he pointed to the great towns in this country and said, "There the Church is doing a great work, and is liberally supported by modern contributions. There, places of worship have been built; endowments have been provided, and in consequence of those endowments and through the medium of those places of worship, a great religious work is being done among the working classes." I fail to understand why an endowment given 50 years ago is of such enormous value, and an endowment given 1,000 years ago is of no value at all. [Cheers.] The hon. Gentleman seems to think that it is very desirable, very proper to encourage Churchmen to make large endowments to the Church to which they belong, and that the best way to induce Churchmen to endow the Church now is to deprive the Church of all the endowments which Churchmen in former ages gave to the same body. [Cheers.] The hon. Gentleman said that nobody contemplated taking away the more recent endowments. I see no limitations in the Resolution, which I have read, though he has not. [Cheers and laughter.] I am not aware that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution means to except modern endowments. He did not hint at it, nor did he suggest a date on the one side of which endowments are to be spared and on the other side of which they are to be ruthlessly sacrificed. But I am sure that the Mover of this Motion will feel that its Seconder has really given the case away. [Cheers.] It is not an absurdity to say that the Church is doing splendid work in the towns because there is there a clergyman and a church, but is doing no work in the country, although there is there precisely the same machinery—[cries of "No!" and cheers]—for carrying out precisely the same great task. I do not understand the arguments of the Mover; but I understand his object. It is to destroy the Church. [Cries of "No!" and cheers.] That is a simple, plain, and intelligible policy, but I protest that I do not understand the motives which animate the Seconder. He, a member of the Church, a man that boasts that he has the in terests of the Church at heart and who believes in the actual value of the work now being done by the Church—he wishes to deprive every agricultural parish in this country, however poor it may be, of the existing means of carrying out religious work within its limits. [Cheers.] And when the hon. Gentleman says that the whole work done in the towns is by modern endowments which are quite equal to the task, I traverse his facts altogether. The work done in the great towns is largely done by precisely the same machinery and the same endowments as the work done in the country districts; and those endowments, whether they be old or new, are, I grieve to say, most inadequate—[cheers]—for the great work which the Church has to carry out. There is nothing, in my opinion, which Churchmen ought more earnestly to do than to meet the growing needs of the growing population, and to say that, great as has been the liberality of the Anglican communion compared with that of any communion on the face of the earth, it still lags far behind the necessities of the case, and we still owe it to the Church to enable it to meet the ever-growing demands on its energies which arise from the ever-growing populations in our great centres of industry. [Cheers.] I have been dragged, somewhat against my will, into discussion on the merits of the Resolution before the House. When I got up I had intended to dismiss them even more summarily than I have done. I beg the House to show its harmony with the sentiments of the country—[cheers]—by dismissing speedily and effectually this Resolution which has been brought forward to-night. [Cheers.] That the country is prepared, or in any measurable period will be prepared, to accept a Resolution of this kind I, for one, do not believe. [Cheers] So long as the Church of England possesses, as it now possesses, a clergy devoted on the whole to the labours: so long as it possesses a clergy whose work is not merely or chiefly among the rich and well-to-do, but who extend the sphere of their labour to the poorest and most helpless of the population; so long as the great body of the Bishops are what even the Mover has admitted them now to be—men of untiring industry, men of great spiritual elevation; so long the Church, which has been intertwined with the memories of the people for all these centuries, will have a perfectly secure basis in their protection. [Cheers.] For my part I should wish, if I spoke merely as a politician, that the hon. Gentleman opposite should drag behind him into the Lobby that front Bench and that body of its supporters who show so prudent an anxiety to be absent on the present occasion. [Laughter and cheers.] But if I consider this matter, not as a Party politician—and I gladly dismiss all lower objects and considerations from this Debate—but as one anxious and ready to aid, as the hon. Gentleman is himself, the growth of true religion and the spread of spiritual life in all classes of the community, then I say that a greater blow could not be struck at the religious interests of this country than to deprive the greatest religious body in the country of so large a portion of the means for carrying on its allotted work. [Cheers.] I trust that we shall waste no more time—[cheers]—either in discussing the antiquarian tales so dear to the heart of the hon. Gentleman, or in following out the prophecies in which he indulged with so much courage; but that we shall by an overwhelming majority, and with no unnecessary delay, show the country that this House of Commons at all events represents their deepest feelings and their strongest convictions, and that it will not tolerate, longer than it can help, even the consideration of a Motion which is so diametrically opposed to all their wishes and hopes. [Cheers.] I shall not myself move an Amendment to this Motion, and I shall not suggest to any hon. Gentleman that he should do so. Let us meet it in the only way it deserves to be met—by a direct negative, and let it be uttered in no unmistakable tones. [Cheers.]

said that this Motion might have been met with savage hostility or supercilious contempt. Perhaps the former was still to come. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman gave an example of the latter. This was not the first time that he had heard the occupants of the Front Bench deprecate discussions on great public questions, and declare that they wasted the time of the House. But dozens of great Measures now on the Statute Book had been placed there by such discussions as that on which the Leader of the House had sought to pour contempt. He would not "rake up the forgotten past," but would refer to existing facts, and to abuses which sprang from the existence of the Church, not as a religious institution, but as a political establishment. He hoped the House would not be deterred by the exhortation of the First Lord, but would continue to discuss this question, in which large numbers of persons took the deepest interest. When they were told that the country cared nothing about the question, he would remind the House that in the last Parliament a Measure for the disestablishment of the Church in Wales was carried by a substantial majority; and no one could say that the next Parliament would not contain a majority in favour of disestablishment both in Wales and in Scotland. It was asked, Why draw a distinction between ancient and modern endowments? He thought both were evil, and exercised an injurious influence on the religious communities which possessed them. But the ancient endowments were the property of the whole people; and the people were entitled to dispose of them as they thought fit. Modern endowments, however, were the gift of members of the existing Church of England, and, having a strict regard for equity, those in favour of disendowment did not wish to take such endowments away. Of course, in the main, the religious work in the large towns was carried on in the same way as in the country; but the majority of the established clergy in the large towns were maintained, not by endowments, but by voluntary offerings. They were in that respect in the same position as Nonconformist Ministers. He called the attention of the House to the curious history of the Amendment which was to have been submitted to the House, but which had not been moved. As it first appeared on the Paper, it insisted on the necessity of having a resident minister in every parish in the country, and declared that a serious blow would be struck at religion if that minister were removed. It also deprecated the diversion of Church endowments to other purposes. Probably the hon. Member for the Tunbridge Division was advised that that was rather a meagre programme to put forward as a defence of the continued existence of a Church Establishment. Or, perhaps, he remembered that only a few days before there had been a discussion in the Lower House of the Southern Convocation, in which it was contended that incumbencies in small parishes, with a diminishing population, afforded no real scope for the development of clerical energies, and were a waste of the Church's resources. As a resolution was adopted that the law relating to pluralities and the union of benefices ought to be amended, he assumed that the views of Convocation in regard to a resident clergyman were less strong than those of the hon. Member. Then, it probably occurred to him that it would be thought very odd if there were no allusion in his Amendment to a subject which was now agitating the minds of many Churchmen—viz., Church Reform, as in the second edition he expressed anxiety that "all needful Church reforms should be carried without delay." Perhaps the present perilous position of the Benefices Bill suggested some painful reflections in connection with Church reform; so the resident minister and Church reform, and even Church property, finally disappeared in the third edition, and the House was to be simply asked to give an emphatic negative to the Resolution now before it. In all probability the Motion would be negatived; but he thought that some of those who would enter the "No" Lobby would do so with a good deal of misgiving. The fact was, that this question of Disestablishment occupied a very different position from that in which it stood half-a-century ago. At that time the existence of a Church Establishment was defended on the grounds of Scripture, reason and expediency. Now the defenders of the institution were content to occupy much lower ground. Now they admitted that, if we were creating a constitution for this country, and were beginning de novo, no one would think of setting up a Church Establishment; but said that the institution existed, and, in spite of all anomalies, worked well, and it would be difficult and riskful to abolish it. Did the established system work well? If it did, how was it that the Established Church at that moment was the unhappiest, and the most complaining, of all the religious bodies in England? That was a question very easily answered. The Church of England had, during this century, wonderfully progressed. As the result of a great growth of spiritual life, it had increased in numbers, energy, and enterprise. It had, however, in one respect, stood absolutely still; for the Church had but little more liberty now than it had in the dark days of spiritual lethargy and of administrative corruption. The late Archdeacon Denison once said: "All England is free to do its proper work. The one thing that is not free to do its own proper work is the Church of England." The Bishop of Liverpool had also given a fuller and more diverting description of the position of his Church. "I dare not," he said,

"shut my eyes to the fact that my Church is sadly wanting in elasticity and power of adapting herself to circumstances. Its organisation is stiff and rigid, like a bar of cast-iron, when it ought to be supple and bending like whalebone. Like some old fossilised country squire who lives twenty miles from a railway, and never visits London, the poor dear old Church of England must still travel in the old family coach, shoot with the old flint-locked single-barrel gun, and wear the old jack-boots and long pigtail. And all this time Dissent is netting and bagging the Church's children by scores, and laughing in her sleeve at the old gentleman's folly."

He could give dozens of quotations from the writings or speeches of Churchmen which, if less graphic, were equally forcible and equally true. Much had been heard of late of "Church Defence"—though it had not been the Church which had required defence, but only its establishment by the State. When Churchmen were called upon to assist the cause of Church Defence, they sometimes asked what it was they were asked to defend—was it the anomalies and abuses which had already been referred to? He was a diligent reader of the reports of the proceedings in Convocation, Church Congresses, and the Diocesan Conferences, and that course of reading had enabled him to compile, not a complete, but a considerable, list of the changes which were declared to be essential to the future prosperity of the Church, and to which he hoped the House would kindly listen:—

"1. Power to Convocation to frame schemes of Church reform, subject only to a Parliamentary veto. 2. A reform of Convocation. 3. Creation of diocesan and parochial Councils for the management of local Church affairs. 4. A multiplication of Bishops, their choice by the Church, and the abolition of the mockery of the Congé d'elire. 5. Removal of Bishops from the House of Lords. 6. Reform of the Patronage system. Power to the laity in the appointment of the parochial clergy, and the abolition of the traffic in livings. 7. Means to prevent the admission of unfit persons to the ministry, the displacement of incompetent or negligent clerics, and the abolition of the parson's freehold. 8. The superannuation of aged, or disabled, clergymen. 9. Improvement in the position and prospects of curates. 10. A re-distribution of Church revenue, to prevent waste, and to secure the more equitable remuneration of the clergy. 11. The relief of the clergy from burdensome exactions in connection with rates, ecclesiastical fees, the dilapidations of parsonages, &c. 12. Cathedral reform: to make the cathedrals more useful. 13. A modification of the parochial system, and the union of parishes with few parishioners and small clerical incomes. 14. A revision of the Prayer Book—either to free it from sacerdotalism, or to obtain elasticity in the services of the Church; or both. 15. A relaxation of the restrictions of the Act of Uniformity. 16. Repeal of the Act of Submission of the Clergy. 17. Means for securing 'godly discipline,' as regards both clergy and laity."

Sydney Smith once said: "All establishments die of dignity. They are too proud to think themselves ill and to take a little physic." If that were true in his time, it certainly was not true to-day, when the Established Church appeared to be suffering from a complication of disorders, and was embarrassed to decide what kind of medicine would best suit her case. On that list of Church reforms he had to offer but a few brief remarks. The first was, that no other religious body in the country required such changes, in either their constitution or their administration. The reason, of course, was, that they were not, like the Church of England, established by law. It followed from that that the evils pointed at all sprang from the same source, viz., Establishment. Many of them would, as a matter of course, cease with Disestablishment, and all the rest would be got rid of by the free action of disestablished Churchmen. The great dilemma of Church reformers was described by the late Mr. W. E. Forster—who was a Churchman as well as a Parliamentarian—when, as far back as 1881, he described the Church of England as being

"the only great institution in the world which has to go on almost without the possibility of reform; because it can only be reformed by Parliament, and Parliament cannot effectively reform it."

Why could not Parliament effectively reform the Church, or even reform it ineffectively? The reasons were notorious. That House was so constituted as to be absolutely unfit to undertake the task. The Church of England was Protestant, Episcopal and Trinitarian—could anything be more anomalous than that it should be legislated for by Roman Catholics, Presbyterians and Unitarians —to say nothing of Jews, Nonconformists, and even avowed unbelievers? Yet so long as that Church was a national institution, all these must possess equal rights, and discharge equal duties, in regard to the legislation which came before it. He did not wonder that an increasing number of Churchmen had come to regard further legislation for the Church with positive dread. "None but the most short-sighted," said Lord Carnarvon in 1881,

"will look to legislation as a remedy for our present difficulties. The conditions of Parliament, as now constituted, are incapable of wise and just legislation on Church questions. There is scarcely a line on this subject in the Statute-book of recent years which would not be better out than in; and whatever our difficulties, and even our contentions, the less we have of parliamentary interposition the happier we shall be."

The present Bishop of Worcester, when Dean of Peterborough, said of a proposed alteration in the Prayer Book, it

"would be disastrous if the sacred things of the Church were to be tossed to and fro in debate by men of all religions and of none in the House of Commons,"

And, conscious of the dilemma involved in that admission, he added—

"We must go to Parliament simply because we are an established Church, and if anyone says at all costs abstain from going to Parliament,' that is practically saying we must be disestablished."

If Churchmen were reluctant to bring their complaints and demands before Parliament, that House was equally reluctant to entertain them. It was idle for Church reformers to assert that the chief obstacle in the way of Church reform was the obstruction of malignant Liberationists. The Governments of past times showed the same indifference as Governments of to-day. The late Archbishop Magee, writing on his own abortive efforts to reform the system of private patronage in the Church, said of a Conservative Government (March 29 1875):—

"The Cabinet is sick of all Church questions, and hates the very idea of Church Bills in the Commons."

Only a few days ago the Bishop of Salisbury made exactly the same complaint as Archbishop Magee, when he said:—

"He was sorry to add that, whether there was a Conservative or a Liberal Government in power, they were thwarted in that matter. When a Liberal Government was in power people thwarted their Measures for Church reform because they were afraid the Church would become too strong, and when a Conservative Government was in power the reforms in question were thwarted by a defence of the rights of property, so that the Church was equally badly treated by whichever Government was in power."

There was a final reason why it was useless to look to Parliament for any substantial Measures of Church reform, and that was that the time of the House was totally inadequate for the purpose. Every Session the arrears of strictly secular legislation were increasing, and Parliament was in danger of falling into disrepute because of its inability to meet the demands—the reasonable demands—of large masses of the people. How long did Church reformers think it would take to effect all the changes enumerated in the list which he had read? Would seven Sessions suffice, even if seven Sessions could be wholly given to the gigantic task? He greatly doubted it; but had no doubt that, even if it could be accomplished, a large number of Churchmen would be thoroughly disgusted with the practical result. ["Hear, hear!"] The honourable Member for the Tunbridge Division had lately had a little experience as a Church reformer, and knew that the question of Church patron-age had been before Parliament at various times for a quarter of a century, and that the Benefices Bill of last year was the 17th of a series. Who was responsible for that long delay? Not Liberationists, but, in past times at least, the Peers, the Bishops, and the clergy, as the life of Archbishop Magee clearly showed; and last year the Bill was killed by the representatives of the private patrons who sat on the Ministerial side of the House. Well, if that reform—which was said to be the ripest of all Church reforms—had taken so long to accomplish, when were they likely to witness those other and still larger reforms which he had enumerated? There were some Church reformers who thought that they had discovered a short cut to the reform they desired. The newly-formed Church Reform League proposed that Convocation should prepare schemes of reform, to be laid before Parliament, and that, if not vetoed by Parliament, they would become law. Unfortunately for that proposal, it was admitted that before Convocation could reform the Church it must be itself reformed; because it very inadequately represented the clergy, and did not represent the laity at all. ["Hear, hear!"] But, supposing that that preliminary and formidable difficulty were overcome, did anyone seriously believe that Parliament would place the Church on a voluntary basis, as regarded government, while allowing it to retain all its rights and privileges as a national institution? They might depend upon it that Parliament would not lose its grip upon the Church so long as it was in the enjoyment of millions a year of national property, and would no more allow the Church to govern itself than it allowed the Army and the Navy to govern themselves. ["Hear, hear!"] That fact was now so deeply impressed on the minds of many Churchmen that, to secure a real reformation of the Church they had lately formed "The Churchman's Liberation League;" which organisation was described in one of their publications as being

"open to Churchmen of any Party in Church or State who recognise that the existing connection between Church and State in England has become injurious to the spiritual interests of the Church, and a hindrance to the progress of true religion, and are prepared either to advocate or support the disestablishment of the Church from within."

They, too, felt "the need of freedom on the part of the Church to manage its own affairs;" but they also recognised "the impossibility of expecting Parliament to deal properly with such matters." They therefore declared that "the great issue which lies before the Church of England" was perfectly expressed in the words of Mr. Gladstone, written nearly half-a-century ago:—"You have our decision: take your own: choose between the mess of pottage and the birthright of the Bride of Christ." Nor were the members of this League the only Churchmen who had made up their minds that the hope of the Church lay in its disestablishment. He believed the opinion of Churchmen in favour of disestablishment was rapidly growing; not only because of their discontent with the existing state of things, but because they had become distinctly conscious that the recent expansion of the Church—which was with them an object of legitimate pride, and with Christians outside the Church an object of admiration—["' Hear, hear!"]—had not been the result of the action of the State, but of their own efforts. What had the State done for the Church during the last 50 years? It had clone something for the Nonconformists, but little or nothing for the Church. It was generations since the State voted any money for Church purposes, and all the Church extensions of modern times had been the result of voluntary zeal. In conclusion, he referred again to the meeting of the Anglican Bishops which would assemble at Lambeth in the summer, and quoted the language of one of them, Bishop Ballarat, the senior Australian Bishop, who had lately said in Dublin:—

"He was here to-day, after living for twenty years within and helping in the administration of an unendowed and unestablished Church, and he would say that, however great the disadvantages of such a condition of affairs were to the State, he was not prepared to say that they were a disadvantage to the spiritual well-being and prosperity of the Church itself. He for one would be very sorry to take any price he could think of for the freedom of administration and government which they enjoyed, the power to promote reform, and the power of adaptation, more difficult to secure when there was State connection."

He hoped that those honourable Members who in their hearts believed that the connection of Church and State was injurious, but stood shivering on the brink of Disestablishment would derive courage from those assuring words, and if they did not see their way to supporting the Motion, would at least refrain from voting against it. [Cheers.]

said that in supporting the Motion he wished to make it quite clear that the Welsh Members did not in any way withdraw from the position they had taken up for years past—namely, that Wales had really the first claim on Parliament in the matter of the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church. The Amendment as it originally stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Kent referred to the impossibility of maintaining the cause of religion without the help of an endowed established Church, and the Leader of the House also referred in his speech to the necessity of an established Church in the interests of the people of the agricultural parishes throughout the country. What he wished to make clear was that this argument would not apply to Wales, for the Nonconformists were quite prepared to carry on the work of religion in every parish throughout the Principality. ["Hear, hear!"] The cause of religion in Wales would not suffer in the slightest degree if the Motion was carried. Assurance of this might be gathered from the fact that while there were 970 parishes in Wales, with 970 established clergymen, there were no fewer than 2,314 ordained Nonconformist ministers in service in the Principality; that the chapels were three times more numerous than the churches, and that the amount paid by Nonconformists in support of their religious principles was very largely in excess of that contributed by Churchmen to the Church. However much advantage the Church might have, owing to its social position and wealth, in Wales, and to other things to which he need not now refer, the fact remained that the great majority of the people did not avail themselves of its ministrations. On a certain Sunday, a few years ago, there were assembled in all the churches of the Church of England in nine Denbighshire parishes 133 people out of a total population of 4,500, or three per cent. of the whole population, whereas the chapels in those districts were filled. Last year, in a particular parish in Denbighshire, there were only four persons in church on Easter Sunday out of a population of 1,200, whereas the numerous chapels in the parish were filled. He desired to lay these facts before the House to prove that there was no danger whatever of the cause of religion suffering one iota from the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church in Wales. He felt confident that whatever the result of the division might be with reference to the question generally in England, the Liberal Party having once pledged itself to Welsh disestablishment that reform would sooner or later be carried by a large majority.

speaking with personal knowledge of the work done in the East End of London by the Church of England and her devoted clergy, said that it would be an enormous loss to the toiling masses of that portion of the metropolis if the Church were disestablished and disendowed. In the East of London the feeling was distinctly in favour of the maintenance of the parochial system, and the Church was established there in the best possible manner—in the very hearts of the people. Representing an East End constituency, and knowing precisely what the feeling of the people was, he hoped the House would, by a decisive majority, reject this abstract Resolution, which, if carried, would materially affect the toilers of the country. The House divided:—Ayes, 86; Noes, 204.—(Division List—No. 21—appended.)

said he would detain the House but a few moments in bringing under notice the Motion standing in his name. He was sorry to say the evil to which he referred was an evil increasing in intensity. The Departmental Returns gave a total of 40,422 aliens as landing in this country during 1895, and the numbers in 1896 were 45,875, and none of these were on their way to other countries. The latest Return, for the month of January, showed 2,583, as against 2,494 in the corresponding month of last year. But he did not want to refer to statistics to tell the House the magnitude of the evil as it existed in the East End of London. All his life he had been acquainted with the East End of London. He had served on the London County Council Committee on the Housing of the Working Classes, and it was his duty to visit the crowded districts where the most terrible evils of the sweating system were to be found. These destitute foreigners were shipped to this country like sheep and were crowded into lodgings and workshops like animals. Every Member should read Mr. Charles Booth's book on Life and Labour in the East End of London, and in that book was described a sight he had often seen, and which Members might see at any time if they would go down to the wharves when the Hamburg boats arrived, men landing from the boats labelled with the address of the sweater to whom they were consigned like so many sheep or cattle, and perfectly helpless. He had visited the United States to see what was done in this matter on that side, and there he found some stringent regulations in force which, though they did not prevent them entirely, did put a stop to a large extent to the evils that attended this immigration. Evidences of the character of the evil continually appeared in the newspapers. Only a week ago there was the report of an inquest on one of these poor foreigners who had died at his work, and it was proved before the coroner, Mr. Wynne Baxter, that the pay of this miserable man was 8s. a week. Again, in a case tried before the magistrate at the Thames Police Court, it was shown that the price paid to a foreign girl for making four pairs of trousers was 14d., or 3½d. a pair. These poor people came to this country ignorant of the language and circumstances, and were sent to the sweaters; they were mere paupers, and God help them if they were in a worse condition in their own country. What he had seen in his own observations and knew as a fact was that every one of these aliens who settled in the East End of London, and in other industrial centres, drove out of employment one of our own poor workmen, and added to the large mass of the unemployed who crowded round the dock gates day after day clamouring for casual employment. Within the last month he became acquainted with two cases within his own constituency of men who had in this way lost their employment. One of these cases was that of a man who had been employed for 17 years in the boot trade. During that time he had lived in the same house and paid his rates, but the class of work out of which he had made his living was completely taken away by the underpaid foreigners who now monopolised the work. Only the other day he became acquainted with the case of a man in his constituency who for 32 years had been in one employment, and for three months he had been unable to get employment, because the work was taken away by the unfair competition of these unfortunate foreigners, who crowded our East End slums. The Motion he proposed was not conceived in any hostility to the Government, he simply wanted them to do what they had promised to do at the last General Election, and that which Lord Salisbury in another place actually proposed a couple of Sessions ago. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to give him some assurance which he might take to his constituents, that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government were in sympathy with the Resolution as it appeared on the Paper, and that they would take an early opportunity of putting a stop, as far as they could, to a state of things which caused untold mischief in the East End of London. He moved:—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the constant influx of Pauper Aliens into London and other industrial centres is prejudicially affecting and seriously displacing British labour in many industries, and demands and should receive instant attention at the hands of Her Majesty's Government."

seconded the Motion. His hon. Friend had stated the facts fully, and there was no occasion to repeat them. The matter had been referred to in the House on former occasions, and it had occupied public attention during the General Election. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade had referred to the subject in his address when seeking election to the House, and he felt sure that his right hon. Friend would endeavour to do all he possibly could in the matter. He had served on the Committee of 1888–9 for dealing with the question, and the evidence collected by the Committee he commended to the attention of Members. It was not alleged that the aliens were themselves a charge upon the rates, but what was alleged was, and it was confirmed by the evidence given by witnesses before the Committee, that these aliens drove English workmen on to the rates and made paupers of numbers of our poorer population. It was not that they affected the trade of the whole country, they affected the trade of certain portions of the country, and the President of the Board of Trade, who knew the East End of London, would be aware of the evil, and should do all he possibly could to find a remedy. It was the tailoring and boot-making trades that were specially injured by this alien immigration. The increased prosperity of the country which had lately prevailed had brought these aliens here in increasing numbers, and it was, therefore, incumbent on the Government and Members on the Government side of the House who had made this a great point during the General Election, to do all they possibly could to put a stop to the evil.

I am not at all surprised that my hon. Friend should have thought it necessary to draw the attention of the House to the evil under which, I cannot doubt, a considerable portion of the district he represents suffers. I, myself, have had some experience of the East End of London, and I know that although, perhaps, the number of destitute aliens who come into the country is not large, having regard to our population as a whole, and those who come to London are not largo relatively to the population of London. Yet the fact is, that these destitute aliens settle down in particular parts of the Metropolis, and what is a very small percentage over London as a whole, is a large percentage in the district where these aliens settle. The numbers are unfortunately increasing. In the last three years the number of Russian Poles, some of the least desirable of these aliens who come here, have increased 50 per cent. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are quite alive to the evils which exist in the districts where these people settle down. It is not as if the people were desirable in themselves, for that they certainly are not, and I can quite understand the feelings of the working classes in the districts where they settle are very strong. I understand that my hon. Friend does not desire a full and ample discussion of this subject to-night. He desires to bring forward this grievance as one particularly affecting the constituency he represents, and he reminds the House, that not only individual Members, but the Government as a whole are pledged to some legislation on the subject. We do not desire to depart one iota from the pledges we have given. ["Hear, hear!"] But my hon. Friend will recognise that there are other matters of far-reaching importance we have to bring before the House of Commons this Session, and perhaps he will rest content with the assurance I have given, that we adhere to every pledge we have given, and I hope at no distant time to propose to Parliament legislation in the direction he desires. ["Hear, hear!"]

said after this very satisfactory assurance from the right hon. Gentleman he had no wish to press the matter further, and would ask the permission of the House to withdraw the Motion.

said before the Motion was withdrawn he had only a word to say. Of course it was not worth while for Members to take part in such a perfunctory Debate when the House was not even asked to pass a Resolution. But he desired to give notice—as he had on a former occasion—that whenever this Measure was introduced it would be met with the hottest possible Parliamentary opposition. ["Hear, hear!"]

said it seemed to him that everybody was in much too great a hurry.

Not at all.

said the hon. Member had tried to bring forward this Motion on many occasions, and now, when he had a splendid opportunity, when nobody wanted to go away, when they were waiting to hear the facts upon which he asked for such a drastic policy to be adopted, the hon. Member withdrew his Motion. Not a single fact had been put forward in its support.

The hon. Member was not pressed.

said he was in the House during seven-eighths of the hon. Member's remarks. When he came in the hon. Gentleman was speaking in a great hurry, but he heard no fact in support of the Resolution. There were Returns every month published on the subject, and none of these had he quoted.

Yes, I did.

said the last Returns showed there were not so many destitute aliens arriving in this country as previously; the matter was, therefore, not at all pressing, and he thought the House might have expected something more from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who also seemed to be in a great hurry, as to the lines of the policy he intended to pursue. It was not for Members on that side to keep up the thread of Debate; but on such an important matter of policy there ought to be some little more foundation for the legislative structure proposed to be raised. ["Hear, hear!"]

said he desired to support the Motion. If the hon. Member were to visit our cast coast ports he would get all the information he desired as to how far these destitute aliens affected the work of the country. Workmen throughout the country were generally in favour of some legislation on the subject. This feeling had found expression at the Trade Union Congress.

Not at the last.

said he had been to a few Trade Union Congresses, and knew that resolutions in that sense had passed. Notice taken that 40 Members were not present. House counted, and 40 Members not being present,