ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES).

§ The PRIME MINISTER

asked leave to introduce a Bill "to terminate the Establishment of the Church of England in Wales and Monmouthshire and to make provision in respect of the Temporalities thereof, and for other purposes in connection with the matters aforesaid."

It is almost exactly fourteen years since I asked the Members of the House of Commons of that day to read a second 1526 time a Bill designed for the same purpose, and framed substantially on the same lines as the Bill which I desire to ask leave to introduce this afternoon. The case for Welsh disestablishment rests in all its essential particulars on the same foundations now as it did then. New facts have, indeed, emerged, which, though they may not have added to the general argument, an argument which in my opinion needed no reinforcement, do at the same time indicate and account for the growing urgency of the Welsh demand, and show that, in our opinion, the speedy compliance on the part of Parliament with that demand is a matter at once of justice and of policy. But the case, as I said, is not a new one. Its origin lies far back in the annals of Wales. I am not going to-day to rehearse at length the detailed historical narrative with which on that occasion I troubled the then House of Commons. But it is impossible for anybody who has not familiarised himself with the outline at any rate of that history to understand either the actual position of the Church in Wales or the feeling and sentiment of the Welsh people in regard to it.

The Church in Wales, I may state as an indisputable historical fact, existed not perhaps as a highly organised institution, though there are, I believe, traditions of a Welsh Archbishopric of St. David's, but it existed undoubtedly as a living and a working Christian agency some considerable time before the mission of St. Augustine to the Saxons. It is in no sense an offshoot or a missionary development of the Church of England. It had an independent origin, and for a long time—probably for some centuries—it had an independent existence. When by a series of historical incidents, which I need not dilate upon, the Principality of Wales was, for political purposes, incorporated into or annexed to—I am not sure which expression will most suit the sensibilities of my Welsh friends—but when at any rate it became part and parcel, for political purposes, of the Kingdom of England, contemporaneously or consequentially the ancient Church of Wales was incorporated into or annexed to the Church of England. The English Government succeeded in doing with the Welsh Church what it could never do, and never has succeeded in doing, with the Welsh people—it denationalised it. It is no exaggeration to say it is one of the commonplaces of history that for centuries the English Establishment in Wales—that is to say, the old Welsh 1527 Church as transformed by the English rulers of the Principality—was used for political purposes as the organ and instrument of the English Government.

From the time, I suppose, of Henry II., to a time which is almost within the memory of people now living, the great places of that Church, and the small places, too, the bishoprics, deaneries, and, also, the ordinary parochial benefices, were occupied by persons out of touch with Welsh feeling, with little knowledge of the Welsh people, and often ignorant of the Welsh language, and those prizes, be they great or small, in the ecclesiastical organisation of Wales at that time were regarded as the appanage of English clergymen and the favourites of English Ministers, and were filled up with almost systematic disregard of the real spiritual requirements of Wales. That is, as I believe, the absolutely unexaggerated and uncoloured history of the Welsh Establishment for many centuries after the incorporation of Wales with the kingdom of England. But there is another historical fact, which is by no means irrelevant to these discussions, that should be borne in mind and fully appreciated, and that is the origin of Welsh Nonconformity. Welsh Nonconformity was not the product of puritanism. Puritanism never obtained any very great hold of the Principality of Wales. Welsh Nonconformity was the result of a revolt within the boundaries of the Church itself, by the best and finest spirits of the Church at. that time, the eighteenth century—a revolt not based upon dogmatic differences, or even upon disputes on questions of ceremonial, but a revolt against the condition of things by which this great State organisation, the accredited organ, from the political point of view of the spiritual side of the community, proved itself to be hopelessly out of touch with the mass of those for whom its mission was intended, and to whom its message ought to have been delivered. The great founders of Welsh Nonconformity were the men who would have gladly remained within the Church, who wished to try, so far as their opportunities allowed to make the Church in practice, as it was already in theory, the actual oigan of the conscience and religious sense of the nation, but who, when they heard that for that purpose it was necessary that they should conduct the services 1528 in the Welsh tongue, that they should go out into the streets and highways and on to the mountain sides to carry on their ministrations in unconsecrated buildings, were told by the short-sighted rulers of the Church of that day that they were guilty of a breach of the great ecclesiastical traditions of the body to which they belonged, and were, as we know, refused ordination and expelled or excluded from official admission to the Church itself. The result was that not only were they driven out from the Established Church, but also that which was the most vivid and fertile factor of its strength; and as a consequence of that policy we have had growing up in Wales the ever-increasing power of these great Nonconformist organisations, which, finding themselves in actual touch and sympathy with the wishes and ideas of the great bulk of the population, gradually absorbed and accumulated within their own boundaries practically the whole spiritual vitality of the Principality. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ancient history!"] Yes, certainly, ancient history. I am very glad that it is so. Everybody knows that during the last 70 years, at any rate, in the Church of England and Wales there has been opened a new chapter, a new, beneficent and fruitful chapter, in their history. She has learnt, alas too late! the lessons of the past. She now, by every means which an enlightened ecclesiastical statesmanship, and a strong spiritual devotion to the best needs of the Welsh people could dictate, is overtaking, or endeavouring to overtake, the arrears of the past. Yes, but you cannot rewrite the history of an institution in its old age. The past is the past. It has left indelible traces on the minds, consciences, traditions, and convictions of the Welsh people. Nobody can understand, or properly appreciate, the attitude of those people to the establishment in their midst who does not recognise, or realise the force of the historical facts with which I have been endeavouring to occupy the attention of the House. To start then with this matter—with the historical facts. Start in the first place with a record extended over long centuries of the church, an original, an indigenous, and a native institution, alienated and denationalised by foreign influence. In the second place, in consequence of that fact, we have to take into account those great Nonconformist bodies going out independently and starting for themselves, upon voluntary principles a new form of spiritual teaching and organisation, and capturing—as nobody doubts they have captured—every- 1529 thing that was best and most progressive in the religious life of the people.

These things must be taken into account if you are to truly realise the proportions of the problem with which we have to deal. No one, of course, no responsible statesman, would rest his case for the removal of an ancient institution, like the Anglican Church in Wales, as a political institution—as one of the religious institutions of the country nobody proposes to remove it—merely upon ancient history, or even upon recent history.

I come now to the second chapter in my narrative. That deals entirely and exclusively with contemporary facts. I ask the question: Supposing these four Welsh dioceses were not technically in league, as legally they are part of the Province of Canterbury, is there any fair-minded listener, who, in view of the actual facts, with regard to the religious and ecclesiastical life of Wales, who would maintain that they should be, or were entitled to be, the Established Church of the Principality? You may carry that argument—an argument which used to be much used—I do not know whether it is used now—as to the integrity and inviolability of the Church of England as a whole—you may carry it when dealing with a country like Wales to very dangerous lengths. If that argument is logical it would be so if there was not a single adherent or communion of the Church of England in Wales. If you admit that you cannot carry it to those extreme lengths, that to do so would be absurd and extreme pedantry, then you have got to consider the facts which I am dealing with as to the degree and extent to which in these dioceses the Established Church does re-pjesent the consciences and religious feelings of the community. Let us consider what these facts are. More recently made, I think they are more conclusive in their effect than those which were available when I last dealt with this question 14 years ago.

The population of the Principality of Wales, according to the census of 1901, is 2,000,000. I believe we may take it now, in 1909—we are on the eve of a new census—as 2,250,000. That is the population with which you are to deal. These are the actual inhabitants of these four Welsh dioceses. Now let us see how, from a religious and ecclesiastical point of view, they are distributed. I take first of all the communicants of the two sets of Churches. The figures' which I am giving are the 1530 figures which have been given in evidence before the Royal Commission. They are accessible to everybody. They have been published in the newspapers. There is nothing confidential about them. They are the figures for the year 1905. In 1905-the Nonconformist communicants numbered 554,000; the communicants of the-Established Church numbered 193,000. This is a proportion of very nearly—as the House will see—three to one. Take another test, in some ways perhaps a better one: The criterion of that which constitutes a man a communicant may vary very much in laxity or rigidity between one church and another. Therefore, although I think it is safe to assume that each church will state its communicants at the highest figure they can conscientiously do—although that may be fairly assumed—yet as a criterion the figures may be accounted variable and flexible, not uniform and rigid, and they may be said not to be altogether a satisfactory test. Let us therefore go to another, which I think, on the whole, is a more trustworthy indication of the actual distribution of the population—that is the accommodation provided in places of worship. Taken as a whole, the accommodation provided in Nonconformist places of worship is 1,500,000; in the Established Church 458,000, a proportion of three to one—in this case rather more. Take for the purpose of illustrating and developing that argument, the case of one or two particular counties. Take the great industrial population of Glamorganshire. The Nonconformist provision in the shape of accommodation is 565,000, against the Church accommodation of 120,000—more than three to one—more than four to one. Take again another great industrial county, which, although it is not technically and legally part of Wales, has, for this purpose, always been included in it, I mean Monmouthshire.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Mr. Samuel Evans)

It is in the diocese of Llandaff.

§ The PRIME MINISTER

Yes, it is in one of the four Welsh dioceses. Take Monmouthshire. With a population of 320,000, it has 175,000 Nonconformists as against the Established Church accommodation for 56,000. If you take the great city of Cardiff, which I suppose is the biggest urban community in Wales, the Church of England accommodation is one in 12 of the population, or take the accommodation provided in the city for the 1531 Welsh and English speaking congregations, you will find, in round numbers, 52,000 Nonconformists, against 16,000 Church of England. I might multiply illustrations by referring to the more rural counties, but the result is always the same, and I am certain I am not exaggerating when I say the Nonconformist communities in Wales provide in the proportion of at least three to one, and more than three to one, accommodation for those who resort to their chapels as compared with the accommodation provided by the Established Church. Now I pass to the third criterion, by which I mean the criterion of voluntary contributions, in regard to which, it is obvious to anybody acquainted with the facts, that the Established Church, containing, as it does, in all countries, and in Wales no less than others, a larger proportion in regard to its total adherents of wealthy and well-to-do people than Nonconformist congregations, it might well be expected to realise a better result. What are the facts as regard voluntary contribution? I take the year 1905–6. Voluntary contributions for Church purposes—religious purposes—in this year appear as follows:—In the case of the Nonconformists £818,700, and in the case of the Church £296,400, again three to one or thereabout—a very remarkable correspondence in the figures. And lastly,—I will not weary the House with more figures than I can help—take that institution which, from the religious or ecclesiastical point of view, is perhaps the most characteristic of Welsh institutions—the Sunday school. We do not know in this country—we do not realise what the Welsh Sunday school is. People go to Sunday school in Wales from the time they are three years old until they are 70, not necessarily graduating from the position of scholar to teacher, but even continuing as scholars up to late in middle age, and of all the great organisations and religious developments which the Nonconformists of Wales, when they left the Church, discovered and evolved, I do not believe there is any one that has given them greater hold on the population than these institutions of Sunday schools. Well, now, take the Sunday school. In the case of the Church—and I think the figures are both for scholars and- teachers in both cases—in the case, of the Church—I am taking the very latest figures, and they are from the highest authority, namely, the Bishop of St. David's, and from a speech made by him in the Church House, not far from 1532 here, as late as 21st March this year, in which he stated that Bible classes added to Sunday schools—and I am not, at any rate, understating, so far as the Church of England is concerned—Nonconformist numbers in regard to Sunday schools amount to 592,000—that is for 1905, for all I know they may be higher to-day—whereas the Church schools, adding the Bible classes, taking these great figures of the Bishop of St. David's, amount to 178,688; so there again you have more than 3 to 1 in favour of the Nonconformists.

These are facts undisputed and indisputable under all these heads as regards actual distribution of Welsh feeling and Welsh religious attachments and Welsh religious generosity between the different ecclesiastical communities. One cannot ignore, in a matter of this kind, the repeated reiterated demonstrations of Welsh electoral opinion in favour of the disestablishment of the Church. There are 34 members returned to this House from Wales and Monmouthshire, and out of these 34 members for the last 20 years—I go back 20 years to 1886 or 1887—never more than five have voted against disestablishment. In the Parliament of 1902 to 1905, when I introduced the previous Bill dealing with this matter, never more than three voted against it, and in the present Parliament the whole 34 Welsh Members are absolutely united on this subject. Suppose it were any other community or any other part of the United Kingdom. I will not speak of England, I will not even speak of Scotland, I will take Ireland. If the Irish Members of all colours and complexion sitting upon those benches opposite, suppose the whole of the Irish Members—hon. Gentlemen whom I see above the Gangway on the other side, together with those sitting below the Gangway, were to come to this House united as one body in their demand in regard to a matter of purely Irish concern, can anyone conceive this House or any Parliament in this country refusing their demand. But that is the case of Wales. Wales, through her accredited representatives here to-day, says without one dissenting voice; "We, the representatives of the Welsh people, demand the disestablishment of the Church. Are you going to refuse? How can you refuse on any ground consistent with democratic spirit?" And, further, these 34 Welsh Members are not all Nonconformist. Some of them are Churchmen; some, I believe, are Roman Catholics. They belong to every possible 1533 creed. They do not prosecute this demand in the name of a sect or as enemies of the Church of England. They come here as representatives of the Welsh people, and tell us, the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, it is the opinion of Wales, the unanimous opinion of Wales, as expressed by the enormously preponderating number of its electors, and it is the unanimous opinion of the Welsh Members, the time has come for the disestablishment of the Welsh Church. I do not believe that a case so strong and so irresistible has ever been presented to any Legislature in the world. The case of the Irish Church was not comparable. I am not saying—Heaven forbid I should—I am not saying that the case of the Irish Church was not overwhelmingly strong. It was. It had the enormous advantage of being presented to England and the people of this country by the greatest statesman of our time, but you never had anything like that unity of the Irish representatives, nor in considerable parts of Ireland, at any rate, had you ever that enormous preponderance in numerical strength. Now, Sir, that is the case. I have stated it as shortly as I can—first, historically, and then in regard to contemporary facts, with regard to religious opinion, which makes it seem to the Government that the time has come when we ought to ask the House of Commons to deal with this matter, and deal with it in a practical sense. I come now, for a few moments, to explain the provisions of the Bill which I am about to ask leave to introduce. I shall not occupy—or should I say waste?—the time of the House by making abstract arguments as to the justice—the political justice—of dealing with the national Establishment and its endowment in the manner which we propose to do. We have the classical case of the Irish Church before us. There it stands upon the Statute Book. Every argument that can be used with regard to sacrilege, spoliation, and all the other topics of prejudice with which a matter of this kind is naturally encumbered, those arguments were used to the full, and they were pressed to the last extremity in the case of the Irish Church, and yet the Irish Church Act, with the assent of Lord Salisbury, passed its second reading in the House of Lords and obtained the Royal Assent. I will add that I do not believe there is an Irish Protestant, an Irish Episcopalian Protestant, now who desires to go back to the state of things that existed before the passing of that Act. I do not 1534 believe there is a single intelligent and convinced member of the Irish Protestant Church who does not feel that the prosecution of its spiritual mission has been enormously assisted by divesting itself of those prejudices and antipathies which so long as it was in a position of privilege and State preference it invariably had to suffer from.

The proposals we make, which may be briefly described, fall naturally under two heads. I will take first disestablishment, which deals with the legal status of the Church; and next disendowment, which deals with the allocation and disposal of its revenues. As regards disestablishment, the area covered by the Bill is that of Wales and Monmouthshire, or, in other words, the four dioceses which are now called the Welsh dioceses. Within that area there are 1,083 parishes, 24 of which are in three English dioceses outside the Welsh ecclesiastical boundary. Eleven of those 24 are in Wales, and the remaining 13 are partly in Wales and partly in England. There are special subsidiary provisions for dealing with these cases. The date on which we propose disestablishment should take effect is the 1st of January, 1911. On that date, if the provisions of the Bill are carried into law, all ecclesiastical corporations, whether sole or aggregate, will be dissolved, and all the legal incidents of establishment will come to an end. From that date no bishop of any of those Welsh dioceses will sit in the House of Lords, and the total number of spiritual peers will be reduced from 26 to 22. Of course, from that date, also, the ecclesiastical law in Wales will cease to exist as law, but the law, articles, rules, ordinances, and so forth, of the Church of England will operate in Wales by agreement, subject to any future authorised alterations by the representative body of the English Established Church. Full power is given by the Bill to hold synods and conventions and to form a church representative body, about which I will say a word or two in a moment, for the purposes of dealing with the government, doctrines, and property of the Church when disestablished. There are minor provisions on which I need not dwell for filling vacancies between the passing of the Act and the date of disestablishment, but no new vested interests can be created after the passing of the Act. So much for that which may be said to be the more formal and legal side of the matter.

Now I come to disendowment. Three bodies will be created assuming, as we do 1535 assume, that the Church will constitute a representative body of her own for the purposes of administration. In the first place there will be a temporary body, whose function we propose should only continue to December, 1915, or, if necessary, some short extended period after that called the Welsh Commissioners. They are constituted by the 8th and 9th clauses of the Bill, and I will say something about their functions in a moment. Next there is the Council of Wales, and in this respect the Bill itself differs from the Bill of 1895. We propose to constitute a body called the Council of Wales, a central authority consisting of members appointed by the councils of counties and county boroughs, and of any boroughs and urban districts having the required minimum population. So the House will see that the Council of Wales is in the strictest sense a representative body.

Thirdly, there is the Church representative body, which under clause 13 of the Bill the disestablished Church will have the power of creating, and which under the same clause the King may, by charter, incorporate, with power to hold land without licence and mortmain. Those are the three bodies I would ask the House to keep in view when I proceed to describe the manner in which we propose that ecclesiastical property shall be dealt with. First of all—the preliminary step—the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty are to ascertain and declare what portion of the property vested in them is or has been derived from property situate Li Wales, and what property, though not vested in them, is situate in Wales, but attached to English benefices. This property is described in the Bill as Welsh ecclesiastical property. The whole of that and all other property which can be described as Welsh Church property is to be vested, in the first place, for the purposes (HE administration, allocation and division in this temporary body, which I have described as the Welsh Commission, subject, of course, to all existing charges and interests.

Now, suppose the vesting in the Welsh Commissioners has taken place. The next step is that the disestablished Church appoints its representative body, and that body is incorporated under the provision which I have just read to the House. Immediately after its incorporation all Church plate, furniture, and movable chattels belonging to the churches will vest in them as the representative body. Then 1536 the Welsh Commissioners are to transfer to the Church representative body the following categories of property, to which I will venture to ask rather close attention. In the first place, the Commissioners will transfer to the representative body four cathedrals, the chapter houses, cloisters, and so forth. In the next place, they will transfer in the same way all churches, chapels-of-ease, and church buildings. The House may, perhaps, know, or would like to be reminded, that there are over 1,500 churches which fall under this category, in the building and erection of which very considerable sums of money voted by Parliament have been spent. Thirdly, the Commissioners will transfer to the representative body all ecclesiastical residences, bishop's palaces, deaneries, and the parsonages. There are no less than 800 parsonage houses in Wales to which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty have contributed for the purpose of erection and so forth considerably over £300,000. Fourthly, there will be included in the transfer all closed burial grounds.

And, lastly—which is, of course, a matter of the highest importance to those interested in the fortunes of the Church—all benefactions which date since 1662. In our previous Bill of 1895 the date was 1703. [An HON MEMBER: "But it was amended."] Yes, that is how it was originally drafted, but I rather think I agreed, in the course of the Committee stage of the Bill, to put back the date. At any rate, we have now put it back to 1662. That, Sir, exhausts the categories of property which the Commissioners will transfer to the representative body. In the next place, they will transfer to every existing incumbent during his incumbency, first of all the glebe. There are 38,000 acres of glebe, with an annual rental of £43,500; and next the burial grounds—that is to say, the open burial grounds. They transfer those to the incumbent during the term of his incumbency and no longer, and after the expiration of his incumbency these two categories will be vested in the council of the appropriate boroughs, districts, or parishes, according to their local situation.

Thirdly, the Commissioners will transfer to the county council in the county where the land is situated first the Welsh tithe-rent charge—and when I say land I mean the land out of which the tithe-rent charge arises—subject to the payment of the stipend of the existing incumbent; and next the tithe-rent charge of the Welsh 1537 Church issuing out of land elsewhere than in Wales will be transferred to such county council as the Welsh Commissioners decide. And, lastly, all or any other property vested in the Commissioners will be transferred to the Council of Wales, and all property transferred is to be held subject to all existing public and private rights. Now I come to the application—a very important point—of the property which has passed—I am assuming the process of transfer is complete—out of the hands of the Welsh Commissioners, and which has not passed into the hands of the representative Church body. In the first place the parochial property will be applied according to schemes made by the county council for the purposes specified in the first schedule of the Bill, which I had better read to the House. It is somewhat modified since the Bill of 1895, because some of the purposes which were then provided for have since received other provision at the hands of Parliament. The enumerations is as follows:—"The erection or support of Cottage or other hospitals or dispensaries or convalescent homes, the provision of trained nurses for the sick poor, the provision and maintenance of public, parish, or district halls or institutes and libraries, technical and higher education, and charitable or eleemosynary purposes of public, local, or general utility for which provision is not made by statute out of public funds." But we hate added to that the very useful and novel addition that each scheme is to provide that one-tenth—this is a new form of tithe—is to be paid to the Council of Wales. This one-tenth and all other property in their hands will be expended first in defraying the cost of the Act, and next upon higher education in Wales in accordance with schemes of the Council of Wales to be approved by His Majesty in Council, and laid before both Houses of Parliament. I need not go into the minor provisions of the Bill with regard to compensation beyond saying that full provision is made for compensation being paid to lay patrons and the holders of freehold offices. There is also a provision for exchanging life compensation annuities according to the scale in the schedule. I purposely have not gone into minute details. The Bill will be in the hands of Members very soon, but I think that I have sufficiently indicated the general lines of the scheme.

Assuming what I endeavoured to prove in the earlier part of my remarks—assum- 1538 ing that in point of principle a case is made out for disestablishment and disendowment in Wales—we believe that the procedure which I have now outlined does justice to all existing interests, is generous in the extent of its transference to the new representative body, and provides for the best application of the property that remains in the interests, general and local, of the people of Wales. I am afraid that I shall hardly be believed—I am sure that I shall not be universally believed—when I say that this measure is not, either in its principle or in any of its provisions, inspired by any animosity to the Church of England as a whole or to that part of the Church of England which is organised in the four Welsh dioceses. I said a few moments ago we have witnessed in our lifetime a marvellous transformation in the methods and the attitude of the Church in Wales. Yes, Sir, but where, and in what degree, in this, her latest and best phase, has the Church of England in Wales been most successful? The answer is obvious and undeniable. She has been most successful just where and just in so far as by developing institutions like the Sunday Schools, and by throwing herself upon the voluntary effort and enthusiasm of the people, and when she has descended into the arena without either the advantages or the drawbacks of privilege and endowment, and when she has taken her place side by side with her Nonconformist sisters in a splendid and even rivalry upon a common field.

In our opinion—certainly it is my honest and deliberate opinion—freed from her burden of past traditions and of present encumbrances, she will find that she has gained more than she has lost, and she can appeal as she has never done before to the hearts and the sympathies of the mass of the people of Wales.

Motion made and Question proposed: "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to terminate the Establishment of the Church of England in Wales and Monmouthshire, and to make provision in respect of the Temporalities thereof, and for other purposes in connection with the matters aforesaid."

§ The PRIME MINISTER

I did not say "party policy." I said "public policy."

§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN

But I say "party policy." What I desire to point out is that if this Bill is advanced in the interest of party policy we can understand the reason why the Government should not wait for the Report of the Royal Commission, but if, as the right hon. Gentleman contends, it is introduced in the interest of public policy, surely some better arguments might be used to show how it is going to benefit the cause of religion in Wales. With regard to party policy, I would remind hon. Members opposite that the Rev. R. J. Campbell, in a speech, said that the Free Church Council was nothing more than a party caucus. But if that is not the case (and I believe that some of the hon. Members who are advancing this Bill seriously believe that it will be for the benefit of religion in Wales), then I say that we ought to have some better proof as to how it is to benefit Wales in this way. Although they have disclaimed any animosity against the Church, you have only got to look at the local papers to see that the arguments advanced in favour of disestablishment in Wales have frequently been accompanied by the very greatest animosity against the Church, and very often by the very greatest misstatements on the subject. One of the arguments used, and used by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, is that the Church of Wales is an "Alien Church," and I think the Prime Minister also said to-day—and here, I think, his history was a little at fault—the Church in Wales has been denationalised. He said "Parliament had not been able to denationalise the people of Wales, but it had denationalised the Church." As a matter of fact, the union between the Church in Wales and that in England took place before the 1542 political union of the two countries, and, therefore, I do not see how he can sustain that argument. As it is the oldest part of the Church in Great Britain, how can it be said, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, that it is an "Alien Church" it. In 1870 a similar Bill was introduced by Judge Watkin Williams, and he said "the Church established in Wales is an ancient and venerable Church, and it is not like the Church in Ireland, an alien Church forced upon the people by a conqueror and an oppressor." Though I contend the Church in Wales is very far from being an alien Church, I should like to ask are the Nonconformist bodies so far from being alien bodies? What is the Welsh name for Methodist, Baptist, and Wesleyan from which these words have been translated into the English language? Have they originated in Wales? If so, what are the Welsh names? Perhaps hon. Members will supply me with the Welsh names for the Wesleyans, the Baptists, the Congregationalists, and other Nonconformists. It has been said that the Church is anti-national. Well, I suppose that three of the things which are of the greatest importance to any nation to preserve its nationality are language, history, and literature. I go so far as to say that the thing which has done more than any other to preserve the Welsh language in the Principality has been the action of the Church by the translation of the Bible and the Prayer Book into Welsh—the Prayer Book by Bishop Davies, and the Bible by Bishop Morgan.

§ Mr. WILLIAM JONES

Does the hon. Member not know that Queen Elizabeth had to pass an Act to compel the Bishops to do it?

§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN

I do not quite see what difference that makes. What is of importance is that it was of great advantage to Wales. Whatever the hon. Gentleman says he cannot deny that Bishop Morgan did translate the Bible into Welsh and that Bishop Davies did translate the Prayer-Book into Welsh, and they have done more than anything else to preserve the language of the country. Now I turn to the question of history and literature. I suppose Members from Wales will admit that the Eisteddfod has been of the greatest importance to literature, music, and poetry in Wales. I am quite sure the hon. Member sitting opposite (Mr. William Jones) will admit that. Well, Bishop Burgess, another Welsh bishop, was the principal person 1543 who started again and gave a fresh impetus to the Eisteddfod, which up to then had been declining. He put new life and vigour into the national Eisteddfod. Of course, if by an anti-national Church is meant a Church which by its union with the Church of this country stands in the way of Home Rule for Wales, or separation in another form, then I submit that it would be equally just to pass a Bill for separating the Nonconformist communities in Wales from those in England, and preventing them from acting together in (he same way as the Church in England and the Church in Wales act together. But supposing that argument is held by hon. Gentlemen opposite, I say that it is another argument which leaves the religious question entirely on on side. Then we are told that this Bill is to promote religious equality. How is this equality shown when a title of 25 years is enough to establish the right of dissenters in a chapel to the endowments of their chapel and anything used for 250 years—anything over 250 years—is to be disallowed as property of the Church. Where is religious equality in that? Chapels are established by Parliament in that right to enjoy property which they have used 25 years and, although the qualification of 25 years is enough for them, you here say that 250 years is not enough qualification to pro-protect the property of the various Churches in Wales. I know there are some people who say that this disendowment is going to revive and to stimulate the work and energy of the Church—is going to prove a great stimulus to further voluntary contributions, and a great inducement to people to find still more money for Church purposes. Very well, if that is so, the argument is equally good for dissenting bodies. How are you to explain the extraordinary self-denial by which they have denied themselves this stimulus in the Bill? Where is religious equality in that? Surely if it is necessary to take away endowments in the Church of England in order to stimulate energy, in is necessary to take away endowments in other religious bodies? We have had a few words about the analogy of the Irish Church. Mr. Gladstone, speaking of these two cases in 1873 in this House, said the cases of Wales and Ireland were distinguished widely on every point without exception on which they could be brought into comparison. What has occurred since then to make the comparison any closer? Mr. Gladstone, in a famous speech, spoke 1544 of the Church in Ireland as one of the branches of the great Upas tree which poisoned Ireland, and he said if it was lopped off—that and the other two branches, the question of education and land tenure—then Ireland would be restored to a state of contentment. Has that been the case? Is it the fact that the animosity which previously existed between the early Protestants and Catholics in Ireland has modified or disappeared, or has it in any way added to the contentment of the people in Ireland? I think that is a very questionable point. One of the arguments used—not by the right hon. Gentleman, because he has had the advantage of reading a carefully-prepared summary of the report of the Royal Commission, which we have not been able to pick up except by occasionally reading accounts in the newspapers—is that the work of the Church in Wales is declining. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the great evidence shown by the Welsh Members being unanimous in favour of this proposal and by the Welsh people being unanimous—which was quite untrue. The Welsh people cannot be unanimous—

§ The PRIME MINISTER

Who said they were unanimous? I said that they were in favour of it in enormous and preponderating numbers.

§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN

I accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I certainly took down the words I have used. But I say that if the people are strongly and preponderatingly in favour of it, it is because arguments have been used before them, which the right hon. Gentleman does not use, about a dwindling Church. I have here a quotation from a speech by the Rev. Evans Jones, President of the Swansea Free Church Council, in which he said:— The State upheld and tolerated the privileges and the emoluments of the Church a dwindling minority—while Free Churchmen, the bone and sinew of the-country, were tolerated as undesirables. I was not going to deny that the Free Churches possess bone and sinew; but the Rev. Evans Jones said the Free Churchmen were tolerated as undesirables, while the State upheld and tolerated the privileges and the emoluments of the Church, a dwindling minority.

§ Mr. WILLIAM JONES

Has the hon. Member read the other portions of the speech?

§ Mr. SPEAKER

Order, order. I am sure the House will be ready to hear the hon. Member when he speaks in reply.

§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN

Yes, I have read the other part of the speech, and I cannot reconcile the two. He gave figures in which he said that the total number of churchmen in Wales only amounted to 155,000, while the Prime Minister has quoted partly from some figures which he possessed and partly from the Bishop of St. David's, and partly from the evidence he had got from the Commission—

§ The PRIME MINISTER

The information is open to the public.

§ Mr. BRIDGEMAN

He did not give the authority for most of his quotations, but at any rate his facts entirely contradict what the Rev. Evans Jones said at Swansea, and he must bear in mind that, although he has these right figures, there are people in Wales going about giving wrong figures and wrong impressions all the time, and creating this feeling, which he thinks he is bound to listen to, on this question. Why is it that the people of Wales have steadily refused a religious census, which we have always asked for? Why is it that we are not allowed now to have the Report of the Commission, from which we can draw our own conclusions, not only with regard to the numbers and attendances, and so on, in the Church of England, but in the chapels and elsewhere? It is really asking us to swallow a great deal to tell us that the evidence of the Commission is open to us or that it is easily accessible. We may have picked up a little from the newspapers, but it has never been put before us in a form in which we could possibly follow it, or follow the arguments now advanced with regard to those figures. I do not think that they were sufficiently made clear by the Prime Minister, or that the extraordinary progress which the Church of England in Wales has made during the last few years, was made clear. Confirmations have increased in Wales in 30 years by 56 per cent., and communicants in the diocese of St. David's, of which I happen to possess the figures, have more than doubled in the 25 years from 1880 to 1905, having increased from 30,129 to 63,731. The Sunday school scholars also have increased by 19,000. At the same time, it is said that the progress has only been made in the towns, and that in the country districts the Church is falling further and further behind. Here are some figures which I think will show that in the rural parts that is not so. In the diocese of St. David's the population decreased by 31,540 between 1881 and 1546 1901, while in those very parishes where the population had decreased by this 31,000 the number of communicants increased by 10,781. That does not show that the Church is falling behind in the rural districts. Now with regard to the clergy. In 1831 there were 726 resident clergy, with 369 parsonages, holding 1,346 Sunday services in 1,090 churches. To-day there are 1,543 clergy, more than double, 820 parsonages, more than double, holding regular Sunday services in 1,869 churches and mission rooms. Moreover, in St. Asaph diocese alone, 12,193 people were confirmed from 1860 to 1869, while from 1899 to 1906, a period of only seven years, 39,775 people were confirmed, more than three times the number in a decade 40 years ago. That, of course, shows very plainly that the Church in Wales is making enormous progress at the present moment.

Mr. Gladstone said in 1891:— Undoubtedly the Established Church in Wales is an advancing Church, an active Church, a living Church, and I hope very distinctly a rising Church from elevation to elevation. and nothing has occurred since which has not emphasised and increased the truth of Mr. Gladstone's remarks. I also hope that it will be remembered, that on the occasion 14 years ago, when this Bill was under the consideration of this House, Mr. Gladstone withdrew his pair in favour of the Bill, and, therefore, we may conclude, entertained the same opinions then that he had for so many years entertained of the undesirability of disestablishing the Church in Wales. But the Prime Minister said in his speech, after referring to the bad state of the Church in Wales centuries ago, that it was too late now. Those were his words. Too late now for them to make this progress He said that they made progress now, but that it was too late. Why is it too late? Can the Prime Minister say what is the reason why it is too late, for the Church having made this progress now, to save itself from the act of spoliation proposed by this Bill? Why is it too late? It is only too late, because the Church is showing such activity, that those who are hostile to her, are determined to seize the first opportunity they can, for fear that they should never have another opportunity, of crippling the Church in the work in which she is engaged. There can be no religious reason why it is too late. There can only be a political reason, and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to give anything but a political and a party reason for saying.

1547 that it is too late. I know that a great many more arguments have been used in favour of this proposal, but none of them more important than those to which I have referred, and I cannot see in any one of them any justification for the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman has made. If the Report of the Royal Commission is going to produce some further facts which we do not know of in favour of the disestablishment and disendowment especially of the Church in Wales, then, of course, we should always be prepared, whatever those new facts and new arguments might be, to examine them; but unless the Royal Commission does produce in its Report or in the evidence before it some better arguments than those which have been advanced, and certainly better and truer arguments than those which have been used to the people of Wales, then, I say, it is monstrous to introduce such a measure as this into this House without waiting for the Report and evidence of the Royal Commission.

I know it will be said that I am not a Welshman. That is a matter which, no doubt, hon. Gentlemen opposite will congratulate themselves upon and condole with me, but my Constituency is very seriously affected by this Bill. The Prime Minister did not tell me what would happen to Oswestry, the principal town of my Constituency, which is in a Welsh diocese, as well as to ten or twelve other parishes, which are of considerable importance there. We are, I suppose, to be made to join some other diocese, which has already got more than it can do in the way of work. I live near enough to the borders of Wales, I think, to have a very fair perspective of what is going on there, and to hear a good deal from various sides of Welsh politics, both with regard to this and other matters, and therefore I think I have some right to speak on this matter and to claim some knowledge of the way in which this political agitation, as I consider it, has been fostered and brought forward. I say to begin with that the seed has been sown in ignorance among people who did not know the real facts, and has been watered by mis-statements with regard to the Church and its work. It has been ripened by the very unnatural heat and violence of language used on the platform, and if the harvest is ever reaped it will be a disastrous harvest for religious life in Wales, and will do so much to impoverish the soil of religion in Wales as to make it unable to be 1548 productive for many years to come, and I do venture to ask Members of this House to consider this Bill from the point of view of religion and not from the point of view of party politics. I say that this question of religion in Wales, or in any other great and important part of these islands, is one of far more importance than the existence of any political party, and one which ought to be considered as a national question and considered on national lines. I know that hon. Members opposite have persuaded themselves, many of them, that they are doing some benefit to religion in Wales, but have they contemplated what the loss of these endowments will mean to the Church in Wales, have they taken into consideration the fact that the bad state of the Church in Wales, to which the Prime Minister referred, in previous years, was largely due to the poverty of the Church? It is perfectly simple, and possible to prove that, if the House wishes to be detained by the attempt to do so. But it is well known that the livings were miserable in those days. Six pounds a year was a common value for a living in Wales, and, of course, that meant that several livings had to be held together, and that one person had to do a great deal more work than he could do properly.

That difficulty has to a large extent been overcome, and now you want to plunge the Church back into the state of poverty in which it existed and to plunge it back into all those evils which come with poverty. It will be impossible, if these endowments are taken away to maintain the number of clergy which are maintained now and the people of Wales will not have the right to claim the ministrations of a resident clergyman in times of sorrow, trouble, or distress. In many parishes, hundreds of sick people will have to go without the services of a clergyman. The dissenting bodies are unable to fill the gaps of resident clergyman. We all know that. [Ironical cheers.] They have not got them. It is no use interrupting in that kind of way, it is absurd to say that they have. Everyone knows who is in this House that there are not enough resident dissenting Ministers in every parish in Wales. That is an elementary truth, and they cannot fill the vacancies which will be created by this Bill, and I say that hundreds of sick people will have to die without the services and the ministrations of the resident clergyman—hundreds of people will die without being able to get the comfort of religious ministrations. I do, therefore, beg Members of this House 1549 to look at the religious side of this question, and to remember that the cause of religion can best be built up by working together in the purity of love, and by promoting a constructive and not a destructive policy. I ask them to pause for one moment before they inflict upon the country of Wales the curse of sacrilege, for I consider it nothing else, and a stain which, in my opinion, it will take years and years to blot out in the history of the Welsh people. I said just now I could not speak as a Welshman, but I speak with some knowledge of the subject, and I say emphatically that I represent scores of thousands of the Church people in Wales, and I represent thousands of the most religious and most conscientious Nonconformists in Wales, who view with alarm this increasing association of their leaders with political caucuses, and who realise that the best course they can pursue, and the course they wish to pursue, is one of united action with the Church. Many Nonconformists loathe this attack upon the Church endowments, and for those I speak, who, with the Church people, wish to go forward in Wales side by side in the cause of a common Christianity.

§ Mr. F. E. SMITH

The time at our disposal for this discussion is short, some of us think unduly short, and I propose to follow the admirable example of the Prime Minister and to bring my observations within sufficiently reasonable compass to enable other Members to take part in the Debate afterwards. In order to do that it is not necessary that I should attempt a general examination of the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman has foreshadowed, but confine myself to a few points which particularly struck my attention in the point of view which the right hon. Gentleman presented. First of all I regret very much what I cannot but think was the wholly inadequate treatment that he gave to the complaint that the Bill had been introduced without waiting for the Report of the Commission. I feel myself some special grievance about that, because a month or six weeks ago I put down a question to the Prime Minister as to whether the Report of the Commission would be in the hands of Members before the Bill was introduced. The answer was perfectly explicit, and was given by the Home Secretary on behalf of the Prime Minister, that the Report was expected very shortly, and would be available before the Bill was discussed. A moment's reflection must show that the Government is face to face with a very difficult dilemma. 1550 Either the consumption of valuable time, including the time of the Solicitor-General, and the expenditure of money has been necessary or unnecessary. If it was unnecessary many persons have been encouraged to spend time over a futile purpose. If it was necessary in order to guide the Government to a decision and to assist the House usefully to criticise that decision when arrived at, it ought to have been in the hands of Members when the Bill was introduced. Could there be a more unsatisfactory performance than that the Prime Minister should quote one set of figures, which are no doubt given him in perfect good faith, but which may or may not be reliable, and that my hon. Friend here should quote other figures inconsistent with them, and we are unable to point to any authority which will be recognised by all sections of the House, and say these are the real figures established after we have spent more than two years in having these very facts determined by an impartial tribunal. Nothing could be more futile than to make the answer that one can read in the newspapers from day to day the proceedings of such a Committee. That observation can be met by the simple criticism, "If it is well founded, why have a Report at all?" All that has appeared in the daily Press is that a certain witness made a certain statement, and you would not have the only real advantage of appointing the Commission, which is to know what view the men whose characters and attainments justified their appointment have formed, after observing the demeanour of the witnesses as to the value of what they have established in their evidence.

Many reasons make it desirable that the Commission should have reported before the House proceeded with the discussion. Selecting from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that one of his arguments which seemed to be the strongest—that again was a point on which the Report would have assisted us—that part of his speech which seemed to me to produce the greatest impression, was that in which he dealt with the alleged zeal and enthusiasm and unanimity of the Welsh Members in favour of disestablishment. As far as I gathered his view, it was that they were possessed to-day, as they had been for many years, of a unanimous and unquenchable determination that Wales shall enjoy the blessings of Welsh disestablishment at the earliest possible date. I am so fortunate as to have been able to test the accuracy of that claim in the light of an 1551 authority which the House will readily recognise. The hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs was lately interviewed by, I think, the "South Wales Gazette" on this very point, and he made a reply to the reporter which throws no small light upon the somewhat extravagant claim which I think he has put forward. This is what he said about the enthusiasm and unanimity of his compatriots. The reporter asked him:— Are you confident that the Welsh party will do their duty? Spontaneously, no. But when the Welsh Constituencies in the course of a few weeks have been quickened into an acute appreciation of the real position, then I believe every Welsh Member will be glad to fall into line and do his duty. But why do you not think they will do their duty? That is rather a delicate question, but I should be lacking in moral courage if I did not frankly face it in a moment of supreme crisis in our national history. Undoubtedly the Disestablishment Bill is going to cause considerable inconvenience, if not serious difficulty, at certain stages to the present Liberal Government. Now, look at the Members of the Welsh party. Apart from the Labour Members, most of them have been the recipients of the spoils of victory. Political gifts inevitably produce political nepotism, which under normal conditions may be innocent and venial, but which are serious in a great crisis. He proceeded to point out that the only chance of his colleagues doing their duty in this House and pressing forward the claims of this Bill, on behalf of which, according to the Prime Minister, they are consumed with so holy a zeal, and inducing them really to press it forward, is that their constituencies will compel them seriously to take notice of the urgency of the crisis. Then he proceeded to discuss with a good deal of knowledge the position of the actual members of the Government who represent Welsh constituencies—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Solicitor-General—and he referred to them as— ambassadors sent by Wales into the secret councils of the Empire. There they remain as ambassadors to serve the Welsh nation. It is for the remainder of the party at this moment to strengthen their hands. They will be face to face with a good deal of indifference and lukewarmness on the part of their Ministerial colleagues. I do not know whether that is the Prime Minister or not. If you palter with this question, you run the risk of Wales ceasing in her entirety to be a reliable support to the Liberal party. We are indeed face to face with grave considerations, but there is one other argument certainly well worth the attention of the House, and that is, when he pointed out an arrangement of a somewhat singular character which apparently the Welsh party have made with the Irish party—an 1552 arrangement the character of which, I think, will be appreciated by the House as a whole:— I purposely omitted Ireland for a special reason. A few months ago Mr. John Redmond came to speak at Wrexham, and in response to some criticisms which I passed upon the attitude of the Irish party on education and in reference to future support of Home Rule by Welsh Nonconformists, he gave us a public pledge that the Irish party should march shoulder to shoulder with the Welsh party on behalf of disestablishment and disendowment. The hon. Gentleman observes with simplicity and enthusiasm that that is true. I was quoting it as being true, and was courteously accepting it as being true. But what kind of argument does that give you on principle why the House as a whole is to support Welsh Disestablishment? Because the Welsh party have made a bargain with the Irish party, which does not even depend on the abstract merits of Home Rule or Welsh Disestablishment—because they have made an arrangement for mutual logrolling, therefore the House is to pass Welsh Disestablishment. I make no comment upon the result of that bargain except to say that although I understand hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway are prepared to carry out their part of the bargain so far as Home Rule is concerned, I condole with them on the extraordinary failure of their colleagues below the Gangway on this side, as far as this Debate is concerned, to give them their countenance, which was their part of the bargain.

I could not help observing that there was a general tendency in the House to think it was really not necessary to treat this Bill seriously, and I do not ever remember hearing the right hon. Gentleman, who is a master of lucid exposition, introduce a first-class measure with more lukewarmness and lack of enthusiasm. The explanation which has been given of that is that it is notorious that this Bill is not intended to pass through all its stages in the House of Commons or to be sent to the House of Lords. I must warn my hon. Friends that any sanguine anticipation which they might base upon that expectation really rests upon an unsound foundation. In May, 1907, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was consulted by a correspondent in Wales, who was very indignant indeed at the continuous postponement of Welsh Disestablishment, as to what the intentions of the Government were, and this is what the right hon. Gentleman wrote:— Ton ask me whether, if this Parliament runs its normal course, it is the intention of the Government to pass a measure for the disestablishment and dig- 1553 endowment of the Church in Wales through all its stages in the House of Commons. To this I can give an unqualified answer in the affirmative. I have just Been the Prime Minister [that is the late Prime Minister] and he sanctions the above as an accurate interpretation of his views and intentions. The House is face to face with the fact that this Bill is going through all its stages in the House of Commons. I hope the hon. Gentleman who cheered that statement will help me to distinguish between that process of ploughing the sands and the precisely similar stage which took place when a Liberal Government had lost the confidence of the country some few years ago in identical circumstances I am not going to discuss the abstract principle of disestablishment at all. I pause for a moment to dissent most warmly from the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman that everyone in Ireland is now agreed that the disestablishment of the Irish Church was a great success. I was only reading two days ago the criticisms on the result of disestablishment in Ireland which were made by the Archbishops and the Bishops of the Protestant Church in Ireland, and with one single exception they all unanimously expressed their conviction that the result of disestablishment had been profoundly injurious to the work and to the activity of the Church in Ireland.

I will give the House one illustration. It is a point which was raised in the observations of my hon. Friend. In the old days before the Church in Ireland was disestablished it was practicable to have one clergyman in every small parish. One result of disestablishment which followed all over Ireland has been necessarily the amalgamation of parishes. The result is that you have a large number of parishes now amalgamated, and quite inadequately served by a single curate, whereas before the days of disestablishment there was a curate or a clergyman in almost every parish. That is a consequence which is quite certain to happen in Wales if you disestablish the Welsh Church. I would ask the plain question, whether it is not endowment by universal consent which interests the people of Wales? If this Bill were put forward as one for disestablishment without disendowment you would not have one really strenuous supporter on these Benches. You would not have the support of hon. Members from Wales if it was divorced from the disendowment question. I do not wish to use any provocative language, and I put it moderately when I say that the hon. Gentleman is quite correct in stating that a consider- 1554 able majority at present in Wales support disestablishment. The explanation of that is to be found in the constant and consistent appeal which has been made by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to the lowest motives of cupidity in the Welsh people. [Cries of "No, no."] That statement is challenged, but I will justify it. Not merely have statements been made by responsible persons, who are not Members of this House, but arguments of that kind have been addressed to the Welsh people even by Members of this House. Let me take a speech which was addressed to Welshmen in London by the hon. and learned Member for Anglesey. The hon. and learned Member said:— This Bill will mean bread and butter to the estimated value of £10,000 a year to the people of Anglesey alone.

§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHS

The hon. and learned Gentleman did not tell us the paper from which he quoted, but from whatever paper he is quoting I wish to state that it is absolutely wrong. I was arguing the question of disestablishment from the point of view of principle, and thereupon an irresponsible person in the audience said:— Never mind about principle. Is there any bread and butter in it? Thereupon, I sought to justify it not only from the point of view of principle but from the material standpoint. I said it was the restoration to the Welsh people of a national inheritance, which had been for centuries used exclusively for the benefit of one sect.

§ Mr. F. E. SMITH

The distinction drawn by the hon. and learned Gentleman does not deal with the essential part of the quotation. I will tell the hon. and learned Gentleman at once the paper I am quoting from. I am quoting from "The Churchman."

§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

May I say that there was no reporter from "The Churchman" present at the meeting. It was probably taken from the "Western Mail," a Tory Church organ in South Wales.

§ Mr. F. E. SMITH

It is not worth while discussing the source of the quotation when I accept the explanation which the hon. and learned Gentleman has given. I did not gather that he denies that he said that the Bill will mean bread and butter to the estimated value of £10,000 a year to the people of Anglesey alone.

§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

I do dispute it, and I contradict it.

§ Mr. F. E. SMITH

I quite accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation, but he further said—and perhaps he will deny the accuracy of the report in the same way— If the funds arising from disendowment of the Church of England in Anglesey went to supplement old age pensions for the county the pensionable age in Anglesey could be reduced from 70 to 65 or even 60. The paper is not likely to have invented that statement.

§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

No, I think that is probably accurate.

§ Mr. F. E. SMITH

Of all the novel arguments which I have heard put forward for a cause which has certainly been presented on even loftier grounds in this House, I think that put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman deserves a high place. If these things are said about disestablishment and disendowment by a person so deserving of respect, and of the responsibility of the hon. and learned Gentleman, what is being said in Wales by persons who are not so responsible for the gravity of their utterances as members of this House? The proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman is that when the disestablishment of the Church takes place the endowments will increase old age pensions.

§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

It is, perhaps, hardly worth while discussing this matter further, but what I said was that part of this fund originally belonged to the poor, that the Church had taken away what belonged to the people, and that it was only just that the Church should restore to the people again what originally belonged to them.

§ Mr. F. E. SMITH

He was arguing a highly controversial case, and stated that Wales would get old age pensions at a cheaper rate if they got disendowment. It is, therefore, not unfair to say that the hon. and learned gentleman supported his case by the bread-and-butter argument. The hon. and learned Member for the Denbigh Boroughs, aiming at a more attractive metaphor, with perhaps a greater knowledge of his fellow countrymen, said, "The cup is being dashed from our lips when our lips are being held out to drink from it."

§ Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS

I am really afraid that is not a correct quotation.

§ Mr. F. E. SMITH

Do I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the cup is not being dashed from their 1556 lips? I do not think that he denies having used that expression. I do not speak in this House as a convinced adherent of the Church of England. I speak as one who was brought up a Nonconformist, and I state what strikes me in regard to this proposal to disendow the Church in Wales. I tell the House that I cannot distinguish this from any other act of common peculation so far as the right to take away property is concerned. My hon. Friend raised the point in regard to the period within which endowments are to be treated as sacred. Why has that limit been introduced? Is it to secure the Nonconformist churches in the possession of their endowments? The law relating to property will protect the owner to the possession of it if it has been enjoyed for a certain period. In dealing with Nonconformist property long enjoyment is protected by the Bill, but very long enjoyment of property by the Established Church is not to protect its property. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that these endowments originally belonged to the Welsh people, and that they ought to be restored. A more astonishing misrepresentation than that was never presented to any audience of enthusiastic Welshmen in London. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will condescend to tell us what part of the possessions of the Church the Welsh people once enjoyed. The only suggestion that I have ever heard made was that there was such a breach of continuity in the corporate existence of the Church at the time of the Reformation as to make it right to take the property with which the Church was endowed before the Reformation. That is an argument which has been explicitly, and I venture to say with complete historical accuracy, repudiated by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said in 1905:— I am not one of those who think, as used to be currently assumed, that the legislation of Henry VIII. transferred the endowments of a national establishment from the Church of Rome to the Church of England. There has been. amid all these changes, a substantial identity and continuity of existence in our national church from earliest history to the present time. If that is so we must look elsewhere for the justification for taking away the property which the Church has enjoyed for so many centuries. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking at Liverpool, said:— Does anyone imagine that the Welsh Nonconformist peasantry will go on paying a one-tenth part of the produce of their own toil towards maintaining an ecclesiastical institution which they would repudiate? Until the present Government came into power it was not usual for Cabinet Minis- 1557 ters to go about the country advocating a tithe war, and the precedent set up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is one which I do not think anyone will approve. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had consulted any lawyer in the Liberal party he would have found how little foundation there was for this statement. Lord Selborne has pointed out that: "It is quite certain tithes were never the property of or payable to the State." Sir William Harcourt said in the debate on the last Bill:— It is a fallacy to say that tithe is a tax upon land. Everyone who p[...]rebased land chargeable with tithe paid so much less for it than he would pay for it if it was tithe free. Let me give one or two instances:—Bettws Ivan, Cardiganshire, farmer—Two pounds a month towards maintaining Methodist Chapel; Llanwrda, a farm, pays £5 a year towards Taber Chapel; Miss Griffith, Pen-cnycan Farm, in Cardiganshire, pays £1 every week towards Methodist Chapel Capel y Drindod. Are these persons the victims of plunder or not, and if they are not so to-day, when will they become BO? I suppose the suggestion will be made that it will be possible, without injury to rights which ought to be protected by the House, to carry out the disendowment of the Church.

§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

What are the dates of these cases?

§ Mr. F. E. SMITH

They are all modern. They are to protect Nonconformist endowments by Act of Parliament on the ground that they have been possessed for 25 years. When it is pointed out that the church tithes have been enjoyed from time immemorial, and that the Nonconformists now enjoy tithes which with time will themselves possess the strict sacredness of the lapse of time, they reply, "these tithes are modern in their character." But I suppose that when they become old they will not be prepared to give them up. The case of glebe lands is even stronger. That is the case of property given by persons who were entitled to dispose of their property for sacred purposes, to make it possible for a vicar or rector to attend to his duties and live in a parish. What right have you to interfere with them? The only case made is that they have enjoyed them for a long time. Can anyone suggest any other ground or principle? Does not everyone in this House know that if hon. Gentlemen were strong enough they would do what they wish to do and intend to do—deal not only with the Church in 1558 Wales, but also with the Church in England. As Mr. Gladstone pointed out:— as regards the identity of these Churches, the whole system of known law, usage and history has made them completely one. I think, therefore, it is practically impossible to separate the case of Wales from that of England.

§ Sir SAMUEL EVANS

What is the date?

§ Mr. F. E. SMITH

I think it was 1895—it was in the last Debate. I have got it from a book on the subject of disestablishment. Does the Solicitor-General suggest that Mr. Gladstone changed his views that the case of the Church in England and Wales is one, and that you cannot separate the one from the other? The policy which is now being commenced is one which I venture to say will have this deplorable result—in an age of growing indifference you are attacking one of the few surviving sources of national idealism both in England and Wales. You are deliberately weakening morality. You are divorcing the State from that constant and high standard of conduct which everyone will admit springs from association with a Christian creed, and you are relaxing the standard of public integrity in dealing with sacred endowments. A more dangerous precedent than that I could not imagine. As far as we are concerned with the challenge given us in Wales and in England we will accept that challenge. The sooner the line of battle is deployed over the whole line the better pleased we shall be. Hon. Gentlemen have raised an issue in which compromise is quite impossible, and it will be most bitterly contested both here and in the country by the hon. Gentlemen among whom I sit. I cannot reply better to the whole case that has been made than in the remarkable language of the great Archbishop Benson. In the year 1891 he went to the Church Congress at Rhyl to encourage the Churchmen in Wales, and be said:— But you who are our eldest selves, the founders of our episcopacy, the primeval British dioceses, I come from the steps of the chair of Augustine, your younger ally, to tell you that by the Benediction of God we will not quietly see you disinherited.

§ Sir ALFRED THOMAS

Allusion has been made to the continuation of the Welsh language as an argument in support of the establishment in Wales. No argument could be more unfortunate. If the continuance of the Welsh language was left to the Church of England, there would not be a man to-day talking Welsh. I am very glad to find that Gentlemen on the other side are thinking of what Mr. Gladstone said. You will find him very 1559 often resurrected lately. But Mr. Gladstone, in 1894, speaking with regard to Welsh Disestablishment, in his latest utterance, said:— I do not say that the case of the Church in Wales is a repetition of the case of the Church in Ireland, but I say it is a repetition of the case of the Church of Ireland in two vital and determining points, into which, apart from the general abstract principle of Establishment, it is not necessary for me to enter at this time. In two vital and determining points I cannot deny that the case of the Welsh Church corresponds with the Church of Ireland. In the first place it is the Church of the few against the Church of the many (cheers); in the second place it is the Church of the rich against the Church of the comparatively poor. Those broad features are so stamped upon the case that, in my opinion, it is impossible to deny them. In that state of facts have the Welsh people given their judgment upon the question? I cannot deny that, upon the whole, not in a very rigid sense, but still in a somewhat substantial sense, it remains a proposition coining not very far from the truth to say that the Nonconformists of Wales are the people of Wales—undoubtedly the bulk of the people of Wales. The right hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment said that there was a desire to take away private donations. I do not think there can be a man of any degree of honesty who would wish to rob the Church or anybody else of anything given by persons. But the tithes have been enjoyed by a portion of the Church—the Church of England—for many centuries past, and not by the nation. We say that the tithes are the property of the nation, and should be used for national purposes, and I trust not for any purposes that could be met by the rates. However, that is not a matter to go into now. But coming to the matter more immediately before us now, I want on behalf of my colleagues to thank my right hon. Friend for introducing his measure for the establishment of religious equality in Wales. Without going into ancient history this has been the test question in Welsh politics for the past 40 years. The first question put to an aspiring Liberal candidate is: What is his position with regard to the liberation of religion from State control? To the Welsh Nonconformist this is not a political question. It is essentially religious, and is the logical outcome of his Church polity. That was the opinion held by him in the day of oppression, when not a single voice was raised on his behalf in the House of Commons. That is his opinion to-day, when every Welsh constituency has returned a Member pledged to disestablishment.

We are often told by members of the Established Church: "You do not now suffer for conscience sake." We are charitable enough to grant them sincerity, 1560 but no one outside of the pale of the establishment will for one moment assent to such an assertion. True the persecution and oppression endured so long in our country is gone, and I believe gone for ever, and I may ask whom have we to thank for that immunity? But to say that in rural districts throughout the Principality Nonconformists are equally treated with members of the Church of England is to say something that is unfounded in fact. Much the same in lesser degree may be said of the urban and industrial communities in Wales. What the Dissenters of Wales have endured in order to uphold and maintain their principles, furnishes a page of history such as, I believe, was never surpassed for wanton oppression in any country in the world. The result of the persecution is that to-day we are practically a nation of Nonconformists. For a long time we have been tolerated to con-, duct our religious observances as dictated by our religious convictions. That is very kind, of course. But what does that mean? It means there are two parties—the party of the superior persons and the others. Well, that kind of thing may have done before the reign of majorities—but to-day it is obviously out of date, and especially in a country where every member of Parliament is a living protest against such a badge of inferiority.

Parliament has another opportunity of dealing with this question, and I believe this House will meet the demand in the generous spirit it deserves, and pass the measure through all its stages in the present Session. The Welsh people have been very patient, but there is abundant evidence that their patience is fast approaching vanishing point. Especially is this the case with the younger generation. An Established Church in a country like Wales is such an anomaly that no legislature, having any regard for representative government, could for one moment withhold from its people the redress indicated in the measure introduced by the Prime Minister. It must be remembered that dissenters are not alone in demanding disestablishment. A substantial number of both lay and clerical members of the Church of England are anxious to free their Church from State control, and who desire the same freedom to govern and conduct their Church affairs as is enjoyed by their Nonconformist brethren.

Many others who to-day are bitterly opposed to the striking off State fetters will be prepared to say in after-time much the 1561 same as was said to me some 20 or more years ago by a member of the disestablished Church of Ireland. At that time I was a member of a Select Committee on Tithes. Among the witnesses called before the Committee was a leading Irish land agent, Mr. Hussy, who when at home was under police protection. I took the opportunity after the Committee adjourned to question him as to the effect of disestablishment in the Irish Church. I asked him, "Has disestablishment been a blessing or otherwise to the Church of Ireland?" He replied, "It has been a blessing. First," he said, "it drove out the drones. In the second place, disestablishment made it 'our' Church, and inspired us to make sacrifices in its support. And now we laymen have a word to say in its management." Then, warming up to the subject, he said:— There was not a man in all Ireland who fought more bitterly than I did against disestablishment, but if I were offered its renewal to-morrow, I would fight as hard against that as I did against disestablishment. I believe that disestablishment would be a blessing to the Welsh Church, and I will give my ground for such a conclusion. We have been told that the Church of England has advanced her position in the immediate past. That I gladly acknowledge, and am only sorry that the increase in her communicants has not been greater. The awakening in the Established Church is most marked, and we know at what period it began. It began when the Church was threatened with disestablishment. Now, if the threat could work such a marvellous change, what a blessing would be disestablishment! It is a remarkable fact that where the Church has been most successful is in those places where she has copied the methods of Nonconformists, where she has trusted entirely to voluntary contributions, and members of those congregations are drawn from the same classes as members of dissenting chapels. Perhaps that is the reason why they view the proposed disestablishment with so much equanimity. It is only the landlords and their friends who fear disendowment, and them I commend to Providence and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

May I briefly summarise what Wales owes to Nonconformists? To them we owe the revival of religion in our land at a time when the established ministry was a scandal to Christianity. It has been brought out before the Royal Commission that they have provided sitting accommodation in places of worship for 15 out of 18 of the inhabitants, three years old and 1562 upwards. Nine-tenths of our literature, religious and secular, is the work of Nonconformists. And to them we are indebted for the initiation of higher and secondary education in the Principality. Such are the people who make this demand at the hands of the Legislature. And why do we make this demand? Because the establishment divides our country into-two hostile camps, and we wish to remove the wall of partition which now divides us, so that all who minister in holy things may unite in uplifting fallen humanity.

§ Lord ROBERT CECIL

The hon. Member for East Glamorganshire concluded his very interesting observations by an eulogy of Welsh Nonconformists. I am not at all concerned to dispute the admirable work which has been done by Nonconformists in Wales; I do not dispute it any more than I understand it is disputed that the Church of England in Wales also has done admirable work. But when the hon. Member goes on to say that the religious bodies are still in a position of religious inequality, and implies, as I think he did, that there was some superiority in the position of the Church of England in Wales, I find it difficult to follow him. The only series of public events which has recently come to our knowledge is the relative treatment of Church teachers and Church schools and the schools and teachers favoured by Nonconformists in Wales, and in that matter the position has been one of oppression by the Nonconformists of the members of the Church of England. The hon. Member also spoke of a badge of inferiority. I know of no such badge. ["Oh."] The hon. Member for East Glamorgan may, but I really do not know what he is referring to when he talks about the badge of inferiority on Nonconformists. I know of no such badge in England—["Oh"]—and I really do not know in the least what is meant by a badge of inferiority imposed upon Nonconformity by the establishment or endowment of the Church. I listened to the Prime Minister and the hon. Member opposite to hear what is the case really supposed to be made for this Bill, and I say with perfect truth that I have never in my life listened to a more inconclusive set of arguments than that presented by the right hon. Gentleman and his follower. The Prime Minister did indeed refer to the Irish precedent. I do not propose to go into that. It appears to me that the position which prevailed in Ireland 1563 before the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Church was so different from the conditions which prevail in Wales that really nothing whatever can be drawn from the precedent. Indeed, I adhere to what at any rate was the earlier opinion of Mr. Gladstone, that the two Churches were so absolutely different in every respect that it was utterly absurd to argue from the Irish Church to the Church of England in Wales. Beyond that, what did the speech of the Prime Minister amount to? There was a long historical account, not at all tedious but very interesting, of the Welsh Church and Welsh Nonconformity, in which he explained how very badly the Anglican Church had behaved in Wales, and how the result has been the growth of Nonconformity. We all admit that; no one who has read history denies it for a moment. But what possible bearing has it on this Bill? What is the argument sought to be drawn from that historical survey? I am utterly at a loss to know what is sought to be proved thereby. If the Prime Minister had gone on to say that the Church of England now fails to discharge its duty I should have understood what he meant; but, on the contrary, he paid a perfectly just but not too warm tribute to the admirable work which is being done by the Church of England in Wales in the present day. Therefore, I do not understand what that historical survey meant. The right hon. Gentleman was followed by the hon. Member for East Glamorgan, who also made reference to history, and to the great sufferings which Nonconformity endured in past years. But surely he does not regard that as a ground for promoting a Bill which we think is a measure of hostility to the Church of England, but which we are constantly told is going to confer great benefits upon the Church in Wales. What bearing all this historical matter has upon the question we have to consider to-day I fail altogether to follow.

What are the other ordinary arguments used in favour of this Bill? We are told a great deal about the national demand. I have considerable distrust of that phrase "national demand." It is impossible to tell under our existing constitution what the electors really desire. ["Oh."] The hon. Member for East Glamorgan may have special private information on the subject, but under our existing constitution it is impossible for an ordinary Mem- 1564 ber of Parliament to tell what the electors desire by the votes which they give at any election. The votes are not given or. any one question; they are given on dozens of questions. For instance, at the last election, I do not know how many questions were supposed to be decided finally by the verdict of the electors. I do not attach so much importance as hon. Members opposite do to the question of the national demand. But even admitting it all, we have this to consider. The proposal in this Bill is to make an attack on the political position of the Church of England in Wales, and to deprive it of a large part of its property. It is not enough to tell me that the majority of those who live in Wales wish to do that. That does not appear to me to be relevant. What you have to show me is that it is a just thing in itself. This House sits for the purpose of being, among other things, a court of appeal to judge between minorities and majorities in the various parts of the country, and to allow the good sense and moral sense of the whole community to decide whether a particular claim made by a majority in a particular district is a just or unjust claim. That is the main function of the House of Commons. We were told in a celebrated phrase by the Chief Secretary for Ireland that minorities must suffer. I agree. I have never quarrelled with the right hon. Gentleman's phrase. It is perfectly true; and the main function of this House is to see that minorities do not suffer intolerably, and to protect them from grave injustice. Therefore, when I am told that there is a national demand for the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church in Wales, that leaves me quite cold, unless you can also show me that it would be in the public interest that this Bill should pass. We were told something by the Prime Minister about religious equality. I really do not know what is intended by that. I suppose it applies principally to the disestablishment part of the Bill. What is going to happen by the disestablishment of four dioceses in Wales? I could understand, if you were disestablishing the whole Church of England, that it would produce a vast change in our body politic. But what is the disestablishment of four dioceses in Wales going to do? It is going to turn four Welsh Bishops out of the House of Lords. I really do not know that it is going to do anything effective beyond that. According to the Prime Minister that would be one result of disestablishment, and 1565 another is that it would substitute conventional or legal courts for the settlement of Church disputes. As far as I know, those are the only two things which the Prime Minister said that disestablishment was going to do. I was not in the least surprised, therefore, to hear him subsequently refer to that part of the Bill as the formal and legal part. The real truth is that this Bill would never have seen the light and would never have had any backing except for the disendowment proposals. I do not think any honest man in any part of Wales will dispute that. [Cries of "Oh!"] Then will the Government drop disendowment? It is very easy to test the reality of those cries of dissent.

§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

Will you accept disestablishment?