Page:EB1922 - Volume 30.djvu/1047

Rh

triumph for their own views of Imperial policy. Imperial patriotism in Canada had averted the greatest danger yet threatened, in spite of the support given by the Liberal Govern- ment at home and the British Ambassador at Washington. Every platform rang with Unionist rejoicings, and the Canadian victory put new heart into the Tariff Reform propaganda.

On yet another question of Imperial moment a rebuff was

given to the ministerial policy. Throughout 1911 the decision

of the Government to ratify the Declaration of Lon-

Prixe l Biu l don nad le( ^ to a P r l n g eci agitation. Most of the Unionist party, together with a strong body of naval opinion, were actively opposed to it, their argument being that under its provisions the advantages of British supremacy at sea in war time would be seriously diminished. The Government succeeded, however (June i 1911), in ob- taining the support of the Imperial Conference, considerable weight attaching to Sir E. Grey's view that adhesion to the Declaration would be advantageous in Great Britain's foreign relations and to the cause of peace. As Parliament had no direct control over the action of the Government in the mat- ter of ratification, political opposition centred on the Naval Prize bill which was introduced to carry out the provisions of the Declaration of London, the second reading being taken on July 3. So much headway was made in arousing antag- onism to the Declaration itself that when the third reading of the Naval Prize bill came on in the House of Commons on Dec. 7 the Government only managed to get a majority of 47 ; and the House of Lords promptly rejected the bill.

The Government were meanwhile being perpetually worn and worried by the militant agitation for women's suffrage and by the difficulty of dealing with any legislation on the subject when the Cabinet was divided. The Prime Minister himself was avowedly opposed to women's suffrage altogether. On the other hand, Mr. Lloyd George, while professing himself a strong supporter of the cause, which was also advocated by Sir E. Grey and Lord Haldane, objected to any bill which was not thoroughly "democratic"; and because the "militants" re- garded his attitude as obstructing the particular measure which they had in view, and held him responsible for a Government bill not being introduced as they desired, he was pestered as much as if he had actually been an open opponent like Mr. Asquith. The so-called " Conciliation " bill, introduced by Sir G. Kemp, which assimilated the parliamentary to the municipal The Fran- franchise for women and would give votes to about chise a million, had been read a second time in the House

Question. of Commons on May 5 1911, Mr. Asquith himself pairing against it while Mr. Lloyd George and other min- isters supported it; and as there was no time for proceeding with the bill in 1911 the Government promised to give it " facil- ities " in the following year. But while the various sections of supporters of women's suffrage disputed about its pros- pects, and the " militants " raged together, Mr. Asquith sud- denly made a new turn on Nov. 7 by announcing the intention of the Government to add to its programme a Franchise Re- form bill on the lines of Manhood Suffrage. In answer to a deputation of woman suffragists on Nov. 17 he declared that, while he was personally opposed to women's suffrage altogether, this bill would be so drawn as to admit of amend- ment to include women on certain terms; and if an amend- ment, which the Government as such would not oppose, were carried, the Government would then adopt it. They would also, as had been promised, give facilities for the Conciliation bill.

It had been generally supposed that the Government would take advantage of the passing of the Parliament Act to rein- troduce the bill against plural voting which the Lords had rejected in 1906, but this larger measure was totally unexpected, and the announcement was widely construed simply as a device for " dishing " women's suffrage. It was at once denounced for that reason by the " militants " who began to make more trouble than ever. From this moment the internal divisions within the Cabinet on the subject of women's suffrage, and the necessity of taking administrative action against " militant "

violence, remained a source of constant difficulty. When eventually, on March 28 1912, the Conciliation bill was rejected by 222 to 208, owing to disgust at " militant " tactics, the prospect of legislative action rested entirely with the question of an amendment of the Government Franchise bill, which was read a first time on June 17 1912, by 274 to 50, and a second time on July 12, by 290 to 218. In other respects this bill, which abolished plural voting and university representation, made six months' residence by adult males the only qualification for votes, and did away with existing restrictions as to registration, handing it over for automatic action by the municipal author- ities, excited comparatively little public interest. There did not seem likely to be time, even if there were inclination, to pass it into law before the session ended. The Unionists, while objecting to details, opposed it mainly on the old ground that redistribution should accompany reform; while the Liberal rank and file, who for their own electioneering purposes were principally anxious to destroy the plural vote, felt that a simpler measure with that object would have sufficed. A bill to abolish plural voting, introduced by a private member, Mr. Baker, was read a second time on March i 1912.

The main problem, however, before the Government when Parliament met on Feb. 14 1912, was Irish Home Rule, with Welsh Disestablishment and Disendowment in a sec- welsh nis- ondary place. The main interest of the latter meas- establish- ure, keenly as it was opposed in the interests of the meat ' Church of England, lay naturally in the financial pro- visions. The income of the Welsh dioceses in 1906 was 556,- 000 (296,000 representing voluntary contributions which would be unaffected), and of the 260,000 derived from en- dowments the bill would take away 172,500, representing (according to the Liberal view) national property; but this reduction would only be gradually effected in about 40 years by the Welsh commissioners appointed to manage the trans- fer existing interest being maintained and existing incum- bents being paid their present stipends so that in that time the Church would have the chance of making good the loss of income by increased voluntary contributions. The dis- established Church was given power to set up a representa- tive body; and to this body the Welsh commissioners would hand over the cathedrals, episcopal palaces, churches and par- sonages, and also the modern endowments and such part of the glebe as was not considered to be part of the ancient endowments to which the Church as such was strictly entitled; as a dividing line the date of 1662 was taken as that after which property of uncertain origin now owned by the Church might be regarded as her own. The funds which by degrees would be. taken from the Church were to be applied partly to charitable and public purposes by being handed over to the county councils and partly to the university of Wales (library, etc.).

The rather moderate extent of the disendowment thus pro- posed was somewhat of a surprise. Extreme Liberationists had to console themselves with the prospect of a success for the principle of disestablishment rather than any considerable acquisition of Church property for secular purposes. On the other hand, from a Church point of view, the smallness of the operation on its financial side made the whole transaction seem one of peculiar meanness; for a paltry result, the work of the Church admittedly now well done, as had been proved before the Welsh Church Commission, whatever its shortcomings in the past was to be crippled and hampered. Defenders of the Church could point to the fact that it was the largest single religious body in Wales, and the only one which was represented in every parish by a regular organization. The ecclesiastical indivisibility of Wales and England was a more fundamental objection, the Welsh dioceses being from the Church point of view an integral part of the Church of England. The case for the Government, granted the principle of disestablishment at all, was, however, fairly simple. Their precedent was the case of the Irish Church in 1869: it was equally a part of the Church of England, and disestablishment and disendowment had done it good rather than harm. The answer to those who con-