HC Deb 14 July 1898 vol 61 cc898-923

On the order for Second Reading of St. Marylebone Churches Bill [H.L.]—

Motion made and Question proposed— That the Bill be read a second time upon this day three months."—(Mr. Brynmor Jones.)

MR. BRYNMOR JONES (Swansea, District)

I am very sensible that, as a general rule, there is some inconvenience in discussing private Bills upon the Second Reading stage, but the circumstances of this case are so unusual and the provisions of this Bill are so extraordinary that I feel justified in taking the course which I now propose to adopt by moving that the Bill be read a second time this day three months. The reasons I take this course, quite apart from the merits and demerits of the proposals of the Bill, are these: First of all there is in this case some difficulty about locus standi. The Bill is promoted by the vestry of this large and important parish of Marylebone, and in the case of any other private Bill—a Bill not promoted by the vestry, but promoted by some other persons concerned in the parish, a Bill affecting the parish in regard to this or other matters—under the Standing Order CXXXIV. there would be an opportunity given to the ratepayers to object, if they so desired, to the provisions, and object to the locus standi of the bill in Committee; but it so happens in this case that it is a matter of very great doubt whether any inhabitant or ratepayer of the parish can claim a locus standi under the present arrangements of this House. That is the first reason why I feel bound at the earliest possible moment to call the attention of the House to the provisions of this Bill. The second is this: Those most affected, the Roman Catholics and the Nonconformists, are peculiarly situated, and if we, under the new private procedure of this House, were given a locus standi, it would only be placing upon the ratepayers the burden of the great expense of asking them to present a petition against the Bill before the Private Bill Committee. In the next place, I assert, without fear of contradiction, that the promoters of this Bill have not given the ratepayers a fair and reasonable opportunity of considering its provisions. The resolution of the vestry upon which this Bill is necessarily founded was only passed in October or November, 1897, and one of the resolutions, which was important and essential for the proper carrying out of the Bill, was only passed by the vestry upon the 14th of June last—just 28 days before this Bill is brought up for its Second Reading in this House. The Bill came down from the House of Lords as an unopposed Bill, and consequently we are placed in this disadvantageous position: the time for raising objections to the Bill is passed, and if it passes its Second Reading to-day it will pass as an unopposed Bill. I assert that the promoters of this Bill are unduly pressing the matter forward, and in support of that statement I will just say—and this the honourable Member for East Marylebone cannot deny—that I suggested that the Second Reading of this Bill should be adjourned until any day next week, in order that we who know Marylebone and live there might have an opportunity of conferring together and considering the Bill, and considering whether a good bargain has been made by the vestry, and also to give myself and others concerned and interested in this matter an opportunity of marshalling our facts and arguments far better than we have been able to under the present circumstances. These are the main reasons which justify me in asking the attention of the House to the provisions of this Bill. As a general rule, I freely admit that the Committee upstairs is the best tribunal before which to thrash out the merits of any particular Bill; but the conditions under which we are placed are such that this is the only opportunity we have of protesting against the provisions of a Measure which prejudicially affects the interests of a large number of the ratepayers of the parish of Marylebone, and which ought, in my opinion, to be the subject of an order of the Committee of the House. If the Government and the honourable Gentlemen opposite permit the Bill to go to its Second Reading these matters will not be investigated, and a Measure of great importance, involving large sums of money and affecting great vested interests, will go through this House as unopposed. So much for the justifica- tion of the steps which those persons who are interested in this matter are taking in this Bill. Now let me call the attention of the House to the provisions of the Bill. In the first place, the Bill proposes to transfer the sites of six churches, and the fabric of six churches, with all the appurtenances belonging to them, from the vestry of Marylebone—that is to say, from the parish of Marylebone—to the incumbents of the various churches and chapels concerned. I need not point out to this House—I need not point out to anyone who knows London—how valuable are the sites upon which these churches are erected. They are large churches, built upon a considerable amount of land which is situated in a very valuable part of the metropolis. Under the Bill, and, as I suggest, without adequate consideration, the vestry of Marylebone is to hand over to the incumbents the sites, the churches, and all the appurtenances; but the matter does not end there: we are also asked to raise, under borrowing powers supposed to be conferred under this Bill, no less than £80,000, which is to be handed over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. We are also asked to borrow the sum of £207,000, to be paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to be used in repairing these churches, and we are asked to give up the pew rents of these churches. We are asked not only to give up our land and buildings, but also the income which, under the arrangement made under former Statutes, has been applied to the purpose of diminishing the liability that fell upon the ratepayers of Marylebone. Those are the provisions of the Bill, and if honourable Members would only consider the range of the Bill—and I stop there and inform the House that the matter has never been adequately thrashed out in the parish. We have never had a meeting in the parish to consider this and the bearing of it on our future liabilities. I make out a further case against the Second Reading of the Bill. But if the House will permit me I will not stop there. I would like to say a word or two about the ecclesiastical organisation of the parish of Marylebone historically. I do not say it is unique, but it is certainly peculiar. In the year 1811 the parish of Marylebone presented a very different appearance physically to that which it does now. The Duke of Portland was lord of the manor of Marylebone, patron of the livings, and also claimed, I believe, to be the lay incumbent of the parish. In 1811, just about the time when those great streets and squares were being built and laid out—probably by some enterprising builder as a speculation—an Act of Parliament was promoted by the Duke of Portland and the vestrymen of the parish of Marylebone. Under the Act power was taken to rebuild the parish church and two others. The Act of 1811 was a very complicated Act, and it would be very unfair for me to attempt to explain the details to the House offhand, and if I make any misstatements I hope that they will be pardoned, having regard to the fact that I am relying on my memory. In effect what the Act did was this: the Duke of Portland provided a particular site for one of the churches, and the sites of the other two churches were provided by the parish or vestry, which was empowered to levy rates and also to borrow money, and out of the rates so levied and the borrowed money they were to build these three churches and pay the stipends of their ministers. The Act of 1811 was followed by a subsequent Act of George IV. in 1820, which empowered the building of four other churches, which became district churches and are now in the position of being chapels of ease to the parish church for all ecclesiastical and other purposes. The peculiarity of the arrangement was this, that the land upon which these churches were built was bought out and out by the parish and is vested in them. The land, the churches, and everything connected with them was purchased by moneys provided by the parishioners of Marylebone, and the management of the churches, except so far as the services were concerned, was vested in and performed by the vestrymen of Marylebone, and that has gone on right down to the present time. Under that arrangement the sums provided by the parish are worthy of the consideration of the House. The parishioners of Marylebone have paid £173,000 for the sites and the edifices erected on those sites; they have paid £60,000 by way of stipend to the ministers; and they have paid, with some irregularity, I admit, some £15,000 for Sunday evening lectures. These large sums of money, during the course of about 90 years, have been expended by the parish of Marylebone for these churches, and I would beg to draw the attention of honourable Gentlemen opposite to this point, that these arrangements were not entered into in pursuance of any contract or any other kind of valuable consideration accruing to the parish by those who were concerned in these building operations. They were pure gifts. Under the Act of Parliament the vestry were authorised to levy a church rate, which they did, and thus the case is a very peculiar one. That being the position from the historic point of view, how is the matter going to be altered under this Bill? At the present moment—I am sorry to interrupt the course of my observations for a moment, but I wish to drive this home, if I can, to any honourable Member who will treat the matter with fairness, and I expect it—we have a vested interest in these churches. We have the pew rents, and the fabrics are vested in us, and we have the right to appoint a great many of the officers of the church. We are now asked to give up all this, and not only that, but we are asked to pay £80,000; and in addition to the £80,000 we are to find £27,000 in order to put the churches in good repair. What is the consideration for that under this Bill? Why should we do it? I know at once what the honourable Member for East Marylebone will say. He will say the parish is going to be relieved of all its liabilities under these old Acts of Parliament, but I do not see how we gain anything by getting rid of those liabilities. What is the liability? The liability under the Act of 1876 is a liability to maintain and keep in repair six churches, and to pay certain stipends to the ministers of the churches in question. But what kind of liability is it? The bargain is a bargain under an Act. But the promoters of the Bill appear to be under the impression that this liability is a liability in perpetuity, and one which cannot be got rid of; but it is only a statutory liability at best. I say it is only a statutory liability at best. It was done without valuable consideration, done at the instance of the Duke of Portland for the purpose of developing his estate, and, done under those circumstances, I say it is only a statutory obligation at best. What a Statute of this House has done can be undone by Statute, and we could come before this Parliament and say we have built these churches, and have maintained them and kept them in repair for nearly 100 years, and now the time has come when you must relieve us of our liabilities and carry on these churches yourself. When Mr. Russell Wakefield, the vicar of St. Mary's, Bryanston Square, came to that church the pew rents were only £140 a year. The pew rents now are £530, and the increase represents a gain to the parish. That is now going to be taken away from us by the operation of this Bill. Now, I have spoken of the liability as a statutory one, and I think in time we might come forward to the House of Commons and ask to be relieved of it, and seek to do so without doing anything detrimental to any vested interest, and I need hardly say that if we did come and seek to do this we should do so in the interest of those who were interested in the churches. But this other interest is of a purely sentimental character. I assert that in regard to one of the churches I consider that this church rate is of doubtful legality. You will observe that the consideration given by this Bill is to get rid of that liability. It is stated in the Bill itself that the liability exists under these old Acts of Parliament. I cannot state with regard to one church—the parish church—that it does not exist. By the Church Rates Abolition Act of 1868 compulsory church rates were abolished by section 5 of that Act, which made certain exceptions, and the promoters of this Bill contend that Marylebone Church was one of the exceptions. But there is a decision of the Court of Appeal in respect to this particular parish, to which I might draw the attention of the House. In the year 1874 the very question arose, not in regard to the whole of the churches, but in connection with the very church itself, the main church of the parish. The question arose as to whether the church rate levied under this Act was a legal rate or not, and whether it could or could not be enforced. The matter came before Mr. Justice Mathew, and subsequently before the Court of Appeal, in which Lord Justice Lopes, now Lord Ludlow, was presiding. There it was decided that this particular rate did not come within the exceptions of the Church Rates Abolition Act. The effect of the decision of the Court of Appeal is this: that the consideration offered to us by the honourable Member for East Marylebone in respect to one or more of the church rates is no consideration at all. They give us nothing, because the consideration does not exist. On the contrary, what we are asked is that we who have built these churches, and maintained them for something like 100 years, should raise this large sum of money and transfer our property to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I think we have made out a good case in this matter. If the Bill is read a second time to-day, it will be passed as an unopposed Bill, and there seem to be some questions which require some discussion, and for these reasons I move that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.

MR. C. MORLEY (Brecknock)

I desire to point out that there is a strong objection felt to this Measure upon the ground that it seeks to make perpetual that which has long been felt to be a very great hardship and injustice by the ratepayers of Marylebone, the compulsory payment of the church rate. I am quite sure that there is no need to remind the House of the arguments so familiar to this House of the principle under which in the past Nonconformists, who supported their chapels where they did worship, were also called upon to support the Church of the Established religion, which they did not attend. But perhaps I may remind the House of what Mr. Gladstone said, in moving the abolition of church rates, 30 years ago. He pointed out that his Bill provided that no suit should lie in any court to enforce the payment of a church rate made in any parish in England or Wales. I mention this as an indication of what was the purport and intention of his Measure, though no doubt exceptions were introduced in that Bill. Since the passing of that Act 30 years ago, while the country generally has received relief from these compulsory church rates, Marylebone, has received no such relief. What is the argument of the promoters of the Bill? A sound argument for the abolition of church rates; but I am very much surprised to hear that argument put forward by gentlemen who by this Measure are seeking to make them perpetual. The proposal of the Bill is to hand over to the Established Church churches which have been built, either wholly or partly, at the public expense, out of the money of the ratepayers. The words of the proposal are that— from and after the thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight, the sites, buildings, furniture, fittings, and other property now vested in the vestry, shall be vested in the several incumbents. I think that in itself is a very strong proposal, but how do we stand? We find that they are not ready and willing to accept the sites, buildings, furniture, fittings, and other property, unless the ratepayers are willing to find £2,700 for dilapidations, and we must also divest ourselves of £80,000, and hand that sum over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as an endowment fund; and this Bill empowers the vestry to raise this large sum of money on the security of a general rate. The result of this Measure to the ratepayers of Marylebone will be that they will be called upon for another 30 years to pay not only a compulsory church rate, but an increased church rate. We cannot be surprised under the circumstances that not only many Nonconformists, but many others complain that they should thus be compelled to subscribe to the endowment of the Church of England.

MR. BOULNOIS (Marylebone, E.)

Although the honourable Gentleman opposite has described this as a very unusual Bill, and a unique Bill, it is also an extremely simple Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] I am glad to hear that cheer, as it will relieve me of the necessity of explaining the Measure, as it shows that honourable Gentlemen are well acquainted with it. The object of the Bill is summed up in a very few words. It is a Bill to enable the vestry of Marylebone to get rid of the liability of always having to endow seven churches of the Established Church. Under certain old Acts of Parliament the vestry of Marylebone rendered themselves liable, and to cover this obligation they were empowered to levy a church rate, and also in addition received the pew rents. In the early days, when people paid pew rents, I have no doubt there was no serious loss to the vestry, but, as everybody knows, the system of paying pew rents is gradually disappearing in this country, and it is a vanishing quantity. Therefore I do not think the argument of the honourable Member for Swansea is worth very much upon that head when he says the vestry are giving up the pew rents. The diminution of the pew rents has caused a serious deficiency to the ratepayers, and that deficiency is to be made up by the rate; but the honourable Member for Swansea denied the legality of the rate. It has been in existence for 90 years, and surely there have been many opportunities for disputing its legality, and will be, because, I suppose, before this House has settled the matter there will be a demand made for the current rate, when the honourable Gentleman will have an opportunity, if he chooses, to contest it in the law courts. The deficiency, which caused a rate of 1d. in the £, has been a source of constant irritation and annoyance to the ratepayers of Marylebone, who cannot understand that when church rates have been abolished all over the country they should be compelled to pay one in London. They have been extremely anxious to put an end to this state of things. Nothing was, however, done until January, 1896, when a committee was appointed to consider the question and draft out a scheme, if they could do so, with regard to it. In October, 1897, they reported that they had agreed with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to commute the liability of the vestry for £80,000, and that they had secured with the concurrence of the Crown as patron the Bishop of London. The committee's report was adopted by the vestry, and the Measure now before the House is the outcome. The House will realise that the committee had no easy task in arriving at this agreement, and here I should like to refer to the generous attitude adopted by the clergy in regard to this matter. They made some pecuniary sacrifices, and agreed to make concessions in other respects. One word as to the official aspect of the matter. I am not going into an elaborate survey of figures, but I should like to draw the attention of the House to this fact, that the ratepavers of Marylebone will not suffer in the slightest degree, and at the end of 30 years the ratepayers or those of the next generation, will be paying nothing in the way of church rates; not a farthing will be raised for such a purpose. The annual charge to redeem this sum of £80,000, by half-yearly instalments of principle and interest, will be about the same as the annual deficiency upon the average of 10 years, which is suggested by this Bill. Of course, if the Bill is not passed, the deficiency arising from pew rents, and so forth, may be very much larger than at present. By an Act of Parliament the ratepayers of Marylebone have been called upon for the last 90 years to provide thousands upon thousands of pounds for the purposes of these churches. This Bill provides that they shall provide a like amount for 30 years to come, and no more. If the Bill is rejected the ratepayers of Marylebone must go on providing these thousands and thousands of pounds yearly for ever and ever. ["No, no!"] I understand honourable Gentlemen opposite to say "No, no!" but I have yet to learn that the House of Commons, whether it contains a Liberal or Conservative majority, will ever consent to bring in a confiscatory Measure which, so far as I can see, is the only alternative to this Bill. Now just one word as to the attitude of the ratepayers. The honourable Gentleman the Member for Swansea says this Measure has not been adequately discussed. I have given all the dates to the House, and I can emphatically say that this matter has been under the notice of the ratepayers of Marylebone for more than two years past, and I should certainly assume that that was ample time for its consideration. Proceedings of the vestry have from time to time been published in the local Press, and had any inhabitant or ratepayer of Marylebone taken the trouble to have looked into it, he could easily have understood how the matter was going on. There has not been the slightest disposition until quite recently to discuss the resolution of the vestry. It is quite true that last month an agitation was got up, and a public meeting was called, and so much interest was taken in the matter that out of 270,000 independent ratepayers only some 50 attended, and I will not say that they were ratepayers. Although there were three honourable Members of this House present, so little interest was taken in the matter, and the ratepayers were so satisfied with what was being done by the vestry, that they did not even trouble to come and hear the arguments. The opposition to this Measure does not come from the ratepayers, but the Liberation Society, and I ask this House earnestly to distrust that society. I ask the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which offers to the whole community of Marylebone a relief from a heavy burden which has been placed upon them for many years without doing the slightest injustice to a single individual.

SIR J. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

I may say at once that I am not a member of the Liberation Society, but at the same time I do strongly oppose this Bill. The churches which this Bill proposes to deal with were erected for the purpose of developing the property of the Duke of Portland, and it is very well known that a good church is a very great assistance to the development of property, and, as the Duke of Portland was a man of business, it was his duty to build the churches, but he was too good a man of business to do that. He did a very much better thing; he got his churches built at somebody else's expense. Now the Duke of Portland, as the owner of the property, has not paid a penny in rates from that day to this, and we are now called upon to pay to the Church £80,000. The simple reason, the cheerful reason, the delightful reason, why we are asked to pay this £80,000 is that the members of the Church of England, who get the whole and entire benefit of these churches, have got out of the habit of paying pew rents. When people, who get all the benefit of the spiritual ministrations from these churches, do not choose to pay, I certainly do not think that those who do not derive any benefit ought to be called upon to pay for them. The honourable Gentleman who spoke in favour of this Bill told us there would be an opportunity of testing the legality of these church rates. Now, I will undertake, if the honourable Gentleman will consent to postpone his Bill, that the question of the legality of this church rate shall be very shortly tested.

MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts, Mansfield)

The honourable Member opposite has referred to the supposed source and motive of the opposition to this Bill. Well, I am not, like my honourable Friends who have moved and seconded the Motion for its rejection, an inhabitant of Marylebone. I oppose it on general grounds, and partly because, as one who had a good deal to do with the passing of the Compulsory Church Rate Abolition Act, I am opposed to anything which runs counter to the principle on which that Act was based. The existing ecclesiastical arrangements of Marylebone are a survival of a system which no one would think of establishing in the present day. Their history has been highly curious, for, after the Duke of Portland had become possessed of the patronage which had been created by public taxation, £40,000 of public money, and which was derived from the sale of Crown lands, was expended in buying back the Duke's patronage rights; so that there was something like an ecclesiastical job in the early history of the churches; just as what I may rightly call another ecclesiastical job is to be perpetrated by the present Measure. The most striking feature or this Bill is its one-sidedness. It not only inflicts injustice upon all the Nonconformists of Marylebone, but deals unequally with the Episcopalian congregations. They are, I believe, 24 in number, but only seven of them are to be benefited by the Bill. I could understand a Measure which would distribute the proceeds of the money to be raised by this fund among and for the benefit of the whole of the churches. Nothing of the kind is proposed. It is to benefit only churches the congregations of which are not spirited enough—not to say religious enough—to obtain for themselves the requisite means for maintaining divine worship. This Bill will improve the position of the incumbents and the other officials of the churches, and as a consequence it will improve the value of their offices. It also gives additional property and additional powers to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Now, what does it do for the ratepayers? Some of the things are very evident. It takes away the churches which they helped to build, and it gives to the Ecclesiastical Commis- sioners powers which the inhabitants now possess. It also gives the Commissioners power over the seating arrangements, which I imagine are at present in the hands of the inhabitants, and the only people who are to find the money to carry out this scheme are to be the ratepayers, who are to get nothing; but after the present generation are removed by death, their successors will no longer be fleeced as their forefathers have been who have gone before them. The promoters have put forth a statement which contains a paragraph that strikes one as strangely ironical. They say that the provisions which now govern the churches are inapplicable in the present constitution of the vestry, which has been reorganised under recent Acts. That would be a most excellent preamble for a Bill for the abolition of these obligations, but it does not contemplate abolition until the expiration of a lengthened period. The honourable Member has spoken of the impossibility of getting rid of these exactions in Marylebone on confiscatory terms. Nobody wishes the principle of confiscation to be adopted in regard to the settling of this dispute. There are other ways of settling the dispute which are perfectly equitable; for, in the first place, this right might be continued sufficiently long to practically exhaust life interests, giving to each and every present incumbent and every other official that which he receives and remains entitled to; or, if that should be thought to be a dilatory process, the next would be to commute all these claims, the parish borrowing the money which would be necessary to pay the commuted amount. Then the right would cease, and no individual whatever would suffer the slightest possible injury. But this Bill adopts neither of these Measures, but simply converts an unjustifiable tax into a perpetual endowment for the benefit of the church. Mr. Speaker, this Parliament, I think, will be known in history as a Parliament of sops and doles, and of unjust financial concessions, made for the benefit of a section of the community to the injury of the rest, and unless the House realises this now and rejects this Bill, it will be adding to the number contained in that discreditable category.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

This Bill has hitherto been treated from the point of view of the goodness or badness of the financial transactions embodied in it. But I have not heard a word on another point which seems to one far more important than this financial transaction, which I may say, in passing, appears to me to be a good one. It simply amounts to a commutation of a perpetual obligation. So far as regards the financial part of the Bill, I must say that I see nothing to object to in it, but there is one point which I do not understand. The honourable Member who is responsible for this Bill says that the only alternative to the Bill is confiscation. Now, I contend that the alternative is to leave things as they are; leave those who are in possession of the property which they now possess, and leave the responsibilities on those upon whom they now rest. That is my objection to the Bill. This Bill seems to me to be practically a Bill for the abolition of the parish of St. Marylebone, and the abolition of all their duties and responsibilities in connection with the churches, which will rest upon the Commissioners. What is the first operative clause? It says— The vestry and the ratepayers of the parish of St. Marylebone, in the administrative county of London, shall be by virtue of this Act freed and discharged from all payments, obligations, and liabilities whatsoever under any of the scheduled Acts in respect of the maintenance of any of the said churches and chapels, or of any minister's residence, or in respect of the payment of any stipend or salary. And so forth. That is the whole essence of the ecclesiastical liability of a parish. I take it that, although it is nominally vested in the parson, it is vested in trust for the parish. The really important personages in the parish are the laity and not the parson. It is their duty from time to time to maintain their parish churches, and that duty is cast upon them. This Bill, as I understand it, proposes that the Commissioners shall take over certain obligations in return for a certain sum to be paid down. Well, Sir, that means the disestablishment and the disendowment of the Church in the parish of St. Marylebone. It is practically the disestablishment of the Church in the parish of St. Marylebone and the handing over of the church to the Commissioners, thus taking it out of the hands of the laity and the parish, and removing it from the vestry which is the parish, because the vestry consists of the inhabitants of the parish. It is removing from the laity all obligations in the parish church in return for a payment made by them, and the handing over of all their duties and liabilities to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who, in my opinion, cannot properly perform the duties, and never will be able to perform them. There is one other point—and I do not intend to detain the House at any length—this Bill relieves the vestry and the inhabitants of their proper liabilities, and transfers them to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and if they could perform those duties properly nothing could be said of it. But you must leave the responsibility of the maintenance of the church upon the parish, otherwise every kind of abuse, ecclesiastical and otherwise, will be introduced. But, Sir, there is another mysterious body introduced by this Bill, such as I have never before heard of—that is, the Incorporated Church Building Society. This Society has certain advantages and certain rights by this Bill, and then there comes an unheard-of clause—clause 16, which provides— The Incorporated Church Building Society shall not be under any liability to see to the payment to them of any of the sums authorised or required to be paid to them under any of the provisions of this Act, nor shall the Ecclesiastical Commissioners be under any liability to see to the application of any sums which they are authorised or required to pay to any rector or other person or to the said society under any of the provisions of this Act. They will have sums paid to them, but they are not responsible. Now, what does that amount to? It amounts to this: the parish is to buy in only the secular liability to maintain its church by making a payment to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. They are to make a certain payment, as I understand, to the Incorporated Church Building Society, by virtue of which the parish is to be freed from its obligations, but the recipients of this sum are themselves to be under no obligation. This appears to me to be a most astounding proposal, and I listened in vain to the speech of the honourable Member for an explanation of some point such as this in the Bill. Unless some further explanation is forthcoming to show that there is some greater justification than has hitherto been put forward for relieving the parish of its liabilities—not merely of its money liabilities, but of its moral and social liabilities—I shall certainly vote against this Bill.

MR. E. MORTON (Devonport)

I have a particular reason in rising to address the House for a few minutes on this Bill, and my reason is that, while this Bill is one which in its policy is one of the utmost possible importance and of a reactionary nature, we have not had the advice of a single Member of the Government upon it. Now, Sir, the very essence of this question dealt with in this Bill is this, that it is against the policy and the principle of the Compulsory Church Rates Abolition Act of 30 years ago. That Act, to a certain extent, disestablished and disendowed the Church. It took away from the Church certain endowments in the form of rates for the maintenance of the fabric of the Church which the Church previously possessed. Now this Bill proposes to do this without any sort of compensation whatever. This Bill proposes to stereotype and render perpetual one remaining instance of the Church in this country. It is on that ground, and on that ground especially, that we on this side of the House strongly oppose and resent this Measure. Now what is the effect of this Measure? The honourable Member who spoke—in fact, the only honourable Member who has spoken in favour of this Bill—represented that there was a sort of property possessed by the Church in this particular parish, which we on this side of the House desire to confiscate without any compensation. Now, what is the position? Why, the fact is that for more than 80 years you have been taxing Protestants, Nonconformists, and Roman Catholics, in that parish, in order to endow and support the teaching of what they believe to be heresy, and because that iniquity has gone on, and unjustly gone on, so long you now want us to pay them off with a further £100,000 in order to perpetuate that system. We ought to have had the benefit of advice upon this question, considering the fact that this has been sprung upon this House to-day without proper consideration. This is a very important Measure, involving a most serious principle. The parish of Marylebone has not had sufficient time to consider this Measure and to express its opinion upon it. I beg to move that this Debate be now adjourned.

MR. LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)

seconded the Motion.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.

I trust the honourable Member will not press his Motion. The parish of Marylebone has had ample time to consider the Bill, which is of a plain and simple character. If the honourable Member is disposed to reproach the Government with not having expressed their views on the subject, I have no hesitation in now expressing my opinion that it is a Measure which ought certainly to be passed.

MR. BRYNMOR JONES

The right honourable Gentleman was not present at the beginning of the Debate. I asked the honourable Gentleman in charge of the Bill to adjourn the consideration of it until Monday, and he refused. The last meeting of the vestry only took place on 16th June, and the meeting was recited in the preamble of the Bill. I challenge those who are acquainted with private Bill legislation to give me the case of a Bill dealing with the interests of a great parish like this which has been rushed forward as this has been. The right honourable Gentleman assents to giving £80,000 of other people's money. The right honourable Gentleman has not treated us fairly. The parish of Marylebone has not been consulted in the matter. I was concerned to some extent in the recent local elections, and I hardly recollect a single address in which there was any reference to this Bill, or any meeting in which this Bill was discussed. We are not asking too much in asking the Government to yield on this matter and request its framers to give us a little more time. I appeal that the Debate may be adjourned, so that we may consider what course to take. Will not the right honourable Gentleman give us a week, in order to determine our position in a matter in which peculiar parochial interests are involved? I support this Motion for the adjournment.

MR. ROBSON (South Shields)

There is one reason, and a very strong reason indeed, why the Government should give us some time—namely, the legality or otherwise of this rate. The very foundation of this Bill before us is that it forms an exception to that general enactment. It is perfectly clear from the decisions which my honourable and learned Friend read—the decisions of the Court of Appeal in 1894—that this church rate does not form any exception to the enactment of 1868. That raises a legal point of the utmost importance to this Bill, because, if the rate itself is not legal, then this compensation proposed to be given to the clergy is calculated on an entirely false basis; and I think we are entitled before we vote on this Bill, because, if the rate itself is pression of the First Lord of the Treasury, but to have the legal opinion of

the first officer of the Crown, as to whether or not the decision of the Court of Appeal was a good one and is binding, in order to be taken into consideration in reference to this Measure.

SIR J. BRUNNER

AS the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury was not present earlier in the Debate, he did not hear me state that I undertook to have the question of the legality of this rate contested if a delay in proceeding with the Bill affords the opportunity. I repeat that undertaking.

Motion made, and Question put— That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. E. J. C. Morton.)

The House divided:—Ayes 106; Noes 217.—(Division List No. 215.)

AYES.
Allan, William (Gateshead) Hogan, James Francis Reid, Sir Robert T.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Holburn, J. G. Richardson, J. (Durham)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Horniman, Frederick John Rickett, J. Compton
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Robertson, E. (Dundee)
Billson, Alfred Jacoby, James Alfred Robson, William Snowdon
Broadhurst, Henry Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E. Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)
Brunner, Sir John T. Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire) Schwann, Charles E.
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Jordan, Jeremiah Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U. Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Burt, Thomas Labouchere, Henry Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)
Buxton, Sydney Charles Lambert, George Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Caldwell, James Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land) Souttar, Robinson
Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow) Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington) Spicer, Albert
Causton, Richard Knight Lewis, John Herbert Stevenson, Francis S.
Clough, Walter Owen Lloyd-George, David Strachey, Edward
Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H. Logan, John William Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Crombie, John William Lough, Thomas Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) McCartan, Michael Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)
Daly, James McEwan, William Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.) Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles McLaren, Charles Benjamin Wallace, Robert (Perth)
Doogan, P. C. Maddison, Fred. Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Dunn, Sir William Maden, John Henry Warner, Thomas C. T.
Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan) Mappin, Sir Frederick T. Wayman, Thomas
Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton) Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen) Williams, John C. (Notts)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Morley, C. (Breconshire) Wills, Sir William Henry
Flavin, Michael Joseph Norton, Captain Cecil W. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.) Nussey, Thomas Willans Wilson, John (Govan)
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary) Woodall, William
Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.) Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudd'rsf'd)
Gold, Charles Palmer, Sir Charles M. Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)
Gourley, Sir E. Temperley Paulton, James Mellor Yoxall, James Henry
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Philipps, John Wynford
Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale- Pickersgill, Edward Hare TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Edward Morton and Mr. Brynmor Jones.
Healy, T. M. (N. Louth) Pinkerton, John
Hedderwick, T. C. H. Pirie, Duncan V.
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H. Price, Robert John
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. Arrol, Sir William Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r)
Aird, John Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)
Allsopp, Hon. George Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy Banbury, Frederick George
Anstruther, H. T. Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness) Barnes, Frederic Gorell
Arnold, Alfred Balcarres, Lord Bartley, George C. T.
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Baldwin, Alfred Barton, Dunbar Plunket
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. Murray, C. J. (Coventry)
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l) Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Murray, Col. W. (Bath)
Beckett, Ernest William Goulding, Edward Alfred Newark, Viscount
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Gray, Ernest (W. Ham) Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Bethell, Commander Green, W. D. (Wednesbury) Nicol, Donald Ninian
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs) Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.
Biddulph, Michael Gull, Sir Cameron O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Bigwood, James Gunter, Colonel O'Kelly, James
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Hammond, John (Carlow) Pease, Arthur (Darlington)
Brassey, Albert Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W. Pender, Sir James
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hanson, Sir Reginald Penn, John
Brown, Alexander H. Hare, Thomas Leigh Philpotts, Captain Arthur
Burdett-Coutts, W. Haslett, Sir James Horner Pierpoint, Robert
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs) Hayden, John Patrick Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) Heaton, John Henniker Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Helder, Augustus Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. E.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Henderson, Alexander Purvis, Robert
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Hill, Rt. Hn. A. S. (Staffs) Pym, C. Guy
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) Hobhouse, Henry Renshaw, Charles Bine
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Holland, Hon. Lionel R. Richards, Henry Charles
Chelsea, Viscount Houldsworth, Sir W. H. Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Howard, Joseph Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.
Coddington, Sir William Howell, William Tudor Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.
Coghill, Douglas Harry Hozier, Hon. James H. Cecil Rothschild, Baron F. J. de
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice- Round, James
Colomb, Sir John Charles R. Jebb, Richard Claverhouse Royds, Clement Molyneux
Colston, C. E. H. Athole Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D. Kemp, George Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)
Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H. Kenyon, James Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Cox, Robert King, Sir Henry Seymour Scott, Sir S. (Mary'bone, W.)
Cranborne, Viscount Lafone, Alfred Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cripps, Charles Alfred Laurie, Lieut.-General Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Lawrence Sir E. Durning- (Corn.) Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)
Cross, H. S. (Bolton) Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool) Simeon, Sir Barrington
Cruddas, William Donaldson Lawson, John Grant (Yorks) Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Spencer, Ernest
Dalbiac, Colonel Philip H. Leighton, Stanley Stanley, Lord (Lancs)
Dalkeith, Earl of Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset) Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a) Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Lockwood, Lt.-Colonel A. R. Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.
Dorington, Sir John E. Loder, Gerald Walter E. Stone, Sir Benjamin
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Drage, Geoffrey Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l) Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Uny.)
Drucker, A. Lopes, Henry Yards Buller Thorburn, Walter
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Lorne, Marquess of Tollemache, Henry James
Edwards, General Sir J. B. Loyd, Archie Kirkman Tomlinson, W. E. Murray
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Lucas-Shadwell, William Tritton, Charles Ernest
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D. Macaleese, Daniel Usborne, Thomas
Fardell, Sir T. George Macartney, W. G. Ellison Valentia, Viscount
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E. Maclure, Sir John William Walrond, Sir William Hood
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc.) McCalmont, Mj.-Gn. (Ant'm N.) Waring, Colonel Thomas
Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) McKillop, James Warr, Augustus Frederick
Field, William (Dublin) Manners, Lord E. W. J. Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)
Finlay, Sir Robert B. Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.
Firbank, Joseph Thomas Mildmay, Francis Bingham Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Fisher, William Hayes Milner, Sir Frederick George Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)
Fitz Wygram, General Sir F. Milton, Viscount Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Flannery, Fortescue Monckton, Edward Philip Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks)
Folkestone, Viscount Monk, Charles James Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)
Moon, Edward Robert P. Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Galloway, William Johnson More, Robert Jasper Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Garfit, William Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.) Wyndham, George
Gedge, Sydney Morrell, George Herbert Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Gibbons, J. Lloyd Morris, Samuel
Giles, Charles Tyrrell Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Boulnois and Mr. Knowles.
Godson, Sir Augustus F. Muntz, Philip A.
Gordon, Hon. John Edward Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

Debate resumed—

MR. LEWIS

I hope, Sir, after what has happened the Government will see the advisability of persuading their supporters to withdraw the Bill for the present Session. We have it shown on the clearest and the highest evidence by the honourable Member for Swansea that the rate of Marylebone does not come within the exceptions of the Act of 1868, and that has raised the greatest possible doubt as to whether the rate in the parish of Marylebone is legal at all. In addition to that, we have had an undertaking given by an honourable Member on this side of the House that the case shall be tested in the Law Courts. Under these circumstances it surely is only reasonable that the matter should stand over until such time as the case has been legally tested; otherwise the probability is that we shall be throwing away £100,000 of the money of the ratepayers of Marylebone, who, after all, comprise a large number of Nonconformists, in payment of a liability which is absolutely illegal. That is a proposition to which the House ought not to commit itself, and we ought to have a clear and full reply to the points which have been raised on this side of the House before we proceed any further with this Bill. It is only reasonable that an opportunity should be given of testing fairly and fully the important legal point which has been raised by the honourable Member for Swansea. I do not see the law officers of the Crown in their place. I should have been glad if we could have had the advantage of their presence and advice in this Debate, because the question which has been raised is of the utmost importance, and one which I think ought not to be settled hurriedly by the House.

MR. BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

I for one have listened very carefully to this Debate, and it does seem to me that every Member of the House, whichever side he sits, who has given this matter his attention must feel that the aspect of the question has altered very much since the commencement of the Debate. On that ground I appeal to the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House whether he would not be well advised if he were to endeavour to persuade those who are supporting this Bill to withdraw it in order that it may be properly considered from a legal point of view. There can be no immediate hurry. The Vote has gone on for the long period of 90 years, and it cannot be of material importance if it continues for one year more. I am aware that I am speaking as a layman, and not as a lawyer, but the point I would ask the right honourable Gentleman to consider is this—it was assumed when this Bill was introduced that this rate did not come under the purview of the general Act of 1868. Surely it is not right, therefore, when we have high legal authority that the rate does not come within the exceptions of the Act, when we have a pledge given by an honourable Member that he is prepared to test its legality, that we should continue this Debate. Under these circumstances, I appeal to my honourable Friend who has charge of the Bill, and to the House generally, from the point of view of fairness, not to proceed with the matter hurriedly.

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! The House has been invited to pronounce its opinion on the question of the adjournment, and it has given that opinion; and I do not think it is right for the honourable Member to raise again the question of adjournment.

MR. BUXTON

What I understand is that the question before us is whether the Bill shall be read now or this day six months. I was endeavouring to show that the Bill might not be read now, but be deferred, as far as I had been able to develop my points, and I am bound to say it is one which merits the attention of the Government and of the House, because this matter has been to a certain extent sprung upon us, and has assumed a different aspect since the commencement of the Debate.

Question put— That the word 'now,' stand part of the Question.

The House divided:—Ayes 220; Noes 128.—(Division List No. 216.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F. Fardell, Sir T. George Macartney, W. G. Ellison
Aird, John Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E. Maclure, Sir John William
Allsopp, Hon. George Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r) McCalmont, Mj.-Gn. (Ant'm N.)
Anstruther, H. T. Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) McKillop, James
Arnold, Alfred Finlay, Sir Robert B. Manners, Lord E. W. J.
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Firbank, Joseph Thomas Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)
Arrol, Sir William Fisher, William Hayes Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Fitz Wygram, General Sir F. Milner, Sir Frederick George
Bagot, Captain J. FitzRoy Flannery, Fortescue Milton, Viscount
Bailey, James (Walworth) Folkestone, Viscount Monckton, Edward Philip
Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness) Galloway, William Johnson Monk, Charles James
Balcarres, Lord Garfit, William Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)
Baldwin, Alfred Gedge, Sydney Moon, Edward Robert P.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r) Gibbons, J. Lloyd More, Robert Jasper
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds) Giles, Charles Tyrrell Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.)
Banbury, Frederick George Godson, Sir Augustus F. Morrell, George Herbert
Barnes, Frederic Gorell Gordon, Hon. John Edward Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)
Bartley, George C. T. Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. Muntz, Philip A.
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. Goulding, Edward Alfred Murray, C. J. (Coventry)
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l) Gray, Ernest (W. Ham) Murray, Col. W. (Bath)
Beckett, Ernest William Green, W. D. (Wednesbury) Newark, Viscount
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs) Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Bethell, Commander Gull, Sir Cameron Nicol, Donald Ninian
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Gunter, Colonel Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.
Bigwood, James Hall, Sir Charles O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. O'Kelly, James
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W. Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay
Brassey, Albert Hanson, Sir Reginald Pease, Arthur (Darlington)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hardy, Laurence Pender, Sir James
Brown, Alexander H. Hare, Thomas Leigh Penn, John
Burdett-Coutts, W. Haslett, Sir James Horner Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs) Hayden, John Patrick Pierpoint, Robert
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) Heaton, John Henniker Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Helder, Augustus Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)
Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich) Henderson, Alexander Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. E.
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Hill, Rt. Hn. A. S. (Staffs) Purvis, Robert
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) Hobhouse, Henry Renshaw, Charles Bine
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Holland, Hon. Lionel R. Richards, Henry Charles
Chelsea, Viscount Houldsworth, Sir W. H. Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Houston, R. P. Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.
Coddington, Sir William Howard, Joseph Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.
Coghill, Douglas Harry Howell, William Tudor Rothschild, Baron F. J. de
Colomb, Sir John C. R. Hozier, Hon. J. H. Cecil Royds, Clement Molyneux
Colston, C. E. H. Athole Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice- Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D. Jebb, Richard Claverhouse Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)
Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H. Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Saunderson, Col. E. James
Cox, Robert Jenkins, Sir John Jones Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Cranborne, Viscount Kenyon, James Scott, Sir S. (Mary'bone, W.)
Cripps, Charles Alfred King, Sir Henry Seymour Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Lafone, Alfred Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)
Cross, H. S. (Bolton) Laurie, Lieut.-General Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)
Cruddas, William Donaldson Lawrence, Sir E. Durning- (Corn.) Simeon, Sir Barrington
Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool) Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Dalbiac, Colonel Philip H. Lawson, John Grant (Yorks) Spencer, Ernest
Dalkeith, Earl of Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Stanley, Lord (Lancs)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Leighton, Stanley Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)
Davenport, W. Bromley- Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset) Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)
Davies, H. D. (Chatham) Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a) Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Denny, Colonel Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Stone, Sir Benjamin.
Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P. Loder, Gerald Walter E. Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester
Dorington, Sir John Edward Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham) Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Uny.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l) Thorburn, Walter
Drage, Geoffrey Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Tollemache, Henry James
Drucker, A. Lorne, Marquess of
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Lowles, John Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Edwards, General Sir J. B. Loyd, Archie Kirkman Tritton, Charles Ernest
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Lucas-Shadwell, William Usborne, Thomas
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D. Macaleese, Daniel Valentia, Viscount
Walrond, Sir William Hood Williams, J. Powell (Birm.) Wylie, Alexander
Waring, Col. Thomas Wilson, John (Falkirk) Wyndham, George
Warr, Augustus Frederick Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks)
Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras) Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Boulnois and Mr. Knowles.
Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L. Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Whitmore, Charles Algernon Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
NOES.
Allan, William (Gateshead) Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale- Paulton, James Mellor
Ambrose, Robert (Mayo, W.) Hazell, Walter Philipps, John Wynford
Ashton, Thomas Gair Hedderwick, T. C. H. Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Atherley-Jones, L. Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H. Pinkerton, John
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Hogan, James Francis Pirie, Duncan V.
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Holburn, J. G. Price, Robert John
Billson, Alfred Horniman, Frederick John Richardson, J. (Durham)
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn) Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Rickett, J. Compton
Broadhurst, Henry Jacoby, James Alfred Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Johnson-Ferguson, J. E. Robson, William Snowdon
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire) Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Jordan, Jeremiah Schwann, Charles E.
Burt, Thomas Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt. Hn. Sir U. Shaw, C. E. (Stafford)
Buxton, Sydney Charles Kemp, George Shaw, T. (Hawick B.)
Caldwell, James Labouchere, Henry Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)
Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow) Lambert, George Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Causton, Richard Knight Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land) Souttar, Robinson
Clough, Walter Owen Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington) Spicer, Albert
Condon, Thomas Joseph Leuty, Thomas Richmond Stanhope, Hon. P. J.
Cozens-Hardy, Herbert H. Lewis, John Herbert Stevenson, Francis S.
Crean, Eugene Lloyd-George, David Strachey, Edward
Crombie, John William Logan, John William Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) Lough, Thomas Sullivan, T. D. (Donegal, W.)
Daly, James MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qn's C.) Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardig'n) McArthur, W. (Cornwall) Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Davitt, Michael McCartan, Michael Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles McEwan, William Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)
Dillon, John M'Hugh E. (Armagh, S.) Wallace, Robert (Perth)
Donelan, Captain A. McKenna, Reginald Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Doogan, P. C. McLaren, Charles Benjamin Warner, Thomas C. T.
Dunn, Sir William Maddison, Fred. Wayman, Thomas
Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton) Maden, John Henry Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Mandeville, J. Francis Williams, John C. (Notts)
Flavin, Michael Joseph Mappin, Sir Frederick T. Wills, Sir William Henry
Flynn, James Christopher Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.) Morris, Samuel Wilson, John (Govan)
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) Woodall, William
Gilhooly, James Norton, Captain Cecil W. Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (H'dd'rsf'ld)
Goddard, Daniel Ford Nussey, Thomas Willans Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)
Gold, Charles O'Brien, J. F. X. (Cork) Yoxall, James Henry
Gourley, Sir E. Temperley O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary).
Griffith, Ellis J. O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Brynmor Jones and Mr. Charles Morley.
Hammond, John (Carlow) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Palmer, Sir Charles M.

Main Question put, and agreed to; Bill read a second time, and committed.