HC Deb 28 July 1898 vol 63 cc210-37

On the Order for the Third Reading of the Marylebone Churches Bill,

MR. BRYNMOR JONES (Swansea District)

The Amendments, Sir, to this Bill, which are alleged to have been of a verbal character, might have been made when the Bill was before the Unopposed Bills Committee. They were not proposed, apparently in order to avoid the Report stage of this Bill; and I wish to put as a point of order in reference to that question, whether it is competent to, first, move Amendments and call them verbal Amendments of this kind, when there is an opportunity of moving them at the proper time, and when the exact effect of them can be considered; and, secondly, when an Amendment is down on the Paper which proposes to leave out the word "black" and insert the word "white," as is done in one of these Amendments, whether it comes within the meaning of the Rule, and should be called a verbal Amendment, although it substantially alters the meaning of the clause.


I have examined the Amendments with the Bill, and am satisfied that they are mere verbal Amendments, such as may be properly moved at this stage.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That the Bill be now read the third time.

Amendment proposed— To leave out the words 'now read the third time,' and add the words 'recommitted to the former Committee 'instead thereof."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon)

I move that the Bill be recommitted, and I do so owing to the circumstances under which the Bill was rushed through Committee. I characterise it as the unseemly haste with which this Bill has been smuggled through this House as an unopposed Bill, when there was known to be the very strongest opposition to it by Members of this House, some of whom were ratepayers of the parish concerned. That was one of the many little schemes which have been adopted in order to avoid a discussion on the terms of this Bill. And now, Sir, I wish to draw your attention to this: there was an arrangement with those who are responsible for the promotion of the Bill, that discussion should take place on a particular day. In the meantime the Bill is taken without notice given to those who oppose it, without a word being said about it, and whilst there is a notice on the Parliamentary Paper indicating that a very important discussion is to take place on the following Monday. That is a proceeding of which the promoters cannot be very proud. I submit that this course ought not to have been taken, except under very exceptional circumstances. That course has, I know, been taken once or twice before, but the circumstances were of so extraordinary a character, and it was such a case of urgency, that the Government took upon themselves the responsibility of adopting that course, but there was nothing in this case to call for anything like that. There were three weeks of the Session left, and that was ample time. The Instruction would have been decided on the Monday, and the Bill ought to have been taken through Committee on the Tuesday. Even if this Instruction had been carried it would not have interfered materially with the progress of the Bill. All that would have been necessary, if the Instruction had been carried, would have been to insert a few clauses omitting this Instruction. But the real object of the underhand procedure adopted was in order to stop discussion upon this job which is proceeding in the parish of Marylebone. The promoters may object to such a description of their proceedings, but anyone who goes through this Bill as we have gone through it must come to the conclusion that it is a very gross job indeed. Property belonging to the parish is handed over to another body—the control of it is handed over to another body—property worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. Rights of patronage are handed over. In a sense they are rights of patronage, because these appointments are not to be made without the consent of the vestry; those rights are handed over without compensation. The sanction of the vestry has to be obtained before certain clerical property is handed over; but the vestry, when called upon to pay £83,000 for the privilege of handing over property worth two or three hundred thousand pounds, quietly assents. This is an extraordinary proceeding, and I can understand why the promoters of the Bill are exceedingly anxious that as little discussion as possible should take place upon the details of the Bill. Why are they so anxious to get it through in the dark and underhand manner adopted all along by the promoters? Because they are afraid of public opinion. There is no man who can defend this Bill upon the principle of a fair and open transaction between one body and another. It is not a bargain, and if it is called a bargain, it is a very bad one; and if the vestry were simply acting as trustees for the ratepayers, they might have made very much better terms than those. They might have said, "We will hand you over this property on condition that you will give us a complete discharge of all liability. But their action in this matter is worthy of a Mullingar board of guardians. It is a perfect job, and they know that well, and that is the reason they wish to hide it from the light of public discussion. There was a very important question raised in this House, which ought to be thrashed out in a Committee of this House. That is the question of the 2d. rate. The learned Attorney General made an ingenious speech, which I fully admit made out a case that appeared at the time to be irresistible. His case was this: there are two rates in this parish—one is a 4d. rate imposed by an Act of George III., and the other is a 2d. rate imposed by a later Act, by an Act of George IV. With regard to the 4d. rate that is invalid, and has been declared to be so by the Court of Appeal. With regard to the 2d. rate, I understood the learned Attorney General to say that the Court of Appeal had declared that rate to be valid. As a matter of fact the 2d. rate was never before any court at all. We have had no adjudication upon the question of limitation or otherwise of the 2d. rate. The 4d. rate is bad, but the 2d. rate has never been challenged. The learned Attorney General admitted that there was a distinction between the 2d. rate and the 4d. rate. An honourable Member of this House, seeing that the 2d. rate has never yet been challenged, is perfectly prepared to go into every court in the land and test its validity, and he will do so at his own expense. That is a perfectly fair offer. It is not inflicting a costly litigation on the parish of Marylebone, but he will test the validity of this 2d. rate entirely and absolutely at his own expense. That is a very generous and handsome offer, and if it is true that this Bill is purely a bargain, and a fair bargain, made between the vestry, representing the ratepayers, and the ecclesiastical authorities, in order to get rid of a burden upon the parish, and they are paying £80,000 for the purpose of so doing, surely it is well worth their while to accept such an offer, which may get rid of the whole of that burden by the one possible test, and that is the test of litigation, and that at the expense of somebody else. What is the position of the 2d. rate? I understand from the Attorney General that it was on an entirely different base to the 4d. rate. I go to the Act of Parliament which is alluded to in the Marylebone Churches Bill, which is now before the House, and I say that this ought to be thrashed out in Committee of this House, and that is why I am moving the re-committal of this Bill. This 2d. rate is supposed to be valid. Now, see what the Act says which imposes it— And be it further enacted, that it shall and may be lawful to and for the said vestrymen, if they shall think the same necessary, at the like times and in the same manner, and under and subject to the like powers and provisos, as to the persons and property to be assessed, and with all and every the like powers and remedies for recovering and enforcing the payment of the rates so to be assessed, and subject to the same right of appeal, and to every other matter or thing relating to the rates directed to be made under the said first recited Act, to make one or more additional rate or rates, assessment or assessments, upon all and every the person and persons who do or shall inhabit, use, or occupy any land, house, shop, warehouse, coach-house, stable, cellar, vault, building, tenement, hereditament, within the said parish of St. Marylebone, as long as such rate shall be necessary, and so that no such additional rate or rates, assessment or assessments, shall exceed the sum of twopence in the pound in any one year of the full, or according to such proportion of the yearly rent or value as the same property shall from time to time be assessed to the rate for the relief of the poor within the said parish, to the intent that there shall be only one rate now exceeding sixpence in the pound on the value or yearly rent of such property as aforesaid, for carrying the purposes of this Act and the said first recited Act into effect, and for defraying all and every the expenses incident to both such Acts respectively; and the said additional rate or rates shall be collected in like manner and under the like penalties, to all intents and purposes, as the rate or rates assessed under or by virtue of the said first recited Act are directed and enacted to be collected. This rate is imposed in the same way, upon the same persons, in the same manner and the same power as the 4d. rate. If the 4d. rate is invalid, is it such an impossible proposition that the 2d. rate which is to be imposed by the same power and in the same manner may be equally void? It seems to me such an obvious thing, reading the section of the Act of Parliament, seeing that both are on the same basis, as far as that Act is concerned, that it is only fair to accord the parishioners of Marylebone an opportunity of thoroughly testing this question before anything is done. However, I can quite understand that the ecclesiastical gentlemen who will get hold of this £80,000 are very anxious that this question should not be looked into. They do not want it looked into. They want their money. They have had their £4,000 from the parish, and now they want another £80,000. It is only another illustration of the policy pursued by the Unionist Party in this Parliament. That Party has given two millions to one set of its friends, three-quarters of a million to another, £700,000 to another this year, and now they say to the parish of Marylebone, We have just given £700,000 to the landlords of Ireland, and we will give £80,000 to the clergy of Marylebone. That is the policy which was laid down by the Secretary of State for India. He said, "What is the task which the Government have to perform?" and the answer really contains the whole principle involved in the Marylebone Churches Bill. It was, "It is to safeguard and protect the interests of our friends, not only while we are in office, but even in the contingency of our being out, that we have asked throughout." That is the principle on which they have acted. They want to safeguard the interests of their friends. A 2d. rate is liable to be abolished. It may be decided in the Court of Appeal at the expense of somebody else. It is this possibility that the Court of Appeal may show this rate to be what it decided the 4d. rate to be, namely, a bad and invalid rate, that the Government say, "We want to protect our friends. We must make the thing perfectly secure and safe, and the next Parliament may not be inclined to jobs of this kind, like the present Parliament is. We have elections at Heading and elsewhere, which indicate the opinion of the country as to the Marylebone Churches Bill and the Agricultural Rating Bill; therefore we want to give you £80,000." This, I say, is peculiarly a question which ought to be looked into by a Committee of the House of Commons, and that is my reason for moving its re-committal. As I understand that my honourable Friend may not be allowed to move his instruction afterwards, I will move his.


The honourable Member will be in just as good a position in a general way as in a particular way.

MR. HARWOOD (Bolton)

I beg to second the Motion of my honourable Friend, but I do so not quite on the grounds brought before the House by him. In that I disagree with him. I would ask the House to look at this question apart from any considerations which have been introduced or apart from any considerations of sectarianism or of party. As to the reasons that have compelled us to bring this matter forward I can only say that I believe that the promoters of this Bill have nothing whatever to do with the unfortunate circumstances to which attention has been drawn, but I earnestly hope that in future it will not frequently happen that arrangements which are made are broken by such another unfortunate accident. With regard to the Bill itself generally I support this Motion, not because I am opposed to the principle of the Bill as a general principle, because my position is that I am in favour of the principle of this Bill, for I take it that the particular principle of this Bill is to make the work in the Church of this district of Marylebone more effectual and more satisfactory by removing from it the friction of public irritation and all cause of ill-feeling; therefore, in that sense I am prepared to support the principle of some arrangement. I think it is wise that there should be some arrangement, not only in the interests of the Church, but also in the interests of good-fellowship and good-feeling in the neighbourhood. We do not, therefore, object to their making a bargain; but the question is as to what sort of a bargain is made. This is not a fair bargain. It is not a bargain such as the Church ought to have initiated or such as this House should sanction. It is said that the vestry has consented, and therefore we have no right to raise this matter; but I think that everyone who knows anything about London knows how difficult it is to rouse public opinion and public enthusiasm. Therefore, because the vestry has sanctioned anything of the kind, it is by no means certain that public feeling is in favour of the bargain. In my opinion it is rather a sign that they do not know anything about it. I venture, therefore, to consider the bargain quite apart from all considerations of sect and quite apart from all considerations of political party. I want to consider whether these terms between the public and the Church are such as the House ought to sanction, and I may at once venture to say that they are not. I wish the House to look at the matter as a matter of bargain between the people of Marylebone, and not to look at it as a matter of church, or of chapel, or of sect. It is purely and simply a matter to consider whether this is for the best interests of the public of Marylebone. The Church of England as a body cannot hold property. Every parish church is a corporation sole in the ordinary term, and therefore we must consider the bargain as it will affect the particular place. I take as an example one of the most important churches with which I have myself been personally associated and of whose circumstances I know a great deal, and when we are asked to consider what is the bargain made between the public of Marylebone and the church of Christ Church let us see what the church of Christ Church is. There are, of course, some slight differences in the arrangements, but the principle is the same. In the first place, the church, the building, and the land were found by public money, certainly the building was found by public money entirely, and the fabric is made over to the rector in the usual way. Therefore they get that church given them. Then, in the second place, Christ Church gets a sum not exceeding £130 per annum towards the maintenance of the fabric—that is, £130 per annum in perpetuity for the maintenance of the fabric. And in addition to that they get a sum not exceeding £220 per annum towards the maintenance of divine worship. And then there is a further sum of £400 a year towards the rector's salary. Thus we have three items in addition to the absolute gift of the fabric. First, £130 a year for the fabric; second, £220 a year for the maintenance of divine worship; third, £400 a year towards the rector's salary. Now, how about pew rents? In regard to pew rents a considerable sum is being raised from that source in the different churches, but I am dealing specially with Christ Church. What has been the proceeding hitherto with regard to these pew rents? As you will see on page 2 of the Bill, they are vested in the vestry up to the present moment, and until the Bill passes the pew rents continue to be vested in the vestry; the building is vested in the vestry, and it belongs to the vestry; and the ordinary method has been that the pew rents collected have gone to the credit of this particular account. What are you doing now? You are capitalising the debit side of the account. You are giving up your money and your securities, and a fund which was a set-off against your expenditure. That is the condition of affairs at the present moment. What are the people getting in return? It is fair that there should be a bargain. It is fair to remember that the people now are bound to provide for the carrying on of these churches. That is the obligation which they have to face, and the value of which this House must consider. But, in considering the value of that obligation, remember that that obligation is not a perpetual one. The obligation depends upon an Act of Parliament, and what Parliament has done Parliament can undo; and I beg the House to consider further that this obligation is one which depends upon public feeling, and that public feeling is running, as it were, contrary to imposts of this kind. Does anyone now contend that this House would sanction a Bill to make a church rate compulsory? Has not the history of the past 25 years shown that such a proceeding would be utterly futile? Such Acts of Parliament are bound to be swept away when once our attention is called to them. That is why this Bill is brought in. This Bill is brought in because the Marylebone churches have no perpetual security, and because it is well known that when a change of public feeling takes place, which invariably follows public attention being called to them, such things are certain to be swept away. But what are you doing? As I halve said before, this obligation is not a perpetual one; it may cease this year or next. But this Bill values that obligation in perpetuity. Practically speaking, it sells this £4,000 a year for a lump sum of £80,000; therefore, it guarantees £4,000 a year for ever. Therefore, I say that it is not fair to the public of Marylebone, and because the public of Marylebone has not awakened to the fact of its unfairness, that is no reason why this House should not look after the public interests of the parishioners of Marylebone. We are here to guard the interests of those who cannot help themselves, and therefore we will not sanction a bargain—or, I should say, we ought not to sanction a bargain—which is not fair to the public. I do not ask for the money to be altered, or for the financial arrangements to be altered, but I do ask that something shall be done, at any rate, which shall show the public that we have some regard to their rights in this matter. One thing the House can do. Considering that the fabric is given, the land given, income given, funds for the repair of the fabric given, funds for maintaining Divine worship given, surely the least thing the House can do is to allow the public to go into their own churches for nothing. This was the precedent which was followed last year. Two new churches were built in the place of an old one—an old church built under an Act like this—and this condition was inserted in the Bill— All sittings in the new church of St. Peter and Christ Church respectively shall be free and unappropriated. In this case you make over the pew rents to the authorities. It is quite true that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners may alter this arrangement, but I have not so very much confidence in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as some people have; and not only so, but if a bargain is being struck the fundamental conditions of that bargain ought to appear on the face of the bargain. You ought not to take the whole advantage on one side and leave everything on the other side to the determination of some other authority which is not acquainted with the facts. I differ from most of my colleagues in this matter. I have, for many years, steadily upheld the value of a national Church, because I believe that such a Church is good for the nation and good for the Church. It is good for politics, for it keeps them high. It ought to be good for the Church, because it ought to keep it practical. We have had some discussions about ritual and doctrine in reference to the old Catholic idea. I ask the House, is this a matter of return to the old Catholic idea? Anyone who has read knows that the highest and best ideal of any church is that ideal which makes it the protector of the people, and not the plunderer of the people. It is not easy to stand un for these things and to uphold these views which are contrary to the feelings of your colleagues, but that task will be made much more difficult if a Church does not recognise that a national Church ought to be national—national in sympathy, national in ideal, and national in method. The ideal, surely, of a national Church in a democratic country is that is should stand upon a democratic basis—that it should be open to ail. I have pleaded for the Church, because it is not congregational, but because it is parochial, and the power of that position is this, that because it is parochial it is open to all, without money and without price. Now, here is an opportunity of carrying out that principle into action. I have seen honourable Members and heard honourable Members on the other side of the House pleading for this principle of open churches—pleading for this democratic principle of no pews and no pew rents. Can you ever have an opportunity so good for carrying their views into practice as this affords you? Will you ever have so good a chance of carrying out this principle as this one affords you, where you have the fact that the churches were given for nothing, and that an income was guaranteed? I have a letter coining from a well-known parishioner, which puts the case so very simply that I will read it, if the House will allow me. I may say that this is from one of the most well-known parishioners in Marylebone, and one of the most well-known Members of this House.

[At this point a person in the Strangers' Gallery loudly clapped his hands.]


That disorderly person is to be removed from the Gallery immediately.

MR. HARWOOD (after reading the letter referred to)

Another point I want to make is this, that this district of Marylebone, as honourable Members know, is largely changing its character. A new railway and a new station have been brought there, and the population has become almost exclusively a poor population. What is it we are asking for? We say that if the Church is a national Church it must be open to the poorest and to the masses of the people, and I beg Members of this House to take this opportunity of illustrating in London that, in a large area of London, the Church—the National Church of England—can safely rest upon the broad and sound principles of trust in the people.

MR. BOULNOIS (Marylebone, E.)

I really must apologise to the House for obtruding myself upon its attention again upon this subject, but it is impossible for me to leave entirely unanswered the matters which have, been brought forward by the two honourable Gentlemen who have moved and seconded that this Bill be re-committed. I fancy that the House must have got tired of the Marylebone Churches Bill. Every Parliamentary device that is known to delay and obstruct and defeat the Bill has been exhausted probably by now. The honourable Member for Carnarvon says that this Bill has been rushed through the House—that unseemly haste has been used with regard to it. But it does not so very often happen to the lot of a private Bill that there should be no less than three Debates upon it, and three Divisions upon it, before it comes to the third stage, and I suppose we shall have a Division upon the re-committal, and probably another upon the Third Reading. As I said on a former occasion, this is an ordinary Bill, treated in an ordinary way. As regards the complaint of the honourable Member for Carnarvon, there has been nothing whatever, as far as I know, outside the ordinary rules and regulations of the House, applied to this Bill which does not apply to every Bill. This is an unopposed Bill; there was neither opposition nor objection from any parties at all, excepting the petition which was not allowed to be put upon the forms of the House. The honourable Member for Carnarvon has disclaimed any desire to defeat the Bill.


No, I did not.


The course taken by the Welsh Nonconformists and their friends on this subject has indicated that their desire is to get rid of the Bill in any manner they can. The Member for Carnarvon says that the promoters of the Bill have no desire that the Bill should be discussed. The promoters are the Vestry of Marylebone, and that vestry represents the inhabitants of Marylebone. As I have said before, upon two or three occasions, I represent to the House, as an earnest of the bonâ fides of the Vestry of Marylebone, that there has been no opposition against this Bill from the ratepayers of Marylebone. It is true that a public meeting was called to denounce the Bill, at which there were to be no less than three prominent Members of Parliament, but they could collect only 50 persons, and that, to my mind, hardly seems to indicate a strong feeling against this Bill. The honourable Member for Carnarvon used a lovely word with reference to the Bill—he says it is a job. The job is this: it is to get rid of a rate which falls upon the ratepayers in perpetuity, and to substitute for it a charge which will exist for 30 years, and no more. The honourable Member for Bolton says that the rate is not in perpetuity. That is preaching again the doctrine of repudiation and confiscation, and it is quite clear that where Parliament has imposed upon a local authority an obligation which takes the shape of a money payment, Parliament is not likely to disturb an arrangement of that kind unless an equivalent is given for it in some shape. Now, with regard to the continued suggestion that the rate is illegal, those honourable Members of the House who heard the Attorney General, I think, were perfectly satisfied with the lucid explanation which he gave—so lucid, indeed, that no Member on the other side of the House ventured to get up and answer the statement so made. Then the honourable Member for Bolton says that it is not a fair bargain, and he poses as the guardian of the ratepayers of Marylebone, who cannot look after themselves. I have lived in Marylebone all my life, and I can say that the inhabitants of Marylebone are quite as sensible as most people are, and can look after themselves equally well without the interference of gentlemen who have nothing to do with the Bill. I assure the House, Mr. Speaker, that this is a first-rate bargain. I do not say that it is so good a bargain for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but for the ratepayers it is a first-rate bargain. There is the commutation of a rate for the lump sum of £80,000, the payment for which is spread over 30 years, and, as a matter of fact, the ratepayers, who at the end of 30 years; will be quite free, will have been compelled to pay no more than they could have been compelled to pay for the next 300 years. I am not going into details with the honourable Member, but he alluded to Christ Church. That was a most unfortunate choice of his, because the House must be reminded that Christ Church is situated in one of the poorest districts in London, and that the pew rents which are receivable from the people are so small that they are not sufficient to maintain the services. The Nonconformists object to a church rate, and very naturally and very properly. The Vestry of Marylebone have a church rate which the Nonconformists have to pay, and they are making an honest attempt to relieve the Nonconformists of the burden of that church rate. The position of honourable Gentlemen opposite is not logical. They say they do not like the imposition of a church rate, and yet they will not allow a Bill to pass which will relieve the inhabitants of that church rate, and it looks to me as if they prefer to nurse and keep their grievances against the Church alive. I hope that the House will not indulge them in that luxury, because it would be a great expense to the inhabitants of Marylebone. I sincerely hope that the House will this afternoon, refuse to recommit this Bill, but will read it a third time, and pass it into law as speedily as possible.


I do not rise for the purpose of repeating again the arguments which have been urged of a general character against this Bill; but I do think, Sir, that the parishioners and ratepayers of this very large parish have some right to complain of the way in which the Standing Orders relating to private Bills have been, applied and utilised for the purpose of getting this private Bill through Parliament this Session. I will ask the House to recollect what the position was last Thursday. There were three Motions down "By Order," and two other Notices of Motion, and Instructions for Committee had been also placed down on the Paper, but they were not "By Order." In accordance with the usual practice when there is a Motion down against a Bill, you, Sir, said that the Bill must go over till next day, and then my honourable Friend the Member for East Marylebone said "Monday," and subsequently Monday was agreed on. After that, I saw both him and the Parliamentary agent, and by arrangement the Motions were deferred till the following Thursday, that is, to this day. But, in the meantime, without any notice given to us, the Unopposed Bills Committee deal with the matter. I had foreseen that, Sir, and earlier in the week I saw the Parliamentary agent. Possibly, what the Unopposed Bill Committee did was in accordance with the Standing Orders, but, as I say, I saw the Parliamentary agent, and, according to my recollection of the conversation, and I am very clear about it, the general effect was that, so far as the notices of Motion that you, Sir, ordered remained on the Paper, the Bill would not be taken by the Unopposed Bill Committee. Now, I acquit my honourable Friend the Member for East Marylebone of any sharp practice whatever. I know him to be quite incapable of such a proceeding. But I do not know how the matter stands as far as the Parliamentary agents are concerned. In an important matter of this kind we should have an explanation as to how the matter came to be proceeded with without any communication, and without reference to the arrangement which I understood had been made between those who opposed the Bill and the agent for the Bill. I only say that by way of answering the charge of obstruction made by my honourable Friend the Member for East Marylebone. I absolutely deny the charge of obstruction. I thought we had made a fair arrangement by which we could raise every Motion by way of instruction to the Committee, and that the matter should go on in the ordinary course. I have one or two other remarks to offer in order that the House may not come to a decision upon this matter without knowing the absolute state of things in this parish. One of the most important vestrymen of the parish, Mr. J. Lewis, has handed me this communication— The inhabitants of Marylebone have never had the question before them, and are mostly ignorant of what is now being done. It was in the hands of a sub-committee, and ultimately rushed through the vestry in face of a strong minority. Mr. Boulnois' statement that the report was adopted nem. con. is misleading, for it applied only to the principle of the severance of the vestry and the churches—6th May, 1897—and not to the terms, which were resolutely opposed, as the minutes show—14th October, 1897, 11th November, 1897. 18th November, 1897, 15th June, 1898. Sir E. Galsworthy, a staunch Conservative, and the most influential member of the vestry, is prepared to give evidence in support of the above statement. That is the state of things as recollected by men of a representative character. One word further in regard to the statement of the character of the bargain made by the Attorney General and my honourable Friend the Member for East Marylebone. My honourable Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has accurately stated the legal and actual position. The 4d. rate—the rate imposed under the Act of 1811, is illegal—that has been decided by the Court of Appeal. The 2d. rate imposed by the Act of George the Fourth has never been judicially tested. The Attorney General has given an opinion, and, coming from him, I need not say it is one which I, at any rate, would attach the utmost importance to. The Attorney General says that the rate condemned has never been levied.


Not since 1889.


I accept the challenge, and I ask how comes it that as late as June, 1898, the vestry paid £20 towards the cost of repairing the bells and other repairs to the parish church. The parish church is the church dealt with by the Act of 1811, and if the Attorney General's proposition is true, no part of the rate ought to be applied to the repair of anything connected with the parish church. That is only one thing we have discovered. We have not had time to investigate the whole of the matter, but still that is one important item, and I have very little doubt that if time were afforded us by this House to go into the matter that we should find there have been great irregularities in the collection of these rates, and I am prepared to accept the statement of the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General that he is speaking from information which he has received, but which I submit is not in accordance with the documents I have in my hand connected with the vestry. There is one other point, and one only: I do not think that when the Attorney General and my honourable Friend explained this bargain to the House that they made the position quite clear. It was said that the 2d. rate comes to so much. That amount was capitalised at 30 years' purchase, and it works out at £80,000, which is the sum now in this Bill; but the House was not informed that, on the other side, there is a credit income. The pew rents ought to be credited to the parish, and, even adopting the principle of this Bill, that this is a perpetual liability and not a terminal liability any year, any man will see that you must, in arriving at this amount, deduct the value of these pew rents for the next 30 years. I am only dealing with the income and liability. But is nothing to be allowed in assuming the value of this liability? Is nothing to be allowed for the fee simple of these sites? There is nothing to prevent our bringing in a Bill for taking these sites, and using them for other purposes. I do not wish to shook the susceptibilities of other Members, but I must say these are extremely valuable sites; the population has increased, and I put it to any business man who will approach this matter with an unbiased mind whether something ought not to be allowed for the capital value of the land and the value of the buildings. I think I have made clear to the House the nature of this bargain. I assert that it is a bad bargain, and there is a strong minority in the vestry which agrees with me that it is a bad bargain, and I complain very much of the way in which the promoters of this Bill have used the forms of this House for their own purposes.


I do not propose to enter into the merits of this question, but as the honourable Member for Swansea has addressed the question tome as to how it was that the Unopposed Bill Committee took this Bill last Friday, I will tell him shortly how it happened. It came about in this way. The time for presenting petitions had lapsed; no petitions against the Bill were presented; due notice was given, in accordance with the forms of the House, that the Bill would be taken—I think it is two days' notice that is required—before the Unopposed Bill Committee, and when the time came the Bill was taken in the ordinary way. I was not informed that any arrangement had been entered into, and I do not believe that any arrangement had been entered into, that the Bill was to be hung over until after the discussion of the Instruction on the Paper of the honourable Member for Carnarvon. If any such arrangement had been entered into that the Bill was to be hung up, and was not to be taken, until the Instruction had been disposed of, I should not, under the circumstances, have taken the Bill. I was not informed that any such arrangement had been entered into, and I do not believe that any such arrangement was entered into. Therefore, in the ordinary course, I took the Bill on Friday last, because I saw no reason why the promoters should not go with the Bill in the usual and ordinary way.


I did not allege that there was any specific arrangement, but that the language used in the Lobby was such as to lead me to suppose that such an arrangement was made. I am speaking about a conversation I had with the Parliamentary agent.

* MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts, Mansfield)

The House has naturally looked to the right honourable Gentleman for some explanation of this most extraordinary proceeding, and I think the House will allow that the explanation is as extraordinary as the proceeding. The right honourable Gentleman pleads ignorance. But it was upon, the Journals of the House that notice had been given of these Instructions, and that they were set down by order of the House; and yet he would have us believe that it was his duty to ignore that fact, and to proceed with the Bill as though no such notice had been given. I will leave the explanation of the right honourable Gentleman with the House. I am struck with the absence of any reasonable and rational defence of the provisions of this Measure. It seems to me that it is sought to carry it by a conspiracy of silence, and yet there are several parties to this Bill. First of all there is the vestry. The vestry has been represented by the honourable Member for East Marylebone, and he has very little more to say in defence of the Bill than that it contains a first-rate bargain. I decline to take his opinion upon that point. He has made no attempt to show that the bargain is of so good a character. He has not replied to the specific objections which have been urged against it. Then the Crown is a party to this transaction. The Crown is the patron of the livings. If I am not misinformed, the First Lord of the Treasury is responsible for the large sum of money which is to be handed over under the provisions of this Bill, and I am sorry he is not here to defend his share of the transaction, Then there is the Bishop of London, and I do not remember that he offered a word of explanation or of defence when the Measure was before the House of Lords. Next there are the incumbents of the churches. I am rather curious to know what Canon Barker and the Rev. Russell Wakefield, and the other reverend gentlemen, whose incomes will be receivable under this Bill, think of the method by which it is proposed they shall be maintained during a long series of years. Then there are the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who are represented in this House by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield. I await with much interest the reason why the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are proceeding in this case on principles so different from those which they have adopted in dealing with analogous cases. There was a vicar's rate in Halifax which was the occasion of great agitation, and the agitation drove the friends of the Church into making an arrangement. But in that case, in the year 1876, the Government, through Mr. Cross, who was then Home Secretary, offered to abolish the rate—to give up the sum of £970 a year—for the comparatively moderate sum of £11,000, or about 12 years' purchase; and the rate was abolished on those terms. The next case is more interesting still. Coventry has a vicar's rate: that also has been a source of great irritation and friction, and there again the Churchmen are desirous of getting rid of the rate. What is the arrangement there? Are the Ecclesiastical Commissioners going to exact a large sum from the inhabitants of Coventry in order to get rid of this obligation? No, on the contrary. Of the £12,000 which is agreed to be paid as commutation for the rate, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are going to contribute £7,000, leaving the rest to be raised by voluntary subscriptions from Churchmen and Nonconformists, who admit the equity of the arrangement, and are anxious that it should be carried out. Why is Marylebone to be treated in a different manner? While objecting to this Bill, I am anxious to get rid of these vexatious exactions, which are not only injurious to the Church of England, but are also destructive to social happiness. My objection is to the mode in which, it is sought to bring this quarrel to an end. It is based on an utterly unsound principle—the exact opposite to that contained in the Church Rate Abolition Act, 1868. The rates were then abolished, without the payment of any equivalent whatever, and the only exceptions are the cases where money was borrowed on the security of the rates, and there they were kept in existence until the debts were paid. The other exception was that in which rates were paid as an equivalent for tithe. But this Bill does not belong to either of those categories, and I think it is most questionable whether, when the legality of these rates comes to be tested, it will be found that there is any legal basis for the Bill whatever—I mean for the Bill as it is now before the House. Why should the inhabitants of Marylebone, or rather, the congregations which worship in these seven churches, be treated differently from all the other inhabitants of Marylebone? Why should these congregations be treated differently from all the other inhabitants of the kingdom from one end to the other? Why should this exaction be continued in this particular part of the kingdom, and in one part of London only? That is the case which has to be made good by the Members who support this Bill; or, at least, they might show that it would be inequitable to be rid of this rate on other terms than those which are set out in the Bill. I will not detain the House, but I must advance some other consideration. The honourable Member for East Marylebone has shown some impatience at the treatment which has been accorded to this Measure in this House. I do not think that the inhabitants of Marylebone will forget this Measure when it has found its place on the Statute Book. For years the ratepayers of Marylebone will have a continual reminder of the injustice which has been done to them, and throughout the kingdom the passing of this Bill will be regarded as illustrative of the injustice, the grasping character, and the unscrupulousness of the upholders of the Established Church. This is a piece of ecclesiastical brigandage, for it exacts heavy ransom for relief from a burden which should never have been imposed, and from which the people should have been relieved two generations ago. We are entitled, not merely to resist this Bill, but to endeavour to put an end to the system out of which Measures of this kind spring.

MR. LEUTY (Leeds, E.)

Of all the speeches made against the arrangement embodied in this Bill, not the least forcible has proceeded from, the honourable Member opposite, the Member for East Marylebone. He has furnished the strongest argument against this Bill. He has, with great frankness, said that the Nonconformists have a right to complain if they are made to pay a church rate. I thank him for that admission, and I hope there are more on his side who are prepared to make that admission. Unfortunately, however, it is felt it is not always admitted with the frankness with which it was just admitted by the honourable Member. Now, he proceeded at once to take us to task for wasting the time of the House, and for obstruction, because we objected that this rate was neither more nor less than a church rate. It is a rate levied under the name of a district rate, and providing a capital sum of money from which an, income will be derived. But it is in all essentials a church rate—a rate for the assistance of the Church, and if there is any difference between a church rate raised for the maintenance of the Church and a district rate raised for the maintenance of the Church, I shall be very glad if some honourable Member on the other side will kindly get up and show me

wherein that difference consists. The honourable Member having admitted that the Dissenters are right to object to the church rate, I should like to hear from him how he reconciles this imposing, merely under the name of district rate, of a rate which will absolutely have the effect of being a church rate. There is one difference which, does appear on the surface of the argument. Whereas this rate is somewhat doubtful in its legal validity, and whereas there is a great feeling—a very strong feeling—against the unrighteousness of imposing a church rate directly, this arrangement, by foisting this charge on the district rate, thus getting rid merely of the name, and yet at the same time getting not only the annual money, but getting the capital sum of money itself, will possibly raise a great cloud of dust in the midst of which these gentlemen may possibly disappear with, their booty. On the principle that it is unjust to levy rates on Dissenters, I say that it is equally unjust for the House to allow itself to sanction a Measure like this, which levies a rate on Dissenters, which is in reality a church, rate, although it is called a district rate.

Question put— That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.

The House divided:—Ayes 151; Noes 81.—(Division List No. 264.)

Aird, John Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Drage, Geoffrey
Allhusen, A. H. E. Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn) Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.
Anstruther, H. T. Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward
Arnold, Alfred Bucknill, Thomas Townsend Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Butcher, John George Fisher, William Hayes
Ascroft, Robert Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward FitzWygram, General Sir F.
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich) Fletcher, Sir Henry
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)
Bagot, Capt. J. F. Chamberlain,Rt.Hon. J. (Birm.) Gedge, Sydney
Baird, John George A. Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) Giles, Charles Tyrrell
Balcarres, Lord Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Gordon, Hon. John Edward
Balfour,Rt.Hon.A. J. (Manc'r) Charrington, Spencer Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.
Balfour,Rt.Hon.G.W. (Leeds) Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Goschen,RtHn. G. J. (St. G'rg's)
Banbury, Frederick George Coghill, Douglas Harry Goulding, Edward Alfred
Barnes, Frederic Gorell Colomb, Sir J. C. R. Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Bartley, George C. T. Cornwallis, F. Stanley W. Gretton, John
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H. Halsey, Thomas Frederick
Beach,Rt. Hn. SirM.H. (Brist'l) Cripps, Charles Alfred Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.
Beach, W. W. B. (Hants) Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Dalbiac, Colonel P. H. Hickman, Sir Alfred
Bethell, Commander Dalkeith, Earl of Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)
Bhownaggree Sir M. M. Dalrymple, Sir Charles Hill, Sir E. S. (Bristol)
Bill, Charles Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Doxford William Theodore Hornby William Henry
Howard, Joseph Monk, Charles James Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Howell, William Tudor Morrison, Walter Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)
Hozier, Hon. J. H. C. Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) Spencer, Ernest
Hudson, George Bickersteth Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) Stanley, Lord (Lancs)
Hughes, Colonel Edwin Murray, C. J. (Coventry) Stone, Sir Benjamin
Johnston, William (Belfast) Murray, Col. W. (Bath) Thornton, Percy M.
Kenyon, James Newdigate, Francis Alexander Tollemache, Henry James
King, Sir Henry Seymour Nicholson, William Graham Tomlinson, W. E. Murray
Lafone, Alfred O'Kelly, James Tritton, Charles Ernest
Laurie, Lieut. -General O'Neill, Hon. Robert T. Usborne, Thomas
Lawson, John Grant (Yorks) Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Verney, Hon. Richard G.
Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs) Phillpotts, Captain Arthur Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.
Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Pierpoint, Robert Walrond, Sir William Hood
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Purvis, Robert Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)
Loder Gerald W. Erskine Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W. Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)
Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l) Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T. Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E.
Lorne, Marquess of Robertson, H. (Hackney) Whiteley,H. (Ashton-under-L.)
Lowles, John Roche, Hon. James (E. Kerry) Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)
Lucas-Shadwell, William Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Macaleese, Daniel Ryder, John Herbert Dudley Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. S.
Macartney, W. G. Ellison Saunderson, Col. E. James Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.
Maclure, Sir John William Savory, Sir Joseph Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
McArthur, Charles (Liverpool) Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard Young, Commander (Berks,E.)
McKillop, James Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone,W.)
Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) Sharpe, William Edward T. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Boulnois and Mr. Knowles.
Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W. (Yorks) Shaw-Stewart,M.H.(Renfrew)
Milner, Sir F. George Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)
Milton, Viscount Simeon, Sir Barrington
Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.) Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Asher, Alexander Healy, T. M. (N. Louth) Robson, William Snowdon
Balfour,Rt,Hon.J.B.(Clackm.) Hedderwick, Thomas C. H. Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Horniman, Frederick John Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Jameson, Major J. Eustace Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Birrell, Augustine Joicey, Sir James Souttar, Robinson
Blake, Edward Jones, D. B. (Swansea) Steadman, William Charles
Brigg, John Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire) Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Labouchere, Henry Tanner, Charles Kearns
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) Tennant, Harold John
Caldwell, James Leuty, Thomas Richmond Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)
Cameron, Robert (Durham) Lough, Thomas Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)
Causton, Richard Knight MacNeill, John Gordon S. Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)
Cawley, Frederick McArthur, W. (Cornwall) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Clark, Dr. G.B. (Caithness-sh.) McEwan, William Warner, Thomas C. T.
Clough, Walter Owen Maddison, Fred. Wayman, Thomas
Colville, John Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Wedderburn, Sir William
Crombie, John William Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Williams. John C. (Notts)
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, W.) Norton, Capt. Cecil William Wilson, H. J. (Yorks, W.R.)
Davitt, Michael O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.) Wilson, John (Govan)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Oldroyd, Mark Woodall, William
Dillon, John Pickersgill, Edward Hare Woodhouse,SirJT(Hudd'rsf'ld)
Donelan, Captain A. Pirie, Duncan V. Yoxall, James Henry
Doogan, P. C. Price, Robert John
Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan) Priestley, Briggs (Yorks) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Lloyd-George and Mr. Harwood.
Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton) Randell, David
Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.) Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Goddard, Daniel Ford Reid, Sir Robert T.
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

Motion made, and Question put— That the Bill be read a third time.

The House divided:—Ayes 152; Noes 81.—(Division List No. 265.)

Aird, John Ascroft, Robert Balfour,Rt.Hon.A.J. (Manc'r)
Allhusen, A. H. E. Ashmead-Bartlett. Sir E. Balfour, Rt.Hon.G.W. (Leeds)
Anstruther, H. T. Bagot, Capt. J. F. Banbury, Frederick George
Arnold, Alfred Baird, John George A. Barnes, Frederic Gorell
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Balcarres, Lord Bartley, George C. T.
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Gretton, John Orr-Ewing, Charles L.
Beach,Rt.Hn.SirM.H.(Brist'l) Halsey, Thomas Frederick Phillpotts, Captain Arthur
Beach, W. W. B (Hants) Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G. Pierpoint, Robert
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W. Purvis, Robert
Bethell, Commander Hickman, Sir Alfred Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Hill, Arthur (Down, W.) Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.
Bill, Charles Hill, Sir E. S. (Bristol) Robertson, H. (Hackney)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead) Roche, Hon. J. (Kerry, E.)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Hornby, William Henry Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Brassey, Albert Howard Joseph Ryder, John Herbert Dudley
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Howell, William Tudor Saunderson, Col. E. James
Bucknill, Thomas Townsend Hozier, Hon. J. H. C. Savory, Sir Joseph
Butcher, John George Hudson, George Bickersteth Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard
Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward Hughes, Colonel Edwin Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich) Johnston, William (Belfast) Sharpe, William Edward T.
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Kenyon, James Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew)
Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J. (Birm.) King, Sir Henry Seymour Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) Lafone, Alfred Simeon, Sir Barrington
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Laurie, Lieut.-General Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Charrington Spencer Lawson, John Grant (Yorks) Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs) Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Coghill, Douglas Harry Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Spencer, Ernest
Colomb, Sir J. C. R. Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Stanley, Lord (Lancs)
Cornwallis, P. Stanley W. Loder, Gerald W. Erskine Stone, Sir Benjamin
Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H. Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cripps, Charles Alfred Lorne, Marquess of Thornton, Percy M.
Curzon, Viscount (Bucks) Lowles, John Tollemache, Henry James
Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh Lucas-Shadwell, William Tomlinson, W. E. Murray
Dalkeith, Earl of Macaleese, Daniel Tritton, Charles Ernest
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Macartney, W. G. Ellison Usborne, Thomas
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers Maclure, Sir John William Verney, Hon. Richard G.
Doxford, William Theodore McArthur, Charles (Liverpool) Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.
Drage, Geoffrey McKillop, James Walrond, Sir William Hood
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)
Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward Mellor, Rt.Hon. J. W. (Yorks) Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)
Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne Milner, Sir F. George Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Fisher, William Hayes Milton, Viscount Whiteley,H. (Ashton-under-L.)
FitzWygram, General Sir F. Monk, Charles James Williams, Joseph P. (Birm.)
Fletcher, Sir Henry Morrison, Walter Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. S.
Gedge, Sydney Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute) Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Giles, Charles Tyrrell Murray, C. J. (Coventry) Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Gordon, Hon. John Edward Murray, Col. W. (Bath) Young, Commander (Berks, E.)
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E. Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Goschen,RtHn. G. J. (St. G'rg's) Nicholson, William Graham TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Boulnois and Mr. Knowles.
Goulding, Edward Alfred O'Kelly, James
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) O'Neill. Hon. Robert T.
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.) Davitt, Michael Lloyd-George, David
Asher, Alexander Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Lough, Thomas
Balfour,Rt.Hn.J.B. (Clackm.) Dillon, John MacNeill, John Gordon S.
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Donelan, Captain A. McArthur, W. (Cornwall)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Doogan, P. C. McEwan, William
Birrell, Augustine Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan) Maddison, Fred.
Blake, Edward Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton) Mappin, Sir Frederick T.
Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn) Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.) Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand
Brigg, John Goddard Daniel Ford Morley, Charles (Breconshire)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Harwood, George O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)
Caldwell, James Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale- Oldroyd, Mark
Cameron, Robert (Durham) Healy, T. M. (Louth, N.) Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Causton, Richard Knight Hedderwick, T. C. H. Pirie, Duncan V.
Cawley, Frederick Horniman, Frederick John Price, Robert John
Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.) Jameson, Major J. Eustace Randell, David
Clough, Walter Owen Joicey, Sir James Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Colville, John Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire) Reid, Sir Robert T.
Crombie, John William Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs)
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) Leuty, Thomas Richmond Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Robson, William Snowdon Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.) Woodall, William
Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.) Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.) Woodhouse,SirJT(Hudd'rsf'ld)
Smith, Samuel (Flint) Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh) Yoxall, James Henry
Soames, Arthur Wellesley Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Souttar, Robinson Warner, Thomas C. T. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir. Carvell Williams and Mr. Brynmor Jones.
Steadman, William Charles Wayman, Thomas
Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) Wedderburn, Sir William
Tanner, Charles Kearns Wilson, H. J. (York, W.R.)
Tennant, Harold John Wilson, John (Govan)

Bill read a third time.