HC Deb 11 July 1899 vol 74 cc484-583

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1:—


The first Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Carnarvon turns on another Amendment on which it can be better discussed. The second is out of order; the subject matter of the third has already been settled; the fourth is beyond the scope of the Bill; and the fifth should come in the definition clause. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Flint Boroughs should be raised as a new clause at the end of the Bill, while with regard to the Amendments of the hon. Member for Mid-Glamorgan the first should come in the definition clause; the second has been settled, and I call on him to move the third.

MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorgan, Mid.)

On a point of order, the last words put from the Chair last night were "attached to." May I suggest that my Amendment to insert after the word "benefice" words "at the date of the passing of the Act," could be more conveniently taken now than the one you have called on me to move.

MR. LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)

There certainly was an understanding last night that my Amendment should be preserved.


I know nothing of any such understanding. The question settled last night turned on the matter of time. I cannot take the hon. Member's Amendment out of its place. It is at the bottom of the next page, and I cannot jump it over the others. It will he taken in its proper order. I must ask the hon. Member for Mid Glamorgan to move the third of his Amendments.


Very well, Sir. I now propose to move to insert after "benefice" the words "to which such owner may be presented after the passing of the Act." The reason for this is pretty obvious, and the Amendment therefore requires no lengthened explanation. The present owners of tithe rent-charge attached to benefices took the benefices with full knowledge of what the case was. We have been told that since 1883 the income derivable from tithe rent-charge attached to 1enefices has been going steadily down ill common with other agricultural values. If that was so nobody who was presented to a living after 1883 and up to the present time was presented to that living with any of the facts left in darkness. He must have been well aware of the condition of things. It is said that tithe rent-charge has fallen from par value to £67. That is true, but any incumbent presented to a living last year knew at the time what income he was to expect, and what was the exact value of the tithe, as well as what deductions it would be subjected to. He knew, in fact, how much he would receive for the performance of divine service. If he were content to be inducted on those conditions and to undertake the obligations of the position, he has now no right whatever to complain. I propose by the insertion of these words that if it is a question of altering the rating law, as was suggested yesterday, the law should be altered as from the present time, and that those who accepted their benefices under the old law, having no reason to complain, should be excluded from the operation of the Bill. I am aware that one result of the carrying of the Amendment would be that those clergymen who have been complaining of reduced incomes during the last ten or fifteen years will not benefit at all, but that is no valid reason against the Amendment if the Bill is put merely on the ground of justice.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 5, after the word 'benefice,' to insert the words 'to winch such owner may be presented after the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr. Samuel Evans.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."


This Amendment strikes me, I confess, as one of the most remarkable of many remarkable Amendments. Here is a suggestion that any alteration we may make in the incidence of tithe rent-charge shall apply only to owners inducted after the passing of the Act, and it is supported on the ground that the gentlemen now in occupation accepted their benefices with a full knowledge of the responsibilities and liabilities attached thereto. The hon. Member quoted the case of an incumbent presented last year. I am bound to say I think that of all incumbents entitled to expect that this burden would be removed one very recently presented would have the prior claim. And why? For a long time the only political party which gave any cordial support to the proposals for a reform of local taxation was the party sitting on these benches; but a great change has come over the scene within the last few months. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have recently declared that the injustice of the clergy's position is intolerable and ought to be removed. (Opposition cries of "No.") Hon. Gentlemen say "No," but the Committee will remember that in the earlier part of the session the leader of the Opposition, on a Debate dealing with old-age pensions, twitted the Government with non-fulfilment of their promises, and based the charges on a circular issued by a political association of Birmingham. The right hon. Gentleman held that this circular had been issued in the name of our Party—the Unionist Party.


I beg to correct the right hon. Gentleman. It was the Liberal Unionist Party.


It is unnecessary to distinguish between the two—the Liberal Unionist and the Conservative Party—where the responsibility for promises made by either section of the party is concerned. For my part I will not attempt to evade the responsibility undertaken by the circular because it was issued by a section of the Unionist party. But the right hon. Gentleman blamed the Government for not having redeemed their promise after this circular had been issued. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and, therefore, the Government are entitled to remind the right hon. Gentleman that when his party thought that political advantage was to be gained, and votes to be obtained, they were not ashamed to issue a circular calling attention to the injustice of the position of the tithe-owning clergy, and stating categorically that they were unfairly assessed upon their house and tithe rent-charge, and that the grievance ought to be remedied. They not only made abstract references to the position of the tithe-owning clergy, but they invited the electors to vote against the supporter of the Government, because the Government had not carried out their promises on this subject. A recent presentee, therefore, would be rather more than less entitled to expect that this grievance would be redressed, because the grievance had been taken up by not one party but by both. How would it be if this argument of the hon. Member were made generally applicable? Suppose it had been applied at the time of the passing of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Surely such a limitation as that proposed by the hon. Member would be a bar to all reform. The change to be effected by the Bill ought to apply equally to incumbents presented before and after the passing of the Bill. Under these circumstances I maintain that no justification whatever has been shown by the hon. and learned Member for his Amendment, and I hope the Committee will reject it as one which, if carried, would inflict injustice and do injury to the measure we ask the House to pass.


The right hon. Gentleman has shown the way to get on with the Bill in Committee. It is a nice beginning of a quiet evening to be devoted to discussing the intricate details of this short Bill. I do not know what gadfly has stung the right hon. Gentleman; but suddenly he seems to have lost his balance. The speech which the right hon. Gentleman has made was, I should have thought, "more suitable to the hustings." I sat in momentary expectation of the right hon. Gentleman being called to order, when the right hon. Gentleman introduced the well-known Liberal Unionist leaflet on the subject of old-age pensions. I do not know at all how the right hon. Gentleman got it in, but the more he reminds us of it the better we shall be pleased. What it has to do with tilt Amendment I have not the slightest idea; but it was at least a solemn declaration and promise made by a regularly constituted party organisation in the Midlands. And when we find that the action of the Government—in the framing of whose policy that section of the Ministerial party which issued the leaflet has evidently a predominant share—is not in accordance with the promise, it is only reasonable to call attention to the fact. Against that the right hon. Gentleman says that some declarations or promises have been made by Members of this party on this subject. If any promise has been made by any member of the Opposition on this subject it has been redeemed. My hon. friend who, in the excitement of a by-election in some remote village, gave that promise with all the simplicity of Parliamentary youth, has redeemed his promise like a man The eases will be more comparable when the Government have redeemed their promises. Last night, during a long and, as we thought on this side, patiently conducted discussion, the right hon. Gentleman displayed all the qualities which the Minister in charge of a Bill ought to display. The right hon. Gentleman was reasonable and good-humoured, and he showed a great mastery of his subject. Until ten minutes ago I was preparing the phrases with which I should, if this Bill ever passed through Committee, express my admiration of the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had conducted it. But the web which I have been weaving has been dispelled by the right hon. Gentleman's extraordinary ebullition. Having risen merely to express my amazement, I will now leave the subject, because this is only an interlude totally disconnected with the Bill itself, or with the particular Amendment before the Committee.

MR. NUSSEY (Pontefract)

Every one who has any knowledge of the subject knows how, before a clergyman accepts a living, he carefully weighs out every possible item of income and expenditure, and therefore I cannot understand the grounds of the right hon. Gentleman's objection to this Amendment. Last autumn, when hon. anal right hon. Gentlemen were speaking in the country we heard very little about this particular Bill, neither was it mentioned in the Queen's Speech; therefore, any clergyman who accepted a benefice six months ago could not have had an inkling of the intention of the Government to pass it before the end of this session. It seems to me that a clergyman who accepts a benefice with certain tithes and liabilities attached is in the same position as a man who purchases an estate liable to land tax. He knows the exact amount of the land tax, and makes allowance for it when fixing the price he is willing to give. As to the comparison which the right hon. Gentleman drew with the Workmen's Compensation Act, does he forget that the workmen are engaged on a weekly wage? I very much regret the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The Opposition appear to be moving Amendments in vain, the Government having apparently determined to pass the Bill as it stands, so as to avoid having to devote two or three days to the Report Stage.


I think we have a right to complain of the tone of the speeches opposite with regard to my right hon. friend. Nothing could be more mild or conciliatory than his speeches, and they could not be shorter. His first speech on the Bill only lasted ten minutes. The arguments of my right hon. friend are such as should be addressed to moderate and reasonable men, and if to-day he has departed from the judicial tone previously adopted the reason is to be found in the attitude of hon. Members opposite. Their Amendments are so dull and are so rarely in order that it is perfectly allowable for the right hon. Gentleman to introduce old-age pensions by way of enlivening the debate. Moreover, it was not so irrelevant, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition suggests, to deal with the Liberal Unionists. We have been Warned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin that we shall, as a result of the introduction of this Bill, have to dispense with the support of Liberal Unionists. I now come to the Amendment. I do beg hon. Gentlemen opposite to meet the Government on the ground they have chosen for the Bill. The ground on which the Bill is presented is neither charity nor mercy. We are not arguing, although we might do so with the greatest possible effect, that the clergyman is poor and has a salary inadequate to the work he is called upon to do. We claim nothing in charity, and no compassionate allowance for the clergy. The ground on which the Bill is defended is that of justice, and hon. Members should put aside the notion that the Government are anxious to make grants of money to their own friends. Just see how this Amendment will act. The Bill proposes to relieve clergymen of the payment of half of their rates. I do complain of the description given of this Bill. It is described as a Bill for altering the system of rating. It is nothing of the kind, for that leaves it where it was; it is only to provide that one-half of the rates shall be paid under certain circumstances. The Amendment proposes that the alleviation represented by this deduction of one half shall only be given to clergymen who are inducted after the passage of this Act. Where does the justice of that come in? Surely an injustice is not reduced by the fact that a man has borne it ten or fifteen years. Is it not rather the greater? Of course I can quite understand that if hon. Members hold the view that this Bill is brought forward on the grounds of charity they would desire to make the burden on the ratepayers as small as possible. But that is where we cannot follow them. We repudiate the idea that this Bill is based on charity or mercy. We stand solely on the ground of justice, and, if hon. Members will only view the Amendment from that standpoint, I think they will see that it is not defensible. Further, if, in their future treatment of the Bill, they will follow the same principle, I think we shall have fewer Amendments brought forward. On the ground of justice this Amendment is absurd. It would give least where most is required.

MR. BROADHURST (Leicester)

I am surprised that the hon. Member who last spoke fails to appreciate the grounds upon which this Amendment has been moved and is supported. We support it on the ground of the sanctity of contract. The Conservative party, in past times, were the defenders and upholders of sanctity of contract. Here we have a contract solemnly entered into by a large number of men who, from their very training and education, one would presume to understand what was the nature of the contract they were making with the institution they were preparing to serve. They freely entered into it; they were under no coercion, and they accepted their post with their eyes open, and with a full knowledge of all the conditions attaching to it. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill seems to have neglected all opportunities of informing himself of the arguments upon which he has been relying for similes in connection with this Bill. He referred to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897. But he does not seem to remember that a clergyman who accepts a living takes a life appointment, whereas the men who come under the Workmen's Compensation Act are engaged from week to week. Therefore there is no similarity between the two cases. Again, this Compensation Act did not make any new departure; it was only an elaboration and a further continuance of a law which was already in existence. Can he not give us a new lead in this matter, so that we can at any rate record a coherent vote? I entirely repudiate the argument of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, in which he states that we have not made out any case for supporting this Amendment. I say that our grounds are perfectly clear and intelligent. Our contention is that this contract was entered into by clergymen of the Church of England under well defined conditions. Now they are seeking, by the aid of a Conservative Government, to break the contract in order to obtain better terms for themselves. It is evident that my hon. friends who support this Amendment constitute the true Conservative party, because they wish to maintain the sancity of contract, a principle which Conservatives have always held themselves out to be the upholders of. Unfortunately since their association with certain gentlemen they have been surrendering many well- known principles for others which will not last them so long as they imagine.

MR. MOSS (Denbighshire, E.)

I cannot quite understand the attitude of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite on this Amendment. I remember some time ago how the Welsh farmers were treated when they were very much opposed, not so much, perhaps, to the payment of tithe as to its payment for the maintenance of religious principles and practices with which they did not agree. They were quite prepared to pay tithe for educational or other purposes, but they were told by the clergy in Wales that they took their farms, knowing exactly the objects for which the tithe was to be collected, that they entered into the contract well knowing what they were doing, and that it was most immoral for them, having undertaken the obligations, to wish anyone in the House of Commons to move the rescinding of them, so as to enable them to start de nevo. A clergyman who takes a living knows exactly the amount of money he is going to receive and the amount of the rates he will have to pay, and if it were immoral in times gone by for a Welsh farmer to decline to pay tithe because he had a conscientious objection to the object to which it was devoted, it is equally immoral now for clergymen of the Church of England to come to the House of Commons and say, "The payment of this rate is a great imposition on us. The whole rating system is very unfair and unequal, and we want it altered." If the measure is one of charity I can understand it, but if it is one of justice, I say it is anything but justice. Hon. Gentlemen say when they argue against any readjustment of a contract between landlord and tenant, "Oh, you have entered into obligations with your eyes open; why should you desire an Act of Parliament to create a land court?" The inviolability of contract which hon. Gentlemen urge so freely and with a certain amount of argument in the case of the Welsh farmers should also apply to a clergyman who, with his eyes open, takes a living well knowing what he will have to pay. I support the Amendment.

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon)

I think the point put by my hon. friend the Member for East Denbighshire is one very well worthy of consideration. The agitation to which he has referred was initiated not against the payment of tithe altogether, but for the purpose of obtaining a reduction in the amount because of agricultural depression. It was on all fours with the present case. The clergy ask for a reduction in the amount of their rates, the farmers asked for a reduction in the amount of their tithe. The farmers were told that they had entered into a contract to pay the whole amount, and that is exactly the answer that should be given to the clergy. They also entered into a contract, and they must abide by it. That is the measure they meted out to the Welsh farmers, and the same measure should be extended to themselves. This is the answer we get whenever we ask for any reform of local taxation, especially in towns. We had a witness before this identical Commission, and he was a witness who will probably give very important evidence against this Bill in the course of the next forty-eight hours. I refer to Mr. B. F. C. Costelloe. He was giving evidence before the Commission in favour of the taxation of ground rents, and what was the answer given by the Chairman of the Commission, who throughout showed, I will not say his bias, but that he was favourable to the case of the clergy? When Mr. Costelloe put the case of a shopkeeper who had to pay a heavy ground rent to a person who did not contribute a penny in local taxation, the Chairman asked this question: "With regard to the actual and not the apparent incidence of rates, would you say, speaking generally, that when the owner of a site leases it, the lessee takes into account the amount of the rates in fixing the rent he pays?" The point here is that the clergy knew perfectly well the amount of the rates they would have to pay. It is rather curious that the sanctity of contract is good enough for the Welsh farmer or the shopkeeper, but is not good enough for the clergy, who have to teach these men their duty to the state and to each other. There was another witness who gave evidence before the Commission. He was the only lay witness except the hon. Member for Tunbridge examined in support of the case of the clergy. He was a lawyer—Mr. Cassell, Q.C. But even he could not carry the case quite as far as was expected. He was questioned as to what he thought about the incidence of tithe, and he was also asked when a clergyman entered a benefice did he not know perfectly well the amount of rates imposed on it, and Mr. Cassell answered that he did. Then the following question was put to him: "Is it equitable that, having got the living on these terms, he should try and shift the burden?" He asked, "Do you mean if he accepted the living on these terms?" The Chairman said "Yes," and then Mr. Cassell replied: "I cannot say that in that case he is in a better position than a man who has purchased tithe." That was the answer given to a specific question. On what ground then can it be argued that this Bill ought to have retrospective effect? The same question was put to Mr. MacPherson, who represented the tithe-owners. He said it was perfectly true that a clergyman knew the amount of the rates when he took a benefice, but that he had no option. That is an absurd answer. It is the only answer that can be made, but it is perfectly ridiculous. A clergyman has an option. He can refuse a benefice. Before Ire accepts it he scrutinises very carefully the amount of the tithe, the amount to be paid for a curate, and the amount of the voluntary contribution. The amount of the income is ascertained with the strictest accuracy, and if it does not suit his ideas of what he ought to receive he invariably refuses. He is in the same position as the member of any other profession, be it that of a civil servant, doctor, or schoolmaster. A schoolmaster who is offered a position carefully examines the amount of the salary, the standard of life in the locality, and what the rents are; and he looks into all these questions from his own personal point of view. Has a clergyman less worldly wisdom in this respect than a schoolmaster? I do not think that anyone who has had anything to do with the clergy will say that. The evidence before the Commission showed that they were perfectly alive to every point in their own favour. There is another point connected with this Amendment, and which is well worthy the attention of the Committee. These gentlemen accepted these livings knowing perfectly well the amount of the tithe, but since they entered them certain modifications have already been made. What has happened? Half the rates on glebe have been paid for the last three or four years, and the land tax has been reduced from 4s. to 1s. A still more important modification was extended to the clergy by another Conservative Government, an indulgence which represents a considerable amount of money, and also the removal of a considerable amount of difficulty, annoyance, and irritation. The collection of the tithe has been transferred entirely from the clergy to the landlords, and instead of being collected from 200 or 300 ratepayers, sometimes in sums of sixpence and a shilling, and having to pay heavy commissions, the clergy have now only to send in their bill to a couple of squires, and they receive a cheque for the amount. Here are three important modifications in the position of the clergy, and they are now asking to be relieved of another 50 per cent. That is a position which this House ought not to sanction. No case has been made out for it. The hon. Member for King's Lynn opposed this Amendment, though I could not help thinking that he did it with his tongue in his cheek. He did it rather scornfully. He said that this is simply a grievance in the matter of rates, and has nothing whatever to do with contracts. But the hon. Member forgets that the Poor Rate on tithe is not in the same position as an ordinary rate on property. It is a traditional burden. The burden of maintaining the poor which has been imposed on tithe is as old as tithe itself. I am lot sure it is not the first burden. Tithe was imposed in the first instance for the purpose of maintaining the poor, and therefore the clergy are now attempting to repudiate a contract of very ancient and sacred origin, and are trying to revolutionise one of the finest traditions of their own Church. The Church took upon itself the burden of maintaining those who could not maintain themselves, though subsequently that tradition was not upheld. But still that is the position. They are endeavouring to rid themselves of the obligations they contracted to undertake, and to upset the traditions of their own Church in every respect. I observe that the privileged classes are the favourites of hon. Members opposite, and that they are very fond of professing Conservative principles when they come to be applied to the working classes and to shopkeepers. But any Conservative principle or institution, however old it may be, however respected, however sacred, which interferes in the slightest degree with their own incomes must go in spite of sanctity of contract, traditions of the Church, maintenance of the poor, or any other magnificent purpose.

MR. HARWOOD (Bolton)

I wish to support the Amendment. I have had to do with a great many of my clergyman friends who have taken other livings, and I have always found that the rates were allowed for and the net results worked out. I am perfectly certain that a great many of the clergy of the Church of England would repudiate—and I, on their behalf, repudiate—the position taken up for them by those who profess to be the friends of the Church in this House. The right hon. Gentleman said that it is quite true that the clergymen accepted these contracts, but that you may push the severity of contract too far; that you must remember that these contracts were taken by clergymen in the expectation that the rates would be reduced, and that that expectation was part of the contract. Now I ask what is the evidence of that expectation? Of course this House is not responsible for what political parties may do or say, but the right hon. Gentleman has given its no proof of such expectation. The only responsible Minister who has hitherto spoken—the Chancellor of the Exchequer—distinctly discouraged that expectation. When the non. Member for King's Lynn asks us to discuss this question as a matter of business and justice, we say that we are ready to consider this particular of expectation on these lines, but we want evidence of it and the hon. Gentleman gives us no evidence whatever. From my own personal experience I have never heard of a single clergyman who said that he expected the rates to be reduced, or that he, for one moment, took that into consideration in accepting a living. I am quite certain that there is not a class of men who are more willing to stand by their contracts than the clergy of the Church of England, and I am sure they will repudiate the position which has been taken up for them by the right hon. Gentleman.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.)

The hon. Member for King's Lynn has explained that the object of the right hon. Gentleman is to impart a little liveliness into our discussion. I have no objection to this, but surely justice illustrated with liveliness will not add to the merits of this Bill. We expect great liveliness from the right hon. Gentleman, but in my opinion we ought to be more grateful for the arguments which he has addressed to this House, for these are arguments which ought to be remembered. If there is anything in public opinion, according to my observation, it is an interest in the principles upon which in future rating awl taxation should be conducted. There are some who hold that there are instances of people who are too heavily taxed; but there is a strong opinion in the country that there are a great many people too lightly taxed. The arguments we have heard from the Treasury Bench are very important in this respect. I have heard the opinion, which I share myself, that, for instance, ground landlords should he taxed or rated more heavily than they are at present. But what is the argument we are always met with by hon. Gentlemen opposite? It is this, that there is a contract between the ground landlord and the leaseholder; that it is a sacred contract which you cannot alter; that it has been made for ninety-nine years or some period. But it cannot be said that that contract was made by Statute, as this arrangement was made by Statute at the time of the Commutation, when it was settled between the ratepayers of the country and the tithe-owners. It was founded on Statute, and has been described so, accurately. Very well, you say we are at liberty to alter that arrangement altogether, but that does not apply only to this one thing, but to a great many other things. I rise for the special purpose of noting the importance of the principle which is objected to, as I understand it, by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, who belongs to one section of the Unionist Party, and does not seem to have a very high opinion of the other section. How the right hon. Gentleman who professes to represent both sections manages to reconcile his opinions on this subject with the opinions so frequently expressed on other and more important subjects of rating and taxation, he has not explained. I would be very glad to hear from his mouth what are his views generally in reference to the principles of taxation and rating which are to be applied to landlords and ground landlords in every matter, and whether he is prepared to accept the principles of this Bill when applied to questions which are of a much wider scope, and, in my opinion, founded on sounder justice. Now, the extraordinary manner in which the Government are proceeding in this matter appears on the face of the Bill in this clause. It is said that the system of rating is an injustice to the clergy, and therefore we ought to alter it. The importance of that is that the owners of tithe rent-charge are to be liable only to half the amount of any rate to which this Act applies. But if your views are correct, what you ought to have done should have been only to assess them at half the rate. That, however, you shy from. Why not take the natural and logical consequence of those principles which you have adopted in assessing the clergy at only half rates? I will tell you why. You do not dare, in the face of the Commutation Act. That was a settlement that the clergy should be assessed on the whole of the rates like anybody else. And, therefore, this extraordinary proceeding is taken to continue to assess a man to the whole of the rates, which you say it is unjust that he should pay, but that he should only pay the half of them, while you make other people pay the other half. What is the meaning of this "circumbendibus" kind of legislation?


I think the right hon. Gentleman is anticipating an Amendment lower down on the Paper which will raise exactly the question he is now discussing.


One never knows, Sir, what Amendments lower down an the Paper will be allowed to be put.


Every Amendment which is in order I shall allow to be put. I do not understand what the right hon. Gentleman means.


I had not intended to imply, nor do I think I have said anything which does imply, any disrespect to your authority; but until you have pronounced an Amendment is in order, I have no means of knowing whether it will be in order or not. The reason why I think I was under a misconception on this subject was that the words to which I was alluding had already passed the Com- mittee; and therefore that is the reason why I spoke of it. I did not anticipate that an Amendment afterwards would affect the words already passed by the Committee. I was in error apparently. I desire that we should have explained to us exactly the principle on which this question of the payments of rates is to be founded—not assessing upon the half, but assessing upon the whole, and then providing for repayment of the half. If that is not in order, I hope you will kindly inform me when that question should be raised. It seems to me a very important one. If the Chairman will kindly inform me what is the Amendment which, he rules, excludes me from referring to this subject at the present time——


The whole of this discussion is really not relevant to the Amendment now before the Committee. The Amendment now before the Committee is that this Bill is not to be made applicable to those clergy who are at present the holders of benefices. The proposal is that it shall only apply to future holders of benefices. Therefore the argument of the right hon. Gentleman is really beside the mark of the Amendment now before the Committee.


I misunderstood your ruling. I thought your ruling was dependent upon a subsequent Amendment which raised the question. Of course I will not proceed with an argument you have ruled out of order, and therefore I cannot continue this discussion with advantage. At the same time I have only to say that the arguments used on this side of the House have not been answered.

* MR. GILES (Cambridgeshire, Wisbech)

I should like to say a few words upon this question. I do not think we are at all likely on this side of the House to be accused of doing anything to violate the sanctity of the doctrine of contract. But there is another doctrine also to be considered in relation to this question, and that is what was in the contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was entered into. Now, there is an important Act of Parliament to which it is worth calling the attention of the Committee, and which has not been referred to up to the present moment. I was somewhat surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton say that the law at the present time is exactly as it was at the time of the passing of the Tithe Commutation Act, because I think that is a great mis-statement. At the time of the passing of the Tithe Commutation Act, undoubtedly all personal property was liable to rate, and it was not until the Act of 3 and 4 Victoria c. 89 was passed that personal property was not exempted from rates. If personal property was still liable the amount in the pound of all rates would probably be less than half what it is, especially in towns. Since the passing of the Commutation Act, a very large number of rates which were certainly not in contemplation at that time have been enacted and exacted from the tithe rent-charge. From recollection I will refer to a few. Certainly in urban districts there would be the lighting and library rates, the scavenging rates, the pavement rates, and a large number of similar rates, and in many districts, both urban and rural, there would be a heavy school board rate, which, of course, was not in existence at the time of the Tithe Commutation Act. Then I may also refer to the large increase of the highway rate, because, of course, although undoubtedly at the time the Tithe Commutation Act was passed tithes were assessed to the highway rate, yet it was not until 1872 that a very large addition to highway rates was made in consequence of the abolition of turnpikes. In many respects, therefore, the sanctity of the contract has been affected. At the present time the tithe-owners have to pay a very large number of rates which they did not pay in 1836, and which I cannot conceive to have been in contemplation, because it would have been impossible for them to have known that these rates would have been passed. I have not heard one argument raised on the other side of the House that anything was added in the amount arranged between the tithe-payers and the tithe-owners which would enable tithe-owners to pay rates in the future.

MR. McKENNA (Monmouth, N.)

The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has made a very interesting contribution to the Debate. The point, however, is that the contract, or quasi-contract, behind which the clergy wish to go is the contract made by the present owner of the benefice, when he took the living, to do certain work for certain remuneration in tithe after the deduction of the rates. His argument has no particular reference to another contract, viz., the contract entered into at the time of the Commutation Act. As a matter of fact the contract with the tithe-owner has not been touched upon, and, I have not a shadow of doubt, will not be touched upon by anybody on the opposite side of the House. What is the pretence for the opposition to this Amendment? It is—to put it very shortly—that on grounds of reason and equity the tithe-owners are entitled to make certain deductions for the purpose of assessment. If that is so, why in Heaven's name do not the Government introduce a a Bill carrying out that principle? But what would be the effect?


Order, order! The hon. Member is now discussing an Amendment which he himself has put on the Paper, and which may be reached in due time.


I am bound to say that your ruling is absolutely in accordance with the facts, but I regret that no other argument is ever raised in opposition to this Amendment except those which are opposed to the principle of the Bill. I was only going to point out, without arguing the merits of any particular Amendment, that the principle on which this Bill is alleged to be based is not carried out in the Bill itself. I will only say, with regard to this particular Amendment, that it has two advantages. First of all, it limits the amount of money that you take under this measure, and, so far, it would have my support. But there is another reason why this Amendment should be supported. If you give this special advantage to future incumbents, you offer more persons a pecuniary temptation to become clergymen than you can now. You will consequently get, as an hon. friend reminds me, better clergymen in the future if you are able to pay a higher price. We have seen, in the controversy which was raised between Board schools and Voluntary schools, how much has turned upon the question that the Board schools, having more money at their control, are able to get better masters than the Voluntary schools. Exactly the same argument applies in the case of the Church. If you can pay your clergyman in the future more than in the past you will be able to get a better class of men to serve, and upon that ground there may be something said in support of the Bill. But you cannot defend the Bill as it stands now. It is entirely contrary to every principle put forward by hon. Members on the other side of the House.

MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire, South Molton)

The hon. Member for Wisbech has endeavoured to bring this discussion back to the conditions which existed in 1836. I should imagine that everyone would be very sorry indeed to bring back the conditions of 1836. In that year the rates were taken to average something like 5s. in the £—equal to an average on the commuted tithe rent-charge of £602,000 a year instead of only £175,000, which they now pay. Therefore the clergymen are getting a very considerable advantage through the great reduction of the rates. The hon. Member in his very interesting speech complained that new rates were constantly being put upon the clergy, and that therefore it was unfair for them to bear them. I quite admit that if new rates were imposed there might be some injustice to the existing tithe-owner, but there could be no injustice to the future one who took his benefice with his eyes open and knew what rates there were to pay. This Act does not refer to "new" rates. It only refers to "one half of the amount of any rate to which this Act applies," and on looking at the definition clause I find this provision: This Act shall apply to every rate as defined by Section 9 of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896. Well, the Agricultural Rates Act of 1896 was one of those measures which does not apply to the newest rates. There was the Parish Councils Bill. Of course, that placed some charge upon the parishes, but the Agricultural Pates Act did not affect that. If this Bill be based upon justice, why do you exclude the extra expenses placed on a parish, through the operations of the councils, from this Bill? We were told by my hon. friend behind me, the hon. Member for Bolton, who knows a good deal about the clergy, that the clergy entered into these transactions in a public and business-like spirit. It does seem that we have been experiencing in these matters too much business and too little sense of the high office of the clergyman. We do not admit that they have any cause to complain in this matter. When the farmers complained of paying tithes the right hon. Gentleman passed the Tithe Rating Act of 1891, and placed the burden of the tithes on the shoulders of the landlords, and now he wishes to place a new rate on the shoulders of the general tax-payers of the country. One argument has not been mentioned in this Debate, and that is that it would lead, if this Amendment is accepted, to advantageous results. It would result in a change of clergymen in many parishes, and I think in many of the rural parishes they would welcome such a change. I commend that to the right hon. Gentleman, and I regret that he will not accept this Amendment.

Mr. GODDARD (Ipswich)

As I understand the Amendment, it limits the operation of the Act to those who take benefices after it is passed, and, as I understand the right hon. Gentleman, it will be unjust to do that. I wish to know where that injustice lies. In a parish in I my own neighbourhood, in Suffolk, I find that in 1836 the tithes of this parish were £315, and the rates £66, the total being £381. Those tithes were commuted at £400, which was an increase of £18. Taking the figures down to the present day the value of the tithes which were commuted at £400 is now £272. Certain deductions have been made which bring the amount of tithe subject to rates down to £205. Where is the injustice? The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said it was preposterous for any clergyman to think he was to have his tithe free of rates.


Order, order! The hon. Member is really arguing the principle of the Bill, and his speech is really a Second Reading speech. He ought to bear in mind that we have passed the Second Reading and have got to the Committee stage.


Perhaps, Sir, I did go a little too far, but I wanted to see where the injustice came in. I shall support the Amendment.

MR. CAWLEY (Lancs., Prestwich)

If I had one misgiving on coming to this House, it was that perhaps the Liberal party had not quite so much regard for the sanctity of contract as I thought desirable. But after experience in the House any doubts I had were soon dispelled, for I have discovered that the Conservative Party—or the present Ministerial Party—seem to have even less regard for their contracts than the Members of my own Party in the House. I am not going into the question of commutation at all. As far as I understand things, ninety-nine per cent. of the present incumbents have got their benefices subject to their paying rates on tithes, and they have nothing to complain of. By the Agricultural Rating Act, landlords who had bought or inherited their estates subject to certain obligations to the poor have been relieved of those obligations; so now the clergy, because they have threatened to withdraw their support, are being relieved of a rate they had deliberately contracted to pay. Members on the Government side of the House are very much disturbed when private interests are touched for the benefit of the community; but when the interests of the community are being confiscated for particular classes of their supporters they give the measure their earnest support. It is not my intention to go into the question of what took place at the time of the Tithe Commutation in 1836, although it is admitted that the clergy paid much lower rates now than were allowed for at that time. What I contend is that the clergy took their livings well knowing that they had to pay rates on their tithes. Notwithstanding that these rates have decreased, the general community are now being asked to pay what the clergy have contracted to pay. It is my intention to support the Amendment of my hon. friend.

Mr. J. H. ROBERTS (Denbighshire, W.)

On this occasion I shall confine myself within the limits of this Amendment. I wish to present one or two considerations in favour of it. I think it will be admitted that one of the reasons for this Amendment is that undoubtedly by the Agricultural Rating Act of 1896 a great difference was made to the clergy of this country. The main reason why I support the Amendment is this: I do not think, in dealing with this Bill, there has been sufficient consideration given to the fact that the value of the tithes of this country have been commuted largely in excess of their net value. What was the posi- tion as regards the value of tithe during the ten years from 1874 to 1883? In 1874 it stood at 112; in 1883 it came down to par value, and from 1883 onwards it has steadily declined. It is obvious that during a series of years tithe-owners have lost considerably through the decline in the value of tithe, but it is equally obvious that, during a large number of years, they were the gainers through the tithe being very much above par value. I think, if an average is fairly struck, it will be seen that they should not participate in the advantages of this measure.

MR. BILLSON (Halifax)

There is no doubt that every clergyman who takes a living is perfectly well aware of what he is going to get as the net result of the provision made for him. When clergymen have bought advowsons and presented themselves to the livings, it has been a matter of close calculation as to what was the amount of rates and what price was to be paid, in order to obtain a fair return for the money. The effect of this Bill will be to increase the price of an advowson by £500 or £600, and whatever else the Bill does it will add about £3,000,000 to the capital value of the advowsons of the country. If this Bill was intended by the Government to remedy any injustice that actually prevails or is likely to prevail, it would be very much benefited by the Amendment before the Committee.

MR. WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

My reason for supporting the Amendment is that it curtails the mischief this Bill will do. But there is one rather strong argument which perhaps the Amendment ought to be altered to meet, and that is that the people existing now will have the same knowledge of this Act as the people existing in the future. A clergyman on the point of taking a living will know what its value will be with half the rates taken off; he knows what the additional value will be, and he is likely to take a thing which he would not otherwise take. Therefore, this Amendment should not only include benefices "to which such owner may be presented after the passing of this Act," but also benefices "to which such owner has been presented within six months before the passing of this Act," so as to include all these people who are now thinking about taking benefices which will benefit by this Act. The man who takes a benefice is in the same position as the man who buys an annuity. If the rates arc raised and his portion of the tithe suffers, he is in exactly the same position as an annuitant who bought an annuity of say £1,000 a year when the income-tax was 5d., and who now has to pay 8d. The annuitant does not go to the assurance company and expect to be paid more in order to make up the difference caused by the increased tax, nor does the country expect to be called upon to pay the difference. The clergyman is in precisely the same position. It has been argued that all sorts of fresh burdens were put upon these wretched people—that fresh rates were put on. But they are treated in the same way as agricultural land is treated, and they only pay one quarter of those new rates. Moreover, in agricultural districts the rates have not increased, while in towns, where they are rather more heavily rated, there is the compensating advantage of large paying congregations. It Call no longer be pleaded that justice is the foundation of this Bill. From our point of view, injustice is the basis of the whole thing. It may be that the clergy should have an eleemosynary grant, but a general injustice cannot be called a principle of justice, and I shall support the Amendment.

MR. MCLAREN (Leicestershire, Bosworth)

Whatever the House may think of this Bill, there is no doubt that if passed as it stands it will go to the country as a very unpopular measure. It will be much more easy to persuade the inhabitants of the country districts that this is an unjust measure than to persuade them that it is a measure which justice demands. When you go and tell the farmer, the butcher, and the baker that you are going to relieve the parson of half his rates, you will certainly set up a feeling of irritation which must be injurious to the influence of the Church. There is nothing people are so sensitive about as any little alteration in rates. If you put up the rating of a factory, or reduce the rating of a public house, or do anything which they imagine alters the existing state of things, it gives rise to discontent, and representations are made in all quarters about the matter. You are really touching a very sore point. You have got the parson, who may be a very good, religious man, but he is not alto- gether popular as a politician in the district. It seems to me there is nothing that would be more dangerous to the office of a clergyman than to let the inhabitants feel that he has scored a point at their expense. This Bill may be a just or an unjust measure, but I venture to submit that if the Government would accept this Amendment—for the Bill is to operate only as an experiment for two years in order to lay down the principle that half-rates are to be paid—the measure would then not be so objectionable.

* MR. PERKS (Lincolnshire, Louth)

There is one argument which I do not think has yet been placed before the House in favour of this Amendment, and it is this: I feel confident that, notwithstanding the silence of so many hon. Members opposite, there must be an enormous number of clergy connected with the Established, Church of this Country who must feel as then read the accounts of the discussions in this House, and the proposal made by the Government for their relief, a sense of deep humiliation. I do not, unlike my hon. friend who has just sat down, worship at the shrines of the Established Church, but I have never felt the slightest possible antagonism to the clergy of that Church as ministers of religion. It is perfectly manifest that this Amendment if passed will greatly reduce the number of recipients of the bounty of the Government. It is, I think, a degrading positron for the clergy of this great Establishment to come knocking like mendicants at the door of this House. If this Amendment be passed it will reduce the number of recipients of this bounty or Parliamentary grant, which is founded, we are told, upon justice, although nobody will explain why the spirit of justice is to entirely disappear in a couple of years' time. If this is a just grant, why do the Government mean to stop it in two years? It call only be upon one assumption, and that is that they do not anticipate being in office then. If this grant be a just one, and these men are right, their claim will be as just in ten years' as in two years' time. But there is another reason why this relief should not be given, and it is this, that the tithes are placed upon a basis of greater security by the collection of tithes through the agency of the land-owner. Does any reasonable man in this House suppose that if the clergyman to day had to go and take one-tenth of the pails of milk, one-tenth of the lambs from the flock, one-tenth of the sheep from the fold, and one-tenth of the produce of the orchard, that such tithes would be leviable to-day? They would have been rejected absolutely and utterly all through the country, and it is only because the Legislature put this tax upon a sound Parliamentary footing in the interests of the clergy in 1836, that it was collectable at all, and later on they were relieved of the ignominious process of distraint. Therefore we have abundant reason for differentiating between the clergy in possession of the tithe at the present moment and those whom it is proposed to limit by the scope of this Amendment which I support.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

My right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition very rightly called attention to the extraordinary speech made by the Minister for Agriculture. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I deplore the obstructive tactics and the opposition of the Minister for Agriculture.


What! obstruction?


Yes, opposition to what is right.


In what way?


Why, the opposition to us. Why did the right hon. Gentleman make that speech? Simply because at the time he had not got his men up and had not got his majority at hand to vote us down as upon ordinary occasions. Therefore, he threw bones of contention at this House which had absolutely nothing to do with the Bill. But we do not follow the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. We have stood solidly to arguments, and sound and potent arguments, in regard to the Amendment which is before the House. But of what use are our arguments? How many right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite will answer them? Why, there are very few hon. Gentlemen who will even condescend to listen to us. One hon. Gentleman after another has got up on this side of the House and submitted some new argument. I myself know fifty new arguments, every one of which would utterly smash and destroy the position taken up by the Government, but I am not going to throw them away upon gentlemen who do not appreciate them, for it would be casting pearls before—hon. Gentlemen opposite. When a Minister brings in a Bill he generally allows a little margin for slight concessions to his opponents, and in that way a Bill is got through easily and quietly in this House. But the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture is sticking to the letter of the rules of the House, and he is violating the spirit of the rules of the House. There are surely some of these Amendments which are reasonable, and some concessions ought to be made. No Bill comes into this House perfect, and important changes are often made. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not accept in a friendly spirit one or two of our Amendments? Why, simply because there is a Report stage, and the right hon. Gentleman is afraid of the Report stage. The right hon. Gentleman would not change one letter or one iota of his Bill, because if he did we should have a Report stage. Then we should submit other valuable Amendments, and support them by valuable arguments. Really, the system pursued by right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite is one of obstruction, for there is obstruction by silence as well as obstruction by speaking. We do not like to be treated in this contemptible way. The only hon. Gentleman opposite who attempts to reply to our arguments is the hon. Member for king's Lynn, and he does it in a very dubious fashion; otherwise our arguments are treated with contemptuous silence. Has the Minister for Agriculture said One word against this Amendment? My hon. friend the Member for North Monmouthshire made a very excellent speech; but has anybody replied to it? The hon. Gentleman behind me made a capital speech, and the only answer was that some hon. Member opposite spoke of the sanctity of contract, but I could not make out whether his speech was in favour of the Amendment or not. Why does the First Lord of the Treasury not make a speech? I always listen to him with the greatest admiration, and I want to have an opportunity of hearing him upon this occasion, for it is a question on which he will shine. He has a philosophical and a theological mind, and if he would take the trouble he could very likely convince us that we are in the wrong and he is in the right. All we want is justice, and we desire to do what is best for the good of the country. If there is anything in this Bill which the right hon. Gentleman can convince us is worth having, we will stand by him. We have passed the Second Reading, and now we are asking only for reasonable concessions, which the Government refuse, and they will not even tell us why they refuse They simply vote us down by the brutal force of numbers, and that is violating the spirit of the rules of this House.

MR. STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

I think there is a much better reason than the importance of the Report stage why the Government cannot give way. It is not the future owner of the benefice who sits upon the neck of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it is the present holder of the benefice, and it is to him that the Government have to make a sacrifice in this Bill. During the sitting of the Royal Commission I endeavoured to elicit some argument in favour of letting off from his tithes the existing holder, but I was not able to find any more arguments in its favour than I have found during the present Debate. The real opposition is that the present holder has accepted his office subject to the tithes being paid; but this claim cannot be urged and argued in favour of the present holder, but only on behalf of the corporation of the Church of England as a whole. It is that corporation which is now seeking relief from the tithes, and not the present owner of the benefice. I made, about this time last year, an extract from The Times from a letter by Mr. H. Macpherson, who said:— What our federation did in South Norfolk. we mn repeat in 150 county elections. That is a statement by a federation, not of future holders of benefices, but of present holders. Therefore it is perfectly obvious why the Government cannot accept this most reasonable Amendment.

MR. D. A. THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil)

I desire to amend the Amendment by leaving out the word "after" in older to insert the word "before." It seems to me, on all grounds of justice and expediency, that those now holding the benefices should be relieved, and not those who are presented to livings after the passing of this Act. It is perfectly obvious that the whole ground for the introduction of the Bill is to remove an existing injustice, and that no grievance can exist as far as a person not at present in a living is concerned. I am bound to say that I sympathise with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I think they have a very strong case against this Amendment as it stands, and I can only support it on the ground that any limitation of the Bill must have my support.


I beg to move that the question be now put down to the word "only" in the clause.


The Amendment now before the Committee must be disposed of before any motion to closure particular words can be made.


Then I move that the question be now put.


I will accept that motion.


I desire to know, Sir, which question you intend to put.


The original question under discussion.


But I have moved an Amendment to the Amendment.


I did not put the hon. Member's Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman intervened before I put the Amendment.

Question put, "That the question be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 258; Noes, 160. (Division List, No. 235.)

Aird, John Carlile, William Walter Drucker, A.
Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.) Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas
Arnold, Alfred Cayzer, Sir Charles William Fardell, Sir T. George
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East) Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Man.)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzR. Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Finch, George H.
Bailey, James (Walworth) Chamberlain, Rt Hn.J.(Birm.) Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Baillie, James E. B.(Inverness) Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) Fisher, William Hayes
Baird, John George Alexander Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Fison, Frederick William
Baldwin, Alfred Charringten, Spencer Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.
Balfour,Rt. Hn. A.J. (Manch'r Clarke,Sir Edward(Plymouth) Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A.E. Galloway, William Johnson
Banbury, Frederick George Coddington, Sir William Garfit, William
Barnes, Frederic Gorell Coghill, Douglas Harry Gedge, Sydney
Barry,Sir Francis T.(Windsor) Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole Gibbons, J. Lloyd
Bartley, George C. T. Compton, Lord Alwyne Gibbs, Hon. A.G.H.(C. of Lond.
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford) Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans)
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj. Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W. Giles, Charles Tyrrell
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H.(Bristol Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D. Gilliat, John Saunders
Beach, W. W. B. (Hants.) Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Godson, Sir A. Frederick
Beckett, Ernest William Cranborne, Viscount Gordon, Hon. John Edward
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Cripps, Charles Alfred Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon
Bethell, Commander Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Goschen, Rt Hn G J.(St.George's
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton) Goschen, George J. (Sussex)
Bill, Charles Cubitt, Hon. Henry Goulding, Edward Alfred
Blundell, Colonel Henry Curzon, Viscount Graham, Henry Robert
Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Dalrymple, Sir Charles Gretton, John
Boulnois, Edmund Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham) Gull, Sir Cameron
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex Denny, Colonel Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Bowles, T.Gibson(KingsLynn) Digby, John, K.D. Wingfield- Halsey, Thomas Frederick
Brassey, Albert Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Hamilton, Rt.Hn. Lord George
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.
Brookfield, A. Montagu Doughty, George Hanson, Sir Reginald
Bullard, Sir Harry Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Hardy, Laurence
Burdett-Coutts, W. Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S. Hare, Thomas Leigh
Butcher, John George Doxford, William Theodore Heaton, John Henniker
Campbell, Rt. Hn. J A (Glasgow Drage, Geoffrey Helder, Augustus
Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Seely, Charles Hilton
Hill, Sir Edward Stock (Bristol Middlemore, John T. Seton-Karr, Henry
Hoare, Edw. Brodie(Hampstd. Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J. Sharpe, William Edward T.
Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) Mildmay, Francis Bingham Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Hobhouse, Henry Milner, Sir Frederick George Sidebottom, William(Derbysh.
Holland, Hon, Lionel R. (Bow) Milton, Viscount Simeon, Sir Barrington
Hornby, Sir William Henry Milward, Colonel Victor Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Monk, Charles James Spencer, Ernest
Howard, Joseph Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants) Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)
Howell, William Tudor Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)
Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)
Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn Morgan, Hn. Fred(Monm'thsh. Stanley, Lord (Lancashire)
Hudson, George Bickersteth Morrell, George Herbert Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Jebb, Richard Claverhouse Morrison, Walter Stock, James Henry
Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Morton, Arthur H.A.(Deptford Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Jenkins, Sir John Jones Mount, William George Sutherland, Sir Thomas
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Muntz, Philip A. [(Bute) Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Ox. Univ.
Jolliffe, Hon. H. George Murray, Rt. Hon. A. Graham Thorburn, Walter
Kemp, George Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Thornton, Percy M.
Kenyon, James Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath Tollemache, Henry James
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William Myers, William Henry Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Knowles, Lees Newark, Viscount Tritton, Charles Ernest
Lafone, Alfred Nicol, Donald Ninian Valentia, Viscount
Laurie, Lieut.-General Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford Wanklyn James Leslie
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)
Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) Pender, Sir James Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)
Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry) Penn, John Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Edw. H. Percy, Earl Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Pierpoint, Robert Wharton, Rt. Hon.John Lloyd
Leighton, Stanley Platt-Higgins, Frederick Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Llewelyn Sir Diliwyn-(Swans. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.) Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)
Loder,Gerald Walter Erskine Pryce-Jones. Lt.-Col. Edward Willox, Sir John Archibald
Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham) Purvis, Robert Wilson,J.W.(Worcestersh.N.)
Long,Rt.Hn.Walter(Liverpool Pym, C. Guy Wodehouse,RtHon E R (Bath)
Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Quilter, Sir Cuthbert Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Lowe, Francis William Rankin, Sir James Wortley,Rt.Hon.C.B.Stuart.-
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Wylie, Alexander
Lucas-Shadwell, William Richardson, Sir Thos.(Hartlep'l Wyndham, George
Macartney, W. G. Ellison Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W. Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Macdona, John Cumming Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
MacIver, David (Liverpool) Robinson, Brooke Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Maclean, James Mackenzie Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) Young, Commander(Berks,E.)
M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinboro'W. Ryder, John Herbert Dudley Younger, William
Malcolm, Ian Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Melville, Beresford Valentine Savory, Sir Joseph
Allen, W. (Newc. under Lyme) Clougn, Walter Owen Griffith, Ellis J.
Allison, Robert Andrew Colville, John Gurdon, Sir William Brampton
Ambrose, Robert Crombie, John William Haldane, Richard Burdon
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal) Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Atherley-Jones, L. Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) Harwood, George
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) Dalziel, James Henry Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) Davies, M.Vaughan-(Cardigan Hazell, Walter
Baker, Sir Johan Davitt, Michael Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.
Barlow, John Emmott Dillon, John Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Donelan, Captain A. Hogan, James Francis
Billson, Alfred Doogan, P. C. Holden, Sir Angus
Birrell, Augustine Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Holland, W. H. (York, W. R.)
Broadhurst, Henry Duckworth, James Horniman, Frederick John
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Dunn, Sir William Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Emmott, Alfred Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Jacoby, James Alfred
Buxton, Sydney Charles Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.
Caldwell, James Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Joicey, Sir James
Cameron, Robert (Durham) Flynn, James Christopher Jones, David B. (Swansea)
Campbell-Bannerman Sir H. Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U
Causton, Richard Knight Fowler, Right Hon Sir Henry Kearley, Hudson E.
Cawley, Frederick Goddard, Daniel Ford Kinloch, Sir J. George Smyth
Channing, Francis Allston Gold, Charles Kitson, Sir James
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh. Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley Labouchere, Henry
Lambert, George Norton, Capt. Cecil William Stevenson, Francis S.
Langley, Batty Nussey, Thomas Williams Strachey, Edward
Lawson Sir Wilfred(Cumb'land O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Stuart, James (Shoreditch)
Leuty, Thomas Richmond O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal) Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Lewis John Herbert O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.) Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)
Lloyd-George, David O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan,E.
Logan, John William Oldroyd, Mark Thomas, David Alfd. (Merthyr
Lough, Thomas Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Lyell, Sir Leonard Palmer, George W. (Reading) Ure, Alexander
Macaleese, Daniel Paulton, James Mellor Wallace, Robert
MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Q.C.) Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.) Walton, Jn. Lawson (Leeds, S.
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Perks, Robert William Warner, Thomas Courtney T.
M'Ewan, William Pickersgill, Edward Hare Wedderburn, Sir William
M'Ghee, Richard Pilkington, Sir. G.A (LancsSW Weir, James Galloway
M'Kenna, Reginald Power, Patrick Joseph Whiteley, George (Stockport)
M' Laren, Charles Benjamin Price, Robert John Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
M'Leod, John Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.) Williams, John Carvell (Notts.
Maddison, Fred. Randell, David Wills, Sir William Henry
Maden, John Henry Reckitt, Harold James Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)
Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.) Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)
Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Yorks) Rickett, J. Compton Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Mendl, Sigismund Fendinand Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Wilson, John (Govan)
Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel) Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Woodhouse, Sir J.T. (Hid'rsf'd
Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen) Robson, William Snowdon Woods, Samuel
Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr) Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Schwann, Charles E. Yoxall, James Henry
Morley, Rt. Hon. J. (Montrose) Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)
Morris, Samuel Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Morton, Ed. J. C. (Devonport) Smith, Samuel (Flint) Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. M'Arthur.
Moss, Samuel Spicer, Albert
Moulton, John Fletcher Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 165; Noes, 262. (Division List, No. 236.)

Allen, Wm. (Newer-un.-Lyme) Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Kitson, Sir James
Allison, Robert Andrew Duckworth, James Labouchere, Henry
Ambrose, Robert Dunn, Sir William Lambert George
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert H. Ellis, John Edward Langley, Batty
Atherley-Jones, L. Emmott, Alfred Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)
Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire) Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan Leuty, Thomas Richmond
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) Ferguson, R. c. Munro (Leith) Lewis, John Herbert
Baker, Sir John Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Lloyd-George, David
Barlow, John Emmott Flynn, James Christopher Logan, John William
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Lough, Thomas
Billson, Alfred Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Lyell, Sir Leonard
Birrell, Augustine Goddard, Daniel Ford Macaleese, Daniel
Broadhurst, Henry Gold, Charles MacDonnell, Dr. M.A,(Qu'ns C)
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley NacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Griffith, Ellis J. M'Dermott, Patrick
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Gurdon, Sir William Brampton M'Ewan, William
Buxton, Sydney Charles Haldane, Richard Burdon M'Ghee, Richard
Caldwell, James Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. M'Kenna, Reginald
Cameron, Robert (Durham) Harwood, George M'Laren, Charles Benjamin
Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale- M'Leod, John
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Hazell, Walter Maddison, Fred.
Causton, Richard Knight Hedderwick, Thos. Charles H. Maden, John Henry
Cawley, Frederick Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H. Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe
Chinning, Francis Allston Hogan, James Francis Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. W(Yorks.)
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh. Holden, Sir Angus Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand
Clough, Walter Owen Holland, Wm. H.(York, W.R.) Middlemore, J. Throgmorton
Colville, John Horniman, Frederick John Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)
Crombie, John William Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) Jacoby, James Alfred Morley, Charles (Breconshire)
Dalziel James Henry Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw. Morley, Rt. Hon. J. (Montrose)
Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan Joicey, Sir James Morris, Samuel
Davitt, Michael Jones, David Brynmor(Swans'a Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)
Dillon, John Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U Moss, Samuel
Donelan, Captain A. Kearley, Hudson E. Moulton, John Fletcher
Doogan, P. C. Kinloch, Sir John George S. Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Nussey, Thomas Willans Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)
O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W. Robson, William Snowdon Wedderburn, Sir William
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Weir, James Calloway
Oldroyd, Mark Schwann, Charles E. Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham) Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Palmer, George W. (Reading) Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire) Williams, John Carvell (Notts.
Paulton, James Mellor Smith, Samuel (Flint) Wills, Sir William Henry
Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb. Spicer, Albert Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)
Perks, Robert William Stanhope, Hon. Philip J. Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Pickard, Benjamin Stevenson, Francis S. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Pickersgill, Edward Hare Strachey, Edward Wilson, John (Govan)
Pilkington, Sir G.A.(Lancs SW Stuart, James (Shoreditch) Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Power, Patrick Joseph Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Hddersf'd
Price, Robert John Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.) Woods, Samuel
Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.) Thomas, Alfred(Glamorgan, E.) Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)
Randell, David Thomas, David Alfr. (Merthyr Yoxall, James Henry
Reckitt, Harold James Trevelvan, Charles Philips TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Richardson,J. (Durham, S. E.) Ure, Alexander Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. W'Arthur.
Rickett, J. Compton Wallace, Robert
Aird, John Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) Gilliat, John Saunders
Allhusen, A. Henry Eden Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Charrington, Spencer Gordon, Hon John Edward
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Clare, Octavius Leigh Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon
Arnold, Alfred Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth) Goschen Rt Hn G.J (St.George's
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Goschen, George J. (Sussex)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Coddington, Sir William Goulding, Edward Alfred
Bagot, Capt. J. Fitzroy Coghill, Douglas Harry Graham, Henry Robert
Bailey, James (Walworth) Colston, Chas. Edw. H.Athole Green, Watford D. (Wed'bury
Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness) Compton, Lord Alwyne Gretton, John
Baird, John George Alexander Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford) Gull, Sir Cameron
Baldwin, Alfred Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W. Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D. Halsey, Thomas Frederick
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George
Banbury, Frederick George Cranborne, Viscount Hanbury, Rt. Hn Robert Wm.
Barnes, Frederic Gorell Cripps, Charles Alfred Hanson, Sir Reginald
Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor) Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Hardy, Laurence
Bartley, George C. T. Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Hare, Thomas Leigh
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Cubitt, Hon. Henry Heaton, John Henniker
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. Curzon, Viscount Helder, Augustus
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H.(Bristol) Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter
Beach, W. W. B. (Hants.) Dalrymple, Sir Charles Hill, Rt. Hn. A. Staveley(Staffs.
Beckett, Ernest William Davies,Sir Horatio D.(Chatham Hill, Sir Edward Stock(Bristol
Begg, Ferdinand Faithful Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- Hoare, Edw. Brodie(Hampste'd
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)
Bethell, Commander Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon Hobhouse, Henry
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Doughty, George Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)
Bill, Charles Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Hornby, Sir William Henry
Blundell, Colonel Henry Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S. Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry
Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme Doxford, William Theodore Howard, Joseph
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Drage, Geoffrey Howell, William Tudor
Boulnois, Edmund Drucker, A. Hozier, Hon. J. Henry Cecil
Bousfield, William Robert Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Hubbard, Hon, Evelyn
Bowles,Capt. H.F. (Middlesex) Dyke. Rt. Hn. sir William Hart Hudson, George Bickersteth
Bowles, T.Gibson(King's Lynn Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D. Jebb, Richard Claverhouse
Brassey, Albert Fardell, Sir T. George Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Jenkins, Sir John Jones
Brookfield, A. Montagu Fergusson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. (Man) Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)
Bullard, Sir Harry Finch, George H. Jolliffe, Hon. H. George
Burdett-Coutcs, W. Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Kemp, George
Butcher, John George Fishier, William Hayes Kenyon, James
Campbell,RtHn J. A.(Glasgow Fison, Frederick William Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William
Carlile, William Walter FitzWygram, General Sir F. Knowles, Lees
Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) Lafone, Alfred
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Galloway, William Johnson Laurie, Lieut.-General
Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.) Garfit, William Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Gedge, Sydney Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East) Gibbons, J. Lloyd Lecky, Rt. Hn. William E. H.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H.(C.ofLond.) Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans) Leigh- Bennett, Henry Currie
Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J.(Birm.) Giles, Charles Tyrell Leighton, Stanley
Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swans. Nicol, Donald Ninian Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford Stock, James Henry
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal) Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham) O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens Sutherland, Sir Thomas
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverp'l) Pender, Sir James Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf.Univ.
Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Penn, John Thorburn, Walter
Lowe, Francis William Percy, Earl Thornton, Percy M.
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Pierpoint, Robert Tollemache, Henry James
Lucas-Shadwell, William Platt-Higgins, Frederick Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Macartney, W. G. Ellison Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Tritton, Charles Ernest
Macdona, John Cumming Priestley, Sir W.O (Edinburgh Usborne, Thomas
MacIver, David (Liverpool) Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Valentia, Viscount
Maclean, James Mackenzie Purvis, Robert Wanklyn, James Leslie
M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb., W.) Pym, C. Guy Ward, Hon. Robert A. (Crewe)
Malcolm, Ian Quitter, Sir Cuthbert Warde, Lieut.-Col. C. E. (Kent)
Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) Rankin, Sir James Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Melville, Beresford Valentine Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Richardson, Sir Thos.(Hartp'l) Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd
Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J. Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matt. W. Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Mildmay, Francis Bingham Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Milner, Sir Frederick George Robinson, Brooke Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm
Milton, Viscount Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) Willox, Sir John Archibald
Milward. Colonel Victor Ryder, J. H. Dudley Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh.N.
Monk, Charles James Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (H'nts) Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Savory, Sir Joseph Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
More,Robt, Jasper (Shropshire) Seely, Charles Hilton Wylie, Alexander
Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.) Seton-Karr, Henry Wyndham, George
Morrell, George Herbert Sharpe, William Edward T. Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Morrison, Walter Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire) Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptford Sidebottom, William (Derbys.) Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Mount, William George Simeon, Sir Barrington Young, Commander (Berks, E.
Muntz, Philip A. Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) Younger, William
Murray, Rt Hn A Graham(Bute Spencer, Ernest
Murray, Charles.J. (Coventry) Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath) Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset) Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Myers, William Henry Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)
Newark, Viscount Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

rose in his place, and claimed to move: "That the question, 'That the words of the clause "shall be liable to pay only" stand part of the clause,' be now put."


There is an Amendment standing in the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for North-West Durham which, I think, the Committee should have an opportunity of discussing. If the Committee would be prepared to discuss that Amendment, I should decline to accept the motion of the First Lord of the Treasury; but if the Committee do not accept that view, I shall be compelled to accept the motion.


Oh, oh!

MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)

May I ask, Sir, on a point of order, in what way the resolution of the right hon. Gentleman would be put in the event of any arrangement being arrived at by the acceptance of the Amendment you have mentioned? I submit that the proposition should be accepted or refused.


I said I could not accept the motion of the Leader of the House, because I thought there was an Amendment on the Paper which should be discussed. But, of course, if the Committee decline to discuss that Amendment, I shall be compelled to accept the motion of the right hon. Gentleman.


I rise, Sir, to, another point of order. I wonder where I come in.


The Amendment of the hon. Member does not come before that of the hon. Member for North-West Durham.


The Committee is a little at a loss to understated what the proceeding is. While fully recognising your desire to, secure for the Committee the consideration of a particular Amendment, I would ask how we can be allowed to consider that Amendment without having an opportunity of considering the others. Should we, for instance, have an oppor- tunity of considering the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs, to which reference was made in the discussion of the Amendment which has just been negatived. The point is, by what process one Amendment can be selected and saved from the wreck without any mercy being shown to the others.


Earlier in the evening I made the observation that we could not very well tell what Amendments would be put, and I was then assured that every Amendment which was in order would be put from the Chair. And I was debarred from continuing the argument I was addressing to the Committee on the ground of Amendments that were to follow. I would venture to submit to you, Sir, that what the Committee is entitled to ask is that, before the Amendments are shut out, you should on each Amendment rule it out of order. To put to the Committee generally whether they are prepared to discuss a particular Amendment or not is to me an entirely new proceeding.




Yes; I can understand that the Amendment may be accepted, but how can the Committee generally say whether they will or will not discuss an Amendment? I would ask your ruling upon the point. As to the motion made by the right hon. Gentleman, I claim that if that Amendment is in order it should be put from the Chair. The House of Commons has a right—the minority even have some rights—to see that the rules of the House are observed. Therefore, we ask your decision upon the motion of the right hon. Gentleman to strike out the words down to "only."


To keep them in.


That is the motion that is before the Committee; and, of course, if it is put and carried, the Amendment of the hon. Member for North-West Durham cannot be put. I understand you to say that, if the Committee proposes to discuss that Amendment, you will not put from the Chair the motion of the right hon. Gentleman. If that is so, then, of course, the motion of the right hon. Gentleman falls to the ground. You have told us that you will not put that motion if the Committee is prepared to discuss the Amendment of the hon. Member for North-West Durham, and, as far as I am concerned, I am prepared to do that.


May I ask, Sir, whether, you having refused the closure, the right procedure is not to go on with the next Amendment on the Paper?


I have followed a precedent which is in my mind—and in the mind of many other Members of the Committee, which was set by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin a good many years ago. In endeavouring to protect the rights of the minority it seemed to me that there was one substantial Amendment which would be shut out if I accepted the motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. I was endeavouring to protect the rights of the minority in that respect, and endeavouring to procure for them a discussion of that Amendment; but if the minority do not wish the course I suggested to be taken, of course, the only alternative for me is to accept the motion of the First Lord of the Treasury.

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Perhaps I may be permitted to recall the circumstances to which you have referred, Sir, because it may have some bearing on the conduct of the Committee to-day. The Committee at that time was in a very excited condition, and it had had a protracted Debate over many Amendments to the Irish Crimes Prevention Bill, and a motion was made that certain words should stand part of the clause. I said that if that motion were accepted it would cut out one or two Amendments, to which I directed attention, which in my judgment were substantial Amendments, and I therefore hesitated to accept the motion. Thereupon the members of the Committee agreed, practically without any vote taken on the subject, to drop all the intermediate Amendments, except the one or two to which I called attention, and to proceed with the discussion. That, I presume, is what you have suggested on the present occasion. I may say, looking back to that time, that if the Committee had not followed the suggestion made of saving the one or two substantial Amendments to which I have referred, I should, not perhaps immediately, but after a short interval, have accepted the motion that certain words should stand part, even though they did cut out those substantial Amendments, because it is impossible, as I conceive, for the Chairman to do otherwise, having regard to the conduct of business, as well as to the rights of private Members and of the minority. If business is so conducted as to render progress impossible, then, at whatever cost, it is inevitable that certain substantial Amendments may come to be overlooked.


I am sure, Sir, there is no disposition in this quarter of the House to do otherwise than facilitate an arrangement—perhaps not entirely to the liking of hon. Members of this side of the House who think they have been treated with small amount of courtesy—but at the same time to facilitate such an arrangement. What we do not see is how, as a matter of form, it is to be brought about. The right hon. Gentleman has reminded us of an occasion to which reference has been made; but I would ask you, Sir, whether, in addition to the Amendment of the hon. Member for North-West Durham, to which you attach importance, you would not also include in your exception the particular Amendment to which reference has been previously made to-day, and as to which an assurance was undoubtedly given to my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouth that it would be put from the Chair.


I have a note opposite that particular Amendment that it ought to come up as a new clause, and if it had been reached in the ordinary course of business I should have ruled that it ought to have been raised as a new clause, in the same way as I ruled yesterday that an Amendment put down by the hon. Member for Monmouth should have been brought up as a new clause. Therefore the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs will not be injured if the arrangement I suggested is adopted.


That entirely saves the understanding with my right hon. friend.


You have said, Sir, that your decision on this matter will be taken on whether the House is disposed or not disposed to discuss the Amendment of the hon. Member for Durham. How is that to be ascertained? I ask you to tell us, because that seems to me to be the turning point of the matter.


I propose to ascertain that by calling upon the hon. Member for Durham. There is only one other hon. Member who has an Amendment before that in order, and if that hon. Member insists on his title to intervene, of course the arrangement would be destroyed, and I should be compelled to accept the motion of the First Lord of the Treasury.


Whose Amendment is that?


The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil.


My Amendment is quite as substantial as that of the hon. Member for North-West Durham. If I had not regarded it as a substantial Amendment I would not have put it on the Paper.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I ask, on a point of order, whether there is any precedent for the course which you, Mr. Lowther, are now taking; that is to say, in passing over a Member of the House whose Amendment is in order, and calling on an hon. Member whose name stands subsequent on the Paper. Referring for a moment to the only precedent alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin, I wish to direct attention to the fact on that occasion, after a very heated discussion, and on the tenth or eleventh night of the discussion, the right hon. Member for Bodmin was dealing with only a small party in the House, of which I was a Member, and not with the whole body of the Opposition in this House. I venture to submit that in the present instance you, Mr. Lowther, are making a large advance on that precedent. This is only the second night of the Debate in Committee, and the Opposition is not a small minority, but the whole Opposition in the House. I conclude by asking you again whether there is any precedent for the Chairman passing over an hon. Member whose Amendment stands upon the Paper, and calling upon another hon. Member whose name stands subsequently on the Paper.


The hon. Member has misunderstood the situation. I did not pass over the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil; on the contrary, I stated quite clearly that, except with his consent, I could not call upon the hon. Member for North-West Durham. If he refuses his consent, we are left in the same position as at the close of the last Division.


I will give my consent.


I also would be cut out if this course were taken. My Amendment to limit the operation of the Act to benefices given before the passing of the Act is in order, and stands next on the Paper.


Of course, that Amendment would be passed over along with others. I do not say that it is not in order, but it is not, in my opinion, so substantial. There is a difference between these Amendments. Some are very important; others not so important. In my opinion the most important Amendment that would be passed over would be that of the hon. Member for North-West Durham.


Am I to understand that you are passing over my Amendment to go on to another?


The only Amendment yet passed over with the consent of the hon. Member in whose name it stands is the Amendment of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. The other Amendments are subsequent to that of the hon. Member for North-West Durham.


Do I understand that by calling on the next Amendment you have passed over my Amendment, which is in order, and which stands next on the Paper?


It is just the opposite. The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Anglesey comes after that of the hon. Member for North-West Durham.


On a point of order. I have an Amendment page 16. If it be in order it is Undoubtedly an important and substantial Amendment. It would be ruled out by the closure suggested. May I ask if that Amendment of mine is in order?


I have the same note opposite to the Amendment of the hon. Member for King's Lynn as I have opposite that of the bon. Member for Carnarvon. It ought to be raised as a new clause. I call upon the hon. Member for North-West Durham.


I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. The principle upon which the Bill is founded is to be discovered in the declaration in the Report of the Royal Commission, and the speeches of the Members of the Government, and of the Commission during the earlier stages of the discussion. I gather from these that the great object of the Bill is that, according to their view of the facts, certain deductions from the rateable value of the tithe rent-charge had not been made in the case of beneficed clergy which ought to have been made. With the single exception of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, hon. Members were, on the Government side of the House, solicitous during the Debate to repudiate the idea that this concession, for concession it is, was made on the ground of sympathy with the distressful condition of the clergy. I am afraid that we have a very shrewd suspicion, a suspicion to which the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth lent his authority, that the raison d'etre was not any unjust principle of deductions applied to the tithe rent-charge, but rather the view that the clergy are, from the point of view of sympathy, entitled to some concession on the part of the general taxpayers. I would point out to the House that the claim made in behalf of the clergy is that there are a certain number of deductions which ought to be made and which have not been made. After a very careful and prolonged investigation a certain number of deductions were made, and these are set out in the Report. I am prepared to admit, and I think it is a very sound proposition, that if you can establish that the clergy for the purpose of discharging their office, or causing their office properly to be discharged, are put to expenses which fall or are likely to fall on the tithe rentcharge, then, I think, that is a deduction which may reasonably be made. There are two deductions in my mind to which that principle applies, and two only. One is in respect of the repair of the church; the other is in respect of the necessary employment of a curate for the purpose of discharging the duties of the benefice. Now, I believe that the law, as it at present stands, speaking generally, in spite of a recent decision, does recognise that deductions may be properly made from the rateable value of the benefice for the purpose of the repair of the church, or, at any rate, for the purpose of the repair of that particular part of the building for which the parson is responsible. As to the other charge in regard to the employment of a citrate, I am prepared to concede that as the law at present stands, the curate's salary cannot properly be allocated to tithe rent-charge, unless his employment is compulsory. Speaking for myself—and I do not know that any of my hon. or right hon. friends would controvert the proposition—I think it would be only fair and reasonable that these two deductions should be made. This Bill is founded on the principle of deduction, and the hon. Member who is responsible for the Report has eternally hammered on that question. It is because the parson is not fairly treated in respect of rating that he is entitled to these grants, and because there would be difficulty in adjusting the rating in each particular case. One of the most experienced persons connected with the administration of ecclesiastical revenues, Mr. De Bock Porter (Secretary to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners), repudiated the justice of making deductions from the tithe rent-charge, with the exception of repairs of the chancel and the employment of a curate. What are these other deductions? One of them which the hon. and learned Member for Stroud put forward was the land tax. Now, why should the land tax be deducted? The same hon. Gentleman asked whether deduction should not be made in respect of wages for superintendence. Now, I shrink from arguing that point, because is there anything more repugnant to one's conception of the position of a clergyman Who has the cure of souls than that there should be a deduction made from the tithe rent-charge based upon the principle of wages? A very distinguished judge repudiated the idea with absolute horror as an indignity to the Church, and yet we are invited in the discussion which has taken place during this Debate to grant a deduction for the services of the pastor of a church in superintending the cure of souls as proper. I will not condescend to discuss that point, because every person who has given evidence upon that question, with the single exception of the hon. Member, has repudiated in the strongest possible manner the idea that you should value by wages the high and sacred duty which a clergyman of the Church of England has to perform. It is perfectly true that a considerable number of clergy do suffer from very grievous distress. We know the numerous appeals which have been made in this respect, and had this measure been applied to the relief of the necessitous clergy, I do not think we should have been prepared to deal otherwise than in a generous and liberal manner with such a measure, so far as is consistent with the principles which we are bound to promote. But it is conceded that it is not for the benefit of the distressed clergy, because it is not the distressed clergyman with the small tithe who will derive any benefit from this Bill. The man who will derive most benefit is the hugest tithe-owner. One word only in conclusion. It is continually contended, and without the smallest pretence of justification, that the clergyman is badly treated. To a large extent that statement has been exploded over and over again by the illustrations which have been given by my hon. friends on this side of the House. But it must be borne in mind that when these commutations took place, not merely the landlord, but the clerical tithe-owner greatly benefited. In the first place, they had the certainty of their income, which they did not have before; and, in the second place, they were not exposed to the vicissitudes of agriculture, because they still had their income by the system of commutation. If there is an injustice at all to the clergy, it is a microscopic injustice, anal this Bill is entirely out of proportion to the injustice under which they suffer. That injustice can be dealt with under the present law, and deductions given to meet the exigencies of the situation. It is quite unnecessary that we should give a wholesale dole to the clergy, which, after all, will not very often be of assistance to the really necessitous cases.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 5, after the word 'benefice, to insert the words, who has incurred expenses in the employment of a curate for the purposes of such benefice, or has incurred expenses about repairing the church belonging to such benefice, he shall, where such expenditure is not less than one-half of the amount of any rate to which this Act applies.'"—(Mr. Atherley-Jones.)

Question proposed, "That those Words be there inserted."


The hon. Gentleman's speech and Amendment are very helpful, demonstrating as they do the enormous difficulty of the task which he has set himself to accomplish. He desires to specify what form the relief of rating shall take, and for what services alone this relief shall be given. Well, the Government are abundantly justified in the line that they have adopted by the Report of the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission had before them all the evidence to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred, and we know that they included in their inquiry this question of deductions from the rateable value. I admit at once that if we were dealing in a permanent way with the whole question of local taxation, unquestionably it is by some form of deduction that we should have to seek a permanent remedy. The statement that the Royal Commission recommended that form of relief is a complete mistake. The majority of the Royal Commission, on the contrary, made recommendations of the most general character, and it was only three Members of the Commission who recommended that relief should be given by a process of deductions. If the majority of the Commission had been satisfied that a case for deductions had been established, I have no doubt that, instead of making general recommendations, they would have made some recommendations which would have been a guide to the Government. They avoided doing so, and, considering the difficult and complicated nature of the subject, I am not surprised. I am not prepared to admit, on the pant of the Government, that it would be fair to lessen the incidence of the rates with regard only to those clergy covered by the Amendment, because we hold that, as tithe rent-charge owners, the position of the whole of the clergy as ratepayers, as compared with other ratepayers, is an unjust one, and ought to be remedied. The Government cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment.


I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentlemon say that the proposals of this Bill were in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and still more surprised that the Government did not follow the recommendations of three members of the Commission whose names have been specially mentioned—namely, Sir John Hibbert, the late Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, and the hon. and learned Member for Stroud, who recommended the self-same proposal as is contained in the Amendment. As a matter of fact, the Government have repudiated the authorities upon whom the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, whose speech on the Second Reading was specially thrown at our heads, mainly relied. I will read the Report: We desire to add that, in our opinion, the inequality which exists to the detriment of owners of tithe rent-charge not severed from the benefice is due to the fact that, in ascertaining the rateable value of such tithe rent-charge, sufficient deductions from the gross value have not been allowed; and that it is necessary, in order to place the owners of such tithe rent-charge on a footing of equality with the owners or occupiers of other rateable property, to provide by legislation for the allowance of further deductions front the gross value, and in such deductions to recognise the liability which is imposed on the owners of such tithe rent-charge to render certain services as a condition of enjoying their emoluments. That is the policy recommended by these three Members of the Commission, which has been quoted as the highest authority the matter. I should like to know how the first of these signatories is going to vote on this Amendment. He has not dissented from the majority Report without grave consideration. That is the situation with reference to the principle of deductions. But higher authority still, the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this says that no doubt, if we were to consider the question on its merits, the principle of deductions is the right principle; but then, why does he not adopt it? He says it is because of the interim Report, in which these three most important Members recommended the deductions. The majority Report made no recommendations at all, and the right hon. Gentleman says they had not had time, and therefore the Government cannot consider this matter on its proper footing. We believe the principle they have adopted is a wrong one. It is quite obvious that if you have a principle of deductions you reform the principle itself when you make these allowances on particular holdings. But what you do is to assess a property on the old rate, and then pay half of it out of a fund. If you consider any particular class is unjustly dealt with, the remedy is by deductions, and not by assessment, and it is in that way that you ought to proceed. The right hon. Gentleman to admits that; but either through being unable to make up its mind, or having no mind on the subject, the Commission lay an interim Report upon the Table of this House, to change the whole system of rating instead of reforming it. The whole difficulty lies in the deductions themselves, when you come to consider them. Now, what light does that throw on this pretence of doing justice? If there were any injustice at all, you would not have the slightest difficulty in making up your mind as to the addition to be made. There is one other point which commends itself to an ordinary mind, and that is that a man who keeps a curate at £150 a year you admit ought to have a deduction, but you would be unable to give that deduction to a man who ought to keep a curate and does not, and having made it on the ground that you give it to a man for something he has paid, you give it also to another who has not paid it. Then, again, you give it to one man for repairing his chancel, and you give something else to another who does not. That is the principle of this Bill, founded on the principle of blind justice. I suppose the gift, like rain, will descend on the just and unjust alike. If you are going to make allowances at all, you should make them to men who want them. But this system squanders the money of the taxpayers on the pretence that it is wanted by a class of people, whereas that pretence does not apply to a very large section of them. If you made up your minds as to these deductions, you know perfectly well you would not get half the sum which you now ask for, and that is the reason you fly in the face of the recommendation of the three most important Members of the Commission.

MR. HALDANE (Haddington)

The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has told us that he did not accept the Report of the minority of the Commissioners, but he went on to say that the Bill was really founded on the general recommendations of the other Commissioners. I have read that Report very carefully, but I have been unable to find that the recommendations of the majority of the Commissioners are based on any other ground than the theory of deductions. This Bill not only does not give effect to that principle, but goes directly in the teeth of the recommendations based upon it. So inconsistent is the Bill with the theory of deductions, that it proposes to give this grant to rich and poor alike; to those who employ a curate and to those who do not; to those who suffer from these deductions, and to those who do not suffer from them at all. The Amendment of my hon. and learned friend raises a most important question—namely, What is the justification of the Government for their proposition? I trust that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and especially the hon. and learned Member for Stroud and the Solicitor-General—who has been singularly and suspiciously silent during this Debate—will make something like a defence of the provisions involved in the Bill.

MR. CRIPPS (Gloucestershire, Stroud)

I merely wish to prevent any misunderstanding. I believe the Royal Commission were unanimous that something must be done of a temporary nature. Those who thought of what the ultimate Report as regards the rating of tithe rent-charge was likely to be, desired to emphasise their view as to what that Report should be. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would not suggest that in a temporary measure of this kind, and without waiting for the final Report of the Royal Commission, we ought to touch the valuation list. The Government are acting on the recommendations of the Royal Commission that they should do something of a temporary nature, and the result will be practically the same as if they had applied the principle of deductions. I am not going into the question of what deductions are proper. That is a matter of controversy. But I wish to protest against the notion that three Members of the Royal Commission dissented upon this point from their colleagues. I believe they were all agreed that something should be done at once.

MR. ABEL THOMAS (Carmarthen, E.)

I shall vote in favour of my hon. and learned friend's Amendment, though I feel it requires explanation, because it is one of the most astonishing proposals I have ever heard of. For instance, my hon. and learned friend's first suggestion is that, because a clergyman employs a curate, therefore he is to be relieved from part of his rates. In principle there is absolutely no distinction between the clergyman who employs a curate to help him to do his work and the clergyman who uses a pony and trap, or the man who works all day long and most of the night, and does without both the curate and the pony and trap. To that extent I do not appreciate the Amendment. But I think the Amendment will lessen the evils of this Bill and will save the country a certain amount of taxes or rates, as the case may be. I do not see the justice of this Bill, and I shall certainly vote in favour of preventing a certain number of clergymen, however hard working, from getting, not what belongs to them, but what I cannot conceive to be their right.


I think there is a very good case for the Amendment. The representatives of the clergy who gave the evidence before the Commission upon which this Bill is based, advocated exactly what is embodied in the Amendment. The Report says that Mr. Griffith-Boscawen, M.P., Mr. Petersen, and the Rev. E. F. Gepp urged that, in addition to the existing deductions, allowances should be made for the professional services to clerical titheowners, for the stipends of necessary curates, and other deductions are also mentioned. My hon. friend says that the rich man who undertakes the duties, knowing the liabilities, ought not to benefit by this Bill. But there may be cases where a large amount of the stipend goes in the payment of curates, and in that way the operation of the Bill would be limited. On this ground I shall support the Amendment.


I should be glad if we could agree upon certain matters under discussion. We shall all agree that tithe rent-charge is properly rateable. That is accepted by the Bill itself, inasmuch as it leaves tithe rent-charge rateable exactly as now. It is also recognised that tithe rent-charge in the hands of lay impropriators is likewise left rate-able. The Bill distinguishes between tithe rent-charge in the hands of two particular kinds of owners, so that the liability to pay rates is reduced to whether the owner of particular tithe property is a clerical or a lay person. The issue of principle between us is whether the cleric should be relieved of half his rates, or whether he should continue to pay rates upon the tithe rent-charge as the lay im-propriator does. I have honestly endeavoured to follow the arguments of the Royal Commissioners as set out in the Report, and to a certain extent I have been able to persuade myself that there is a great deal to be said from their point of view. But I cannot find a single word in that Report which supports the proposition of the Government as it now stands in the Bill before us, although I find on page after page recommendations strictly in the spirit of the Amendment before the Committee. The first part of the Report gives the history of rates as they affect tithe rent-charge. In the 13th subdivision of the Report will be found this heading: "Claims put forward on behalf of the incumbents for alterations in the system of valuing tithe rent-charge." It is upon alterations in the system of valuing tithe rent-charge that the Commission proceeds, and upon nothing else. The liability to pay rates remains as a permanent idea throughout the Report. Paragraph 84 gives a summary of the claim put forward on behalf of the incumbents for a re-valuation of tithe rent-charge. Is not this a fair and concise summary of the whole case as put forward on their behalf—that their tithe rent-charge is given to them solely on conditions which are not imposed upon lay impropriators, and that inasmuch as clerics are under that duty they ought to be allowed some deduction in their assessment in consequence of their obligation to perform that duty? The principle of justice which is put forward is that proper deductions are not made. There is no other claim put forward in this Report from beginning to end. Mr. Cassell, in his evidence, simply reiterates the opinion of the Commission as to the justification of their doing—what?—not remitting half the rates, but reducing the assessment. This Amendment does in principle carry out the recommendation of the Commission—the only recommendation upon which the alleged principle of justice can be based. We are trustees of the public in the control of the public finances. Surely, then, it is very desirable in a question of this sort, in which money is at issue, that we should go very strictly upon principles of equity. We cannot always go upon principles of justice as laid down by the Courts of Law; it is our duty frequently to overrule those decisions; but we ought to follow the principles of equity which have been laid down for our guidance, and which are not the principles underlying this Bill as it now stands. If this Amendment were accepted, I readily admit you would gain two results; but those results are beneficial both to the principle which ought to underly this Bill, and to those who most strenuously support this measure. The first result is that the rich tithe-owner will not get an advantage proportionate to his riches; he will get only the same advantage as is obtained by the poorer tithe-owners. Surely that is very desirable. The second result will be that we shall cast the burden of the cost of the measure, not upon the general taxpayer, but upon the persons who ought to be made liable for it—that is, the persons who have been reaping the advantage of the parson's over-assessments in the past. I challenge hon. Members opposite to declare that, provided the same total amount of relief is given to the clergy, it would not be far more in accordance with their ideas of the distribution of the money that it should go in equality of payment to all clergy alike, and that it should not go in a larger proportion to the richer, and a less proportion to the poorer. That principle is better carried out by the Amendment than by the Bill, and therefore I shall support the former.


This Amendment raises a principle which is well deserving of the attention of the Committee, and one the importance of which no one can deny. It really carries out the principle which we were told just now would be the ultimate recommendation of the Royal Commission. The hon. Member for Stroud defends the Bill on the ground that it is a rough-and-ready method of getting justice. That may be, but for my own part, what I object to is tins rough-and-ready method of throwing about the taxpayers' money to persons who do not want it at all. The taxpayers and ratepayers do not get their money so easily as to want it thrown about in that rough-and-ready way. They want it distributed in the most equitable manner, so that it will do most good to those classes for whose benefit it is spent. It is because the Amendment carries out that principle that I shall support it. It also carries out the principle enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture, when he said that the permanent remedy undoubtedly would be, as regards rating, some kind of deduction from the gross annual value. Why do we want, in this measure, which professes to be a reform of rating, to proceed upon wrong principles? Surely it ought to be a principle in this country that those who do their duty should get relief, and those who do not should not get relief. If this Amendment were carried the poor curates who at present are in receipt of such miserable stipends might have a chance of being a little better paid. Surely if any persons receive relief under this Bill it should be these poor curates, rather than the rich incumbents who have incomes of from £1,000 to £1,500 a year. Another point is that rich tithe-payers have been receiving an addition out of the commutation for a large number of years, and have therefore received a very considerable sum over and above the amount they have paid. The Amendment would limit this relief to the smaller tithe-owners, and thereby indirectly carry out the principle of not paying over and over again the rates of these gentlemen, who have had such large sums added to their already very high interest. It cannot be denied that the Report of, and the evidence given before, the Royal Commission go in favour of such a system as is suggested in the Amendment—a system of deductions—and surely the Government ought to give some credence and weight to the views of those upon whose evidence this Bill professes to be based. Mr. Petersen suggests that where a curate was unnecessarily employed the amount proposed to be deducted should not be allowed, but that where the Bishop was of opinion a curate was necessary the deduction should be made. While I do not agree with this gentleman's arguments, I do think the Government, as they have brought in the Bill on this evidence, should carry out his suggestions, and also the recommendations of the hon. Gentleman who had the courage to suggest a definite plan for the consideration of the Government. They should, at any rate, give credence to the Report of the Commission and to the weight of the evidence, which I am sure, from the tithe-owners' point of view, is incontestably in favour of the proposition embodied in this Amendment.

MR. LOGAN (Leicester, Harborough)

I regret to find myself unable, without some further explanation, to support my hon. friend's Amendment. By it he seeks to limit the operation of the Bill to those clergymen who have incurred expense in the employment of a curate for the purposes of a benefice, or for the repair of the Church belonging to a benefice. To the extent that the Amendment limits the operation of the Bill I am, of course, with my hon. friend, because I hold very strongly that of the many iniquitous measures introduced by the present Government this is not the least iniquitous. My contention is that it is a Bill to take out of the poor man's pocket money he can ill afford to spare, in order to give it to men, many of whom have £1,000 a year. I cannot, however, follow the argument whereby my hon. friend attempts to support his Amendment——

Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members being found present—


My hon. friend's argument really amounts to this. He says "Exceptional consideration shall be allowed to clergymen who have employed a portion of the money they receive as tithe rent-charge for the purpose of employing a curate or repairing a church." I can quite understand that argument as far as it goes, but I think my hon. friend has forgotten the source from which this money comes. A great many people are apt to forget that the only portion of the tithe rent-charge which either a necessitous or a rich parson can claim as income is that portion which remains after the liabilities which attach to it have been met. One of the liabilities is the payment of the rates, and I cannot, myself, see that we are justified in recognising for a single moment the right of the clerical tithe-owner to use any portion of the money that should go for the payment of rates for the purpose of paying a curate or beautifying his church. The tithe rent-charge is a charge upon the land, and I hold that if I support this Amendment I shall be recognising the right to take from its present purpose and object a portion of the charge in order to use it for other purposes. I take that strong line because I recognise that the nation has an interest in this tithe rent-charge. It is the nation's reserve interest in the land, and that is the reason why I protest against money set apart for a particular purpose being handed over to gentlemen in possession of benefices to be employed for other purposes. I would ask hon. Gentlemen who support this Amendment whether it would not be a very great temptation, indeed, to some of these clerical holders of tithe rent-charge to use the money in beautifying their churches, and so deprive the rates of it. It necessarily follows that if this money, which should go to the relief of the rates, is used for the purposes of beautifying a church or paying an overworked curate, the other ratepayers in the immediate neighbour-hood will be called upon to pay an additional rate. That is, I think, a very real danger, and I would remind the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that in most parishes in the rural districts, with which he and I are very familiar, the parson is usually the second richest man in the place, and if by this Amendment he is aide to throw a greater burden of rates on his neighbours he will be doing it to men, 999 out of every 1,000 of whom are poorer than himself. Although I cannot vote against the Amendment, because it limits the mischief of the Bill, I will not pledge myself to vote for it, unless my hon. friend can give further reasons in support of it.

* MR. MENDL (Plymouth)

This Amendment is a very good illustration of the confusion which exists as to the two possible bases on which this Bill is founded. As I understand the Amendment of my hon. friend the Member for North-West Durham, it is based on the Report of the Royal Commission, which relies upon the fact that deductions are claimed by the owners of tithe, inasmuch as landowners are allowed deductions in respect of their rates. My hon. friend suggests that instead of taking a lump sum and banding it over to the clergy, irrespective as to whether they are or are not fulfilling certain functions, you should apply this money to those clergymen who are fulfilling certain functions in respect of their office. To oppose this, to my mind, gives away the whole basis of the Bill. It is true that in the country and the Press the whole contention has been that the clergy have suffered in consequence of the fall in agricultural produce and the expenses of their benefices. That is nothing more nor less than an appeal in forma pauperis—an appeal by the clergy to the charity of the taxpayers of this country to assist them. But this Amendment is a test of the contention put forward time after time by the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite, in the course of the debates on this Bill, that this Bill is not based on mercy or charity, but on justice. My hon. friend proposes that its operation should be confined to those beneficed clergy who have incurred expense in the employment of a curate or in repairing the Church belonging to the benefice. There is one aspect of the Amendment which commends itself to me, and that is that one of the first results of its operation would be that a very large number of additional curates would be employed. The Amendment employs the method recommended by the Royal Commission, and it is the method nearest to that applied to ratepayers who are not clerical tithe-owners. There is a further recommendation, and that is that it would limit the amount of money to be spent, and spent to the great disadvantage and detriment of urban ratepayers. I think the Amendment is a very fair test, because any hon. Member who votes against it cannot pretend that he regards this Bill as being based on justice, because if it is based on justice, surely justice is amply done when you provide a quid pro quo for those clergymen who have claims in regard to expenses connected with the church. As the Bill now stands, the clergyman who does not employ a curate, or repair his church, is in the same or even in a better position than a clergyman who does. For many reasons, although I admit there is danger in allowing deductions of any kind from what, after all, has been historically proved to be the gross and not the net income, I shall support the Amendment.

MR. BRYNMOR JONES (Swansea District)

Although I admit there is a great deal of force in the arguments of my hon. and learned friend who moved this Amendment, I cannot agree with it as it stands. Let us consider for a moment what the position of the Bill now is. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has stated again and again that this Bill is based on the theory that the existing rating law involves an injustice to one class of tithe-owner. We on this side contend that the law as it stands is equitable and fair, and that the clergy should be assessed for rates like other tithe-owners. We have, therefore, a conflict of first principles, and I need hardly remind the Committee of the maxim that with those who deny first principles it is impossible to argue. Now, my hon. friend's Amendment appears to me to give away the very ease' we have been endeavouring to build up against the arguments of the other side. There appears, I will not say confusion, but sonic difference of opinion, on the other side as to the real principle on which this Bill is based. The right hon. Gentleman has been clear and consistent throughout, but there have been one or two other Members who have been very far from taking the same broad and general view suggested by him, and I can quite see how that arises. I find in the Report of the Royal Commission, on which, in part at least, this proposed legislation is based, there are two recommendations in which there is considerable divergence of principle, or, if not principle, of practical argument. The first recommendation states that the representations made to the Committee on behalf of the owners of tithe rent-charge not severed from a benefice, have shown that the burden of local taxation is unduly onerous, and that sufficient allowance is not made for the fact that the persons entitled to tithe rent-charge are, under legislation, obliged to render service and to perform duties in return therefor. That recommendation is a correct logical and legal way of stating the peculiarity that exists in the case of clergymen, whether that peculiarity entitles them to relief or not. The second recommendation is larger. It states that the case of the owners of tithe rent-charge not severed from a benefice is based on the ground which the Commissioners consider to have been fully established—that the present law, as interpreted by the courts, works unjustly, and places those owners in a much less favourable position than other owners of rateable property. It is on this latter recommendation that this Bill has been based. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to this Bill as a measure of justice, and, taking a broad survey of the whole law and incidence of local taxation, he thinks it is a fair and a proper Bill for the relief of a deserving class of ratepayers. That is not the way in which the Bill is regarded throughout the country. The danger I want to point out is, that if this Amendment is introduced into the Bill, it will give a colour to this Bill other than that which the Government desire to give to it, and it may be used as a valid argument in favour of the Bill, the very first principle of which I regard as unjust and improper. The Amendment too puts the obligation with regard to the repair of churches much wider than it is in law. The only legal obligation on a vicar is to repair the chancel, whereas the Amendment refers to the whole structure. I am sorry to have to differ from my hon. friend, whose good intentions I recognise; but while I cannot disguise my feeling of hostility to this measure, I cannot support the Amendment.

* MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN (Montgomeryshire)

I also disapprove of the Amendment, because it appears to me to run counter to the first principles of rating. The first principles of rating as I understand it is that there shall be deducted from the gross receipts everything necessary to keep the property in condition, and that the balance shall be rated. In point of fact, the present law works equal justice to all ratepayers. Every ratepayer is allowed deductions on the same principle, namely, the cost of securing the net return. The deductions vary in proportion to that cost. The employment, or the non-employment of a curate, makes no difference whatever as to the way in which the tithe rentcharge is collected. In the case of a landowner nobody dreams of asking what he does with his rents. What is looked to is the amount of outgoings necessarily required to keep the property in such a condition as that it will command a rent. So in the case of a curate, his employment or non-employment has nothing whatever to do with the growth of the tithe rent-charge. Then the rector is the person who is to repair the chancel, but that duty is incumbent upon him as owner of the tithe, and not as having cure of souls, for the duty is incumbent also on the lay impropriator. Of course it may be said that the Bill sins against all the principles of rating, but I cannot think that is a sufficient defence for the endowment we are now making. There is a further reason against deductions such as this, and that is that the clergy already have largely benefited in the course of the last sixty years. They have greatly benefited by the commutation of the tithe into a tithe rent-charge as a first charge on the land. In the next place they have been relieved by recent legislation of the irksome duty of collecting the tithe. Then they have been relieved of the up-keep of the elementary schools, and that is all endowment which will make it extremely difficult to bring about reforms in the future. In fact the general position of the clergy has been greatly altered for the better, and therefore any claim they may have is entirely misplaced as a matter of justice. The real injustice is on the side of the ratepayers, for these will now have the fund for the relief of their rates considerably diminished in order to aid the clergy. We know that the doctrine of verbal inspiration is going to be applied to this Bill, as it was applied to another Bill. So far from the clergy being in a position which requires justice to be done to them, if they would do justice themselves they would give up a considerable portion of the emoluments which they now receive.


The right hon. Gentleman opposite says that the principle of this Bill is that of justice. To my mind I can only see one principle in it, that is the principle of robbing the poor to pay the parson. I cannot logically support the Amendment which the hon. Member for North-West Durham has moved. I do not quite see on what principle it is based, or why, because a clergyman pays so much for his curate, or for the repair of his church, he should be relieved of the payment of half his rates. We are all aware that one object of the tithe was the repair of the church edifice, and, if that be so, I do not see why we should go to the extent of relieving the incumbent of that obligation. As to the case of the payment of the curate, it seems to me that the argument of the hon. Member for Carnarvon is perfectly justifiable. Why should we take money out of the rates in order to allow a clergyman to keep two housemaids instead of one? Besides, you are granting relief to the very clergymen who are in least need of it. However, of the choice of two evils offered me, I prefer the Amendment to the Bill.

* MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)

I concur to some extent in what has fallen from the hon. Member for Denbighshire. I can see no logical basis nor satisfactory legal argument for the Amendment, but unlike the hon. Member I intend to vote against it. It seems to me that the argument urged before the Royal Commissioners in favour of the policy of authorising these deductions in order to arrive at the true rateable value of the tithe are thoroughly defective. The whole of the arguments rest on a transparent fallacy, which was exposed by the right hon. Member for Bodmin in the earlier stages of this Debate. The tithe rent-charge is a land value assigned to clergy; it is not in any sense an income, it is a land value, therefore assessable for local taxation in the same way as all other land values are. In this respect the argument of the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill is absolutely fallacious; and I do not think any speech since the beginning of these Debates has so illustrated the absolute futility to make out a case for this Bill as the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in reply to my hon. friend. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman why it does not occur to Her Majesty's Government to follow the course proposed by Mr. Sclater Booth, when President of the Local Government Board. He attempted in a clause of a Bill in 1879 to deal with this question on the lines of the hon. and learned Member for Stroud, as quoted in the Report. I maintain that the Government have abandoned the principles of their own Party in dealing with this question. They have hopelessly condemned the policy which claims to be one of justice, but is really a policy of doles to those who have served them politically. They have absolutely demonstrated that no principle underlies this Bill and that it cannot be justified.


I have come to the conclusion, somewhat painfully, that this Amendment is purely theoretical. My hon. friend's Amendment has, however, this value at least, that it puts to the test the question whether the Government are proceeding with this Bill on some principle applicable to rating, or on the principle of helping their political friends. This theoretical Amendment is very valuable, also, because it cannot be doubted that the whole of the evidence was directed to the deductions which were to be made from the tithe rent-charge. At page twenty-five of the Report, a list of these deductions is given by the Commission—land tax, liability to repair the chancel of the parish church, personal services of the vicar, payment to curates, payments to daughter churches, pensions to retired incumbents, payments to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, for the redemption of loans. It is on such lines as these that the Government should have proceeded if they really wanted to amend the rating law. If their desire was to proceed by any kind of rule or principle applicable to rating it should have been done on the lines of the hon. and learned Member for Stroud. They say, however, that that cannot be done, as this is a big question, until the Report of the Royal Commission as a whole comes up. According to the hon. Member for Stroud this is only a rough-and-ready method of dealing with the question temporarily. It is because it is a rough-and-ready method that I object to it; it is ready for the parsons and rough on the other ratepayers of the country. My hon. friend in his Amendment says that the deductions to be made in future are the expenses for the employment of a curate and for the repair of the chancel; but the relief is to be given without regard at all to the value of the benefice or to the services of the incumbent. Now, I maintain that in practice that will not be workable at all. As a matter of fact the relief would be in favour of the rich men with large livings, and there would be no relief to the men who have small livings. There might be some show of reason in favour of the Amendment, if my hon. friend had provided that relief is to be granted where the curate is "necessarily employed," but my hon. friend says, "where the curate is, in fact, employed." I think that is entirely wrong—I was going to say, wrong in principle; but I cannot get at the principle of the Bill. As a practical man I am bound to say that this Amendmet it is not workable in practice. I am not drawing on my imagination.

Cases have been put before the Royal Commission of people who need not have employed curates, but who did. Lord Balfour of Burleigh, the Chairman of the Commission, asked a witness, Mr. Petersen—the only layman who appeared as a witness on that side of the question—except the hon. Member for Stroud—whether, assuming that the rector was a very elderly or rich man and employed a curate, he would allow his salary to be deducted. "No," said Mr. Petersen, "I would not in that case. I should only allow the deduction where the bishop of the diocese certified that the curate was necessarily employed." There is nothing of that kind in the Bill at all, and nothing to indicate that the curate must be "necessarily employed." The result will therefore be that the rich man and the idle man will be relieved, and the poor struggling vicar will not be relieved. As a practical man I think the Amendment is not workable. This matter has perplexed me very greatly, and I am 10th to part from my friends in the lobby. But I think I am on safe ground in deciding how to vote on this Amendment. Ought we, in this piecemeal fashion, in this rough-and-ready method, to give any relief at all to these people out of the poor taxpayers' pockets?


rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 208; Noes, 121. (Division List No. 237.)

Allhusen, Augustus Henry E. Bigwood, James Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry
Anson, Sir William Reynell Bill, Charles Charrington, Spencer
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Blundell, Colonel Henry Clare, Octavius Leigh
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)
Bailey, James (Walworth) Bousfield, William Robert Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J.(Manch'r) Brassey, Albert Coghill, Douglas Harry
Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W.(Leeds) Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Colston, Chas. Ed. H. Athole
Banbury, Frederick George Brookfield, A. Montagu Compton, Lord Alwyne
Barnes, Frederic Goren Bullard, Sir Harry Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)
Bartley, George C. T. Burdett-Coutts, W. Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Butcher, John George Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge
Beach, Rt Hn Sir M. H. (Bristol) Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.) Cranborne, Viscount
Beach, W. W. B. (Hants.) Cayzer, Sir Charles William Cripps, Charles Alfred
Beckett, Ernest William Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Chamberlain, Rt. Hon J.(Birm. Cubitt, Hon. Henry
Bethell, Commander Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r) Curzon, Viscount
Dalkeith, Earl of Jebb, Richard Claverhouse Quilter, Sir Cuthbert
Davies, Sir Horatio D(Chatham Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Denny, Colonel Jolliffe, Hon. H. George Rentoul, James Alexander
Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P. Kemp, George Richardson, Sir Thos.(Hartlep'l
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.
Doughty, George Kenyon, James Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Keswick, William Robinson, Brooke
Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S. Kimber, Henry Round, James
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. King, Sir Henry Seymour Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Knowles, Lees Ryder, John Herbert Dudley
Fardell, Sir T. George Lafone, Alfred Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw. Laurie, Lieut.-General Savory, Sir Joseph
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Mncr. Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) Sharpe, William Edward T.
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H. Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Fisher, William Hayes Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Sidebottom, William(Derbysh.
FitzWygram, General Sir F. Leighton, Stanley Simeon, Sir Barrington
Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) Llewelyn, Sir D.- (Swansea) Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk) Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Spencer, Ernest
Galloway, William Johnson Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)
Garfit, William Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham) Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Gedge, Sydney Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool) Stephens, Henry Charles
Gibbons, J. Lloyd Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Stock, James Henry
Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St.Albans) Lowe, Francis William Strauss, Arthur
Giles, Charles Tyrrell Lowles, John Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Gilliat, John Saunders Loyd, Archie Kirkman Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Goldsworthy, Major-General Lucas-Shadwell, William Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf.Univ.
Gordon, Hon. John Edward Macartney, W. G. Ellison Thorburn, Walter
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon MacIver, David (Liverpool) Thornton, Percy M.
Goschen, George J. (Sussex) M'Iver, Sir L.(Edinburgh, W.) Tollemache, Henry James
Goulding, Edward Alfred Malcolm, Ian Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Graham, Henry Robert Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J. Valentia, Viscount
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Mildmay, Francis Bingham Wanklyn, James Leslie
Green, W. D. (Wednesbury) Milward, Colonel Victor Warde, Lieut.-Col. C.E.(Kent)
Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury) Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Welbv, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Greene,W.Raymond- (Cambs.) More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.) Wentworth, B. C. Vernon-
Gretton, John Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.) Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Gull, Sir Cameron Morrell, George Herbert Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Morrison, Walter Willox, Sir John Archibald
Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) Wilson,J. W. (Worcestersh.N.)
Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm. Mount, William George Wodehouse, Rt, Hn. E.R.(Bath)
Hare, Thomas Leigh Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Heaton, John Henniker Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart-
Helder, Augustus Murray, Col. W. (Bath) Wylie, Alexander
Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter Myers, William Henry Wyndham, George
Hill, Rt. Hn. A. Staveley(Staffs. Newark, Viscount Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead) Nicholson, William Graham Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) Nicol, Donald Ninian Young, Commander (Berks,E.)
Hobhouse, Henry Percy, Earl Younger, William
Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow) Pierpoint, Robert
Hornby, Sir William Henry Platt-Higgins, Frederick TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Howard, Joseph Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther
Howell, William Tudor Pryce-Jones,Lt.-Col. Edward
Hutchinson, Capt.G.W.Grice- Pym, C. Guy
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Davitt, Michael Hazell, Walter
Allen, W.(Newe.-under-Lyme) Dillon, John Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.
Atherley-Jones, L. Donelan, Captain A. Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) Doogan, P. C. Holden, Sir Angus
Barlow, John Emmott Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Hornimnan, Frederick John
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Duckworth, James Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.
Billson, Alfred Dunn, Sir William Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)
Broadhurst, Henry Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Jacoby, James Alfred
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Fenwick, Charles Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Joicey, Sir James
Burt, Thomas Flynn, James Christopher Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)
Caldwell, James Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)
Cameron, Robert (Durham) Goddard, Daniel Ford Kearley, Hudson E.
Channing, Francis Allston Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) Kinloch, Sir J. George S.
Clark, Dr. G.B.(Caithness-sh.) Gurdon, Sir William B. Labouchere, Henry
Colville, John Haldane, Richard Burdon Lambert, George
Crilly, Daniel Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Langley, Batty
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) Hayne,Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)
Leng, Sir John Palmer,Sir Charles M (Durham) Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Leuty, Thomas Richmond Palmer, G. Wm. (Reading) Spicer, Albert
Lewis, John Herbert Paulton, James Mellor Steadman, William Charles
Lloyd-George, David Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.) Stuart, James (Shoreditch)
Logan, John William Perks, Robert William Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Macaleese, Daniel Pickard, Benjamin Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
M'Dermott, Patrick Pickersgill, Edward Hare Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan,E.)
M'Ghee, Richard Pilkington, Sir G A (Lancs SW) Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
M'Kenna, Reginald Power, Patrick Joseph Trevelyan, Charles Philips
M'Leod, John Price, Robert John Ure, Alexander
Maden, John Henry Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.) Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds S.)
Mellor, Rt. Hon. J.W. (Yorks.) Provand, Andrew Dryburgh Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.
Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand Randell, David Weir, James Galloway
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Reckitt, Harold James Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Morgan, W Pritchard (Merthyr Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Rickett, J. Compton Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)
Morton, Edw. J.C.(Devonport) Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Wilson, Henry J.(York, W.R.)
Moss, Samuel Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Moulton, John Fletcher Robson, William Snowdon Wilson, John (Govan)
Nussey, Thomas Willans Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Woodhouse, Sir J.T. (Hudders.)
O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. Schwann, Charles E. Yoxall, James Henry
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. M'Arthur and Mr. Causton.
Oldroyd, Mark Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 98 Noes, 218. (Division List, No. 238.)

Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Pickard, Benjamin
Barlow, John Emmott Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Pilkington, Sir G.A.(Lancs SW)
Billson, Alfred Jacoby, James Alfred Power, Patrick Joseph
Broadhurst, Henry Joicey, Sir James Price, Robert John
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Kearley, Hudson E. Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)
Burt, Thomas Kinloch, Sir John George S. Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Caldwell, James Lambert, George Randall, David
Cameron, Robert (Durham) Langley, Batty Reckitt, Harold James
Causton, Richard Knight Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) Richardson. J. (Durham, S.E.)
Clark, Dr. G.B.(Caithness-sh.) Leng, Sir John Rickett, J. Compton
Colville, John Leuty, Thomas Richmond Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Lewis, John Herbert Robertson, Edm. (Dundee)
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) Lough, Thomas Robson, William Snowdon
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Macaleese, Daniel Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Davitt, Michael M'Dermott, Patrick Schwann, Charles E.
Denny, Colonel M'Ewan, William Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)
Dillon, John M'Kenna, Reginald Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Donelan, Captain A. M'Leod, John Steadman, William Charles
Doogan, P. C. Maden, John Henry Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Doughty, George Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Douglas, Charles M.(Lanark) Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr) Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Duckworth, James Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Ure, Alexander
Dunn, Sir William Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) Walton, J. Lawson, (Leeds, S.)
Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan) Moss, Samuel Weir, James Galloway
Fenwick, Charles Moulton, John Fletcher Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Flynn, James Christopher Nussey, Thomas Willans Williams, John C. (Notts.)
Goddard, Daniel Ford O'Connor,James(Wicklow, W. Wilson, John (Durham Mid.)
Griffith, Ellis J. O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Wilson, John (Govan)
Haldane, Richard Burdon Oldroyd, Mark Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Hudd'sf'd)
Hazell, Walter Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham Yoxall, James Henry
Hedderwick, Thos. Charles H. Palmer, George W. (Reading)
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H. Paulton, James Mellor TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Holden, Sir Angus Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.) Mr. Atherley-Jones and Mr. Mendl.
Horniman, Frederick John Perks, Robert William
Aird, John Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds Beach, W.W. Bramston(Hants.
Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden Banbury, Frederick George Beckett, Ernest William
Anson, Sir William Reynell Barnes, Frederic Gorell Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Bartley, George C. T. Bentinck, Lord Henry C.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Barton, Dunbar Plunket Bethell, Commander
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. Bigwood, James
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Man.) Beach, Rt Hn. Sir M.H.(Bristol Bill, Charles
Blundell, Colonel Henry Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Bond, Edward Green, W. D. (Wednesbury) Myers, William Henry
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury) Newark, Viscount
Bousfield, William Robert Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) Nicholson, William Graham
Brassey, Albert Gretton, John Nicol, Donald Ninian
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Gull, Sir Cameron Penn, John
Brookfield, A. Montagu Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Percy, Earl
Bullard, Sir Harry Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo. Pierpoint, Robert
Burdett-Coutts, W. Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W. Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Butcher, John George Hardy, Laurence Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Hare, Thomas Leigh Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbysh.) Heaton, John Henniker Pym, C. Guy
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Helder, Augustus Quilter, Sir Cuthbert
Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich) Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter Rasch, Major F. Carne
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Hill, Rt. Hon. A. S. (Staffs.) Rentoul, James Alexander
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Bir. Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead) Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)
Chamberlain, J.Austen (Worc. Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.
Channing, Francis Allston Hobhouse, Henry Robertson, Herbert(Hackney)
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow) Robinson, Brooke
Charrington, Spencer Hornby, Sir William Henry Round, James
Clare, Octavius Leigh Howard, Joseph Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth) Howell, William Tudor Ryder, John Herbert Dudley
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice- Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)
Coghill, Douglas Harry Jebb, Richard Claverhouse Savory, Sir Joseph
Colston, Charles E. H. Athole Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Sharpe, William Edward T.
Compton, Lord Alwyne Jolliffe, Hon. H. George Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) Kemp, George Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Cooke, C.W. Radcliffe (Heref'd Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.
Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W. Kenyon, James Simeon, Sir Barrington
Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge Keswick, William Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Cranborne, Viscount Kimber, Henry Spencer, Ernest
Cripps, Charles Alfred King, Sir Henry Seymour Spicer, Albert
Cross, Herb Shepherd (Bolton) Knowles, Lees Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Labouchere, Henry Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Curzon, Viscount Lafone, Alfred Stephens, Henry Charles
Dalkeith, Earl of Laurie, Lieut.-General Stock, James Henry
Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) Strauss, Arthur
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. Edw. H. Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Leighton, Stanley Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxfd Uni.)
Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S. Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swan.) Thorburn, Walter
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Thornton, Percy M.
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D. Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Tollemache, Henry James
Fardell, Sir T. George Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Liverpool Valentia, Viscount
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Wanklyn, James Leslie
Finch, George H. Lowe, Francis William Warde, Lieut.-Col.C.E.(Kent)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lowles, John Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Fisher, William Hayes Loyd, Archie Kirkman Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Fison, Frederick William Lucas-Shadwell, William Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
FitzWygram, General Sir F. Macartney, W. G. Ellison Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd
Foster, Col. W. H. (Lancaster) MacIver, David (Liverpool) Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)
Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk) M'Iver, SirLewis (Edinburgh W Willox, Sir John Archibald
Galloway, William Johnson Malcolm, Ian Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh,N.
Garfit, William Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. J. Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath
Gedge, Sydney Mildmay, Francis Bingham Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Gibbons, J. Lloyd Milner, Sir Frederick George Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart-
Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St.Albans) Milward, Colonel Victor Wylie, Alexander
Giles, Charles Tyrrell Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Wyndham, George
Gilliat, John Saunders More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Godson, Sir Augustus Fred. Morgan, Hn. F.(Monmouthsh.) Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Goldsworthy, Major-General Morrell, George Herbert Young, Commander(Berks, E.)
Gordon, Hon. John Edward Morrison, Walter Younger, William
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Mount, William George Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Goulding, Edward Alfred Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Graham, Henry Robert Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question 'That the words of the Clause "shall be liable to pay only" stand part of the Clause,' be now put."

Question put, "That the words of the Clause 'shall be liable to pay only' stand part of the Clause, be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 222; Noes, 135. (Division List, No. 239.)

Aird, John Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) Milward, Colonel Victor
Allhusen, Augustus Henry E. Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk) Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Anson, Sir William Reynell Galloway, William Johnson More, Robt. Jasper Shropshire)
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Garfit, William Morgan, Hn.Fred.(Monm'ths.)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Gedge, Sydney Morrell, George Herbert
Bagot, Capt Josceline FitzRoy Gibbons, J. Lloyd Morrison, Walter
Baird, John George Alexander Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St Albans) Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manc'r) Giles, Charles Tyrrell Mount, William George
Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W.(Leeds) Gilliat, John Saunders Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)
Banbury, Frederick George Godson, Sir A. Frederick Murray, Charles J.(Coventry)
Barnes, Frederic Gorell Goldsworthy, Major-General Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Bartley, George C. T. Gordon, Hon. John Edward Myers, William Henry
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Newark, Viscount
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Goschen, Rt Hn G J(St George's) Nicholson, William Graham
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H. Bristol Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Nicol, Donald Ninian
Beach, W W Bramston(Hants.) Goulding, Edward Alfred Penn, John
Beckett, Ernest William Graham, Henry Robert Percy, Earl
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Pierpoint, Robert
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Green, W. D. (Wednesbury) Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Bethell, Commander Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury) Pollock, Harry Frederick
Bigwood, James Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Bill, Charles Gretton, John Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Blundell, Colonel Henry Gull, Sir Cameron Pym, C. Guy
Bond, Edward Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Quilter, Sir Cuthbert
Bonsor, H. Cosmo Orme Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. Rentoul, James Alexander
Bousfield, William Robert Hardy, Laurence Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlepool)
Brassey, Albert Hare, Thomas Leigh Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Heaton, John Henniker Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Brookfield, A. Montagu Helder, Augustus Round, James
Bullard, Sir Harry Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Burdett-Coutts, W. Hill, Rt. Hn A. Staveley (Staffs.) Ryder, John Herbert Dudley
Butcher, John George Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampst'd) Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) Savory, Sir Joseph
Cavendish, V.C W. (Derbysh.) Hobhouse, Henry Seton-Karr, Henry
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow) Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich) Hornby, Sir William Henry Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Howard, Joseph Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.) Howell, William Tudor Simeon, Sir Barrington
Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r) Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice- Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Jebb, Richard Claverhouse Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)
Charrington, Spencer Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Spencer, Ernest
Clare, Octavius Leigh Jolliffe, Hon. H. George Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)
Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth) Kemp, George Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H Stephens, Henry Charles
Coghill, Douglas Harry Kenyon, James Stock, James Henry
Colston, Charles E. H. Athole Keswick, William Strauss, Arthur
Compton, Lord Alwyne Kimber, Henry Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) King, Sir Henry Seymour Strut, Hon. Humphry Napier
Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford) Knowles, Lees Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'd Un.)
Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W. Lafone, Alfred Thornburn, Walter
Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge Laurie, Lieut.-General Thornton, Percy M.
Cranborne, Viscount Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) Tollemache, Henry James
Cripps, Charles Alfred Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Edw. H. Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Valentia, Viscount
Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton) Leighton, Stanley Warde, Lieut.-Col.C.E.(Kent)
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Curzon, Viscount Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Dalkeith, Earl of Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham Williams, J. Powell- (Birm)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Long, Rt. Hn Walter(Liverpool Willox, Sir John Archibald
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Wilson, J. W. (Worcester, N.
Doughty, George Lowe, Francis William Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lowles, John Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S. Loyd, Archie Kirkman Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. S.-
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Lucas-Shadwell, William Wylie, Alexander
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D. Macartney, W. G. Ellison Wyndham, George
Fardell, Sir T. George MacIver, David (Liverpool) Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W. Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J(Manc'r) Malcolm, Ian Young, Commander(Berks, E.)
Finch, George H. Martin, Richard Biddulph Younger, William
Finlay, Sir Robert B. Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)
Fisher, William Hayes Milbank, Sir Powlett Charles J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Fison, Frederick W. Mildmay, Francis Bingham Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
FitzWygram, General Sir F. Milner, Sir Frederick George
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Horniman, Frederick John Pickard, Benjamin
Allen, Wm.(Newc. Under Lyme Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Atherley-Jones, L. Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Pilkington, Sir G.A.(Lanes SW
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) Jacoby, James Alfred Power, Patrick Joseph
Barlow, John Emmott Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E. Price, Robert John
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Joicey, Sir James Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Jones, David B. (Swansea) Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Billson, Alfred Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire) Randell, David
Broadhurst, Henry Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U Reckitt, Harold James
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Kearley, Hudson, E. Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Kinlock, Sir John George S. Rickett, J. Compton
Burt, Thomas Labouchere, Henry Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs.)
Caldwell, James Lambert, George Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Cameron, Robert Durham Langley, Batty Robson, William Snowdon
Causton, Richard Knight Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) Samuel, J. (Stockton-on Tees)
Channing, Francis Allston Leng, Sir John Schwann, Charles E.
Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.) Leuty, Thomas Richmond Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)
Clough, Walter Owen Lewis, John Herbert Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarsh.)
Colville, John Lloyd-George, David Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Crilly, Daniel Logan, John William Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) Lough, Thomas Spicer, Albert
Davies, M.Vaughan-(Cardigan Macaleese, Daniel Stanhope, Hon. P. J.
Davitt, Michael M'Dermott, Patrick Steadman, William Charles
Dillon, John M'Ewan, William Strachey, Edward
Donelan, Captain A. McGhee, Richard Stuart, James (Shoreditch)
Doogan, P. C. M'Kenna, Reginald Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) M'Leod, John Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Duckworth, James Maddison, Fred. Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Dunn, Sir William Maden, John Henry Thomas, David Alfred (Merthy)
Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan) Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Yorks.) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Fenwick, Charles Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand Ure, Alexander
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Morgan, J.Lloyd (Carmarthen) Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Morgan, W Pritchard (Merthyr Warner Thos. Courtenay T.
Flynn, James Christopher Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Weir, James Galloway
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Morton, Edw. J.C.(Devonport) Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Goddard, Daniel Ford Moss, Samuel Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) Moulton, John Fletcher Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)
Griffith, Ellis J. Nussey, Thomas Willans Wills, Sir William Henry
Gurdon, Sir William B. O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.) Wilson, HenryJ. (York, W. R.
Haldane, Richard Burdon O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Harwood, George Oldroyd, Mark Wilson, John (Govan)
Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale- Palmer, Sir Chas.M.(Durham) Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Hudd'sf'd
Hazell, Walter Palmer, Geo. Wm. (Reading) Yoxall, James Henry
Hedderwick, Thomas C H. Paulton, James Mellor TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H. Pease, Joseph A (Northumb.) Mr. Gladstone and Mr. M'Arthur
Holden, Sir Angus Perks, Robert William

Question put accordingly, "That the words of the Clause 'shall be liable to pay only' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 234; Noes, 145. (Division List No. 240.)

Dalkeith, Earl of Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Hutchinson, Capt. G.W. Grice- Pym, C. Guy
Denny, Colonel Jebb, Richard Claverhouse Quilter, Sir Cuthbert
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Rankin, Sir James
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Jolliffe, Hon. H. George Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Doughty, George Kemp, George Rentoul, James Alexander
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Kennaway, Rt.Hon. Sir Jno.H. Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)
Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S. Kenyon, James Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Keswick, William Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Dyke, Rt Hon Sir William Hart Kimber, Henry Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas King, Sir Henry Seymour Robinson, Brooke
Fardell, Sir T. George Knowles, Lees Round, James
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw; Lafone, Alfred Russell, T.W.(Tyrone)
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J(Manc'r Laurie, Lieut.-General Ryder, John Herbert Dudley
Finch, George H. Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) Samuel, Harry S.(Limehouse)
Finlay Sir Robert Bannatyne Lecky, Rn. Hon. W. E. H. Savory, Sir Joseph
Fisher, William Hayes Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Seely, Charles Hilton
Fison, Frederick William Leighton, Stanley Seton Karr. Henry
Fitz Wygram, General Sir F. Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Swansea Sharpe, William Edward T.
Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk) Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)
Galloway, William Johnson Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Simeon, Sir Barrington
Garfit, William Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Gedge, Sydney Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Smith, Hon. W. F. D.(Strand)
Gibbons, J. Lloyd Lowe, Francis William Spencer, Ernest
Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans) Lowles, John Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)
Giles, Charles Tyrrell Loyd, Archie Kirkman Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Gilliat, John Saunders Lucas-Shadwell, William Stephens, Henry Charles
Godson, Sir Augustus Fred. Macartney, W. G. Ellison Stock, James Henry
Goldsworthy, Major-General MacIver, David (Liverpool) Strauss, Arthur
Gordon, Hon. John Edward M'Iver Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. Malcolm, Ian Sturtt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Goschen,Rt Hn. G J (StGeorge's Martin, Richard Biddulph Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'd Uni.
Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Massey- Mainwaring, Hon WF Thorburn, Walter
Goulding, Edward Alfred Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) Thornton, Percy M.
Graham, Henry Robert Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J. Tollemache, Henry James
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Mildmay, Francis Bingham Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Green, W. D.(Wednesbury) Milner, Sir Frederick George Tritton, Charles Ernest
Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury) Milward, Colonel Victor Valentia, Viscount
Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.) Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Wanklyn, James Leslie
Gretton, John More, Robert J. (Shropshire) Warde, Lieut.-Col. C.E.(Kent)
Gull, Sir Cameror. Morgan, Hn. Fred.(Monm'thsh. Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Morrell, George Herbert Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George Morrison, Walter Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Hanbury,Rt.Hon. Robt. Wm. Morton, A. H. A (Deptford) Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)
Hanson, Sir Reginald Mount, William George Willox, Sir John Archibald
Hardy, Laurence Murray, Rt. Hon. A.G. (Bute) Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath
Hare, Thomas Leigh Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Heaton, John Henniker Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B.Stuart-
Helder, Augustus Myers, William Henry Wylie, Alexander
Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter Newark, Viscount Wyndham, George
Hill, Rt. Hn. A. Staveley (Staffs) Nicholson, William Graham Wyndham-Quin, Major W.H.
Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead) Nicol, Donald Ninian Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) Penn, John Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Hobhouse, Henry Percy, Earl Young, Commander(Berks,E.)
Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow) Pierpoint, Robert Younger, William
Hornby, Sir William Henry Platt-Higgins, Frederick TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Howard, Joseph Pollock, Harry Frederick Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Howell, William Tudor Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Crilly, Daniel
Allen, W.(Newc. under Lyme) Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Burt, Thomas Dalziel, James Henry
Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. Henry Caldwell, James Davies,M.Vaughan-(Cardig'n
Atherley-Jones, L. Cameron, Robert (Durham) Davitt, Michael
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Dillon, John
Barlow, John Emmott Causton, Richard Knight Donelan, Captain A.
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Cawley, Frederick Doogan, P. C.
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Channing, Francis Allston Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)
Billson, Alfred Clark, Dr G. B. (Caithness-sh Duckworth, James
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Clough, Walter Owen Dunn, Sir William
Broadhurst, Henry Colville, John Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)
Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton) Lough, Thomas Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Fenwick, Charles Macaleese, Daniel Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Ferguson, R.C.Munro (Leith) MacDonnell, Dr. M.A.(Qu'n'sC Robson, William Snowdon
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond M'Dermott, Patrick Samuel, J. (tockton-on-Tees)
Flynn, James Christopher M'Ewan, William Schwann, Charles E.
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry M'Ghee, Richard Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)
Goddard, Daniel Ford M'Kenna, Reginald Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)
Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) M'Leod, John Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Griffith, Ellis J. Maddison, Fred. Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Gurdon, Sir WilliamBrampton Maden, John Henry Spicer, Albert
Haldane, Richard Burdon Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Yorks. Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand Steadman, William Charles
Harwood, George Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Strachey, Edward
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr) Stuart, James (Shoreditch)
Hazen, Walter Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Hedderwick, Thomas C. H. Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) Thomas, Abel(Carmarthen,E.)
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. Moss, Samuel Thomas,Alfred (Glamorgan, E.
Holden, Sir Angus Moulton, John Fletcher Thomas, David Alfd. (Merthyr)
Horniman, Frederick John Nussey, Thomas Willans Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. O'Connor J. (Wicklow, W.) Ure, Alexander
Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)
Jacoby, James Alfred Oldroyd, Mark Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Johnson-Furguson,JabezEdw. Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham) Weir, James Galloway
Joicey, Sir James Palmer, George W. (Reading) Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea) Paulton, James Meller Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Jones, William (Carnarvonsh. Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.) Williams, JohnCarvell(Notts.)
Kay-Shuttleworth,RtHn SirU Perks, Robert William Wills, Sir William Henry
Kearley, Hudson E. Pickard, Benjamin Wilson, Henry J.(York,W.R.)
Kinloch, Sir John Gec. Symth Pickersgill, Edward Hare Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Labouchere, Henry Pilkington, Sir G.A.(Lancs SW Wilson, John (Govan)
Lambert, George Power, Patrick Joseph Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh.N.
Langley, Batty Price, Robert John Woodhouse, Sir JT(Hudd'rsfd)
Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.) Yoxall, James Henry
Leng, Sir John Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Leuty, Thomas Richmond Randell, David TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Lewis, John Herbert Reckitt, Harold James Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. M'Arthur.
Lloyd-George, David Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)
Logan, John William Rickett, J. Compton

The Amendment I have to move is on page 16, and it is to provide that the owner of tithe rent-charge attached to a benefice should be liable to pay only "the proportion set forth in the schedule to this Act," and if hon. Members look at the Amendment to the schedule which it is my intention to move subsequently they will see it reads: When the amount of rent-charge attached to a benefice does not exceed £150, the proportion of the rate which the owner shall be liable to pay shall be one-half; exceeds £150, but does not exceed £200, two-thirds; exceeds £200, but does not exceed £300, three-fourths; exceeds £300, four-fifths. This Amendment is one of considerable substance, but at the same time, when I see the First Lord of the Treasury on the Front Bench, I confess I move it with a considerable degree of trepidation. And I would here like to protest against the action taken by the First Lord of the Treasury against me.


Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled on this Amendment to comment on the action of the First Lord.


Only with the indulgence of the Committee. Every Amendment I have upon the Paper has been ruled by you, Mr. Lowther, to be in order. The first was accepted with so much expedition that I hardly knew whether it was accepted or not, but on the other two the closure has been moved. The present Amendment would form a sliding scale, and the intention is to provide that those who are in most need shall receive at any rate the largest proportion of relief. If the right hon. Gentleman will accept the principle of the Amendment, I shall be ready to accept modifications of its terms.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 6, to leave out the words 'one-half,' in order to insert the words 'the proportion set forth in the schedule to this Act.'"—(Mr. David Thomas.)

instead thereof:—

Question proposed, "That the words 'one-half' stand part of the clause."


I regret that it will be impossible for me to accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment in the form in which it stands, or in any other form. The hon. Gentleman tells us that one of his objects is to take care that the relief should go to the most deserving and not in some cases to the wealthy. I must repeat that the hon. Gentleman's object, which is no doubt a desirable one, would not be attained by this Amendment. It is really ludicrous to imagine that the amount of tithe rent-charge attached to a benefice is in. any way an indication of the emoluments of that benefice, and the position of the incumbent. It is impossible to arrive at the precise position of the incumbent without examination into the peculiar conditions attaching to his own incumbency and parish, a form of inquiry which it would be obviously impossible to make. I said on the Second Reading of the Bill that the course we have adopted was one for which we have precedents in the present Lighting and Sanitary Acts. Whether or not they are new rates is not the question at all. The suggestion of the hon. Member is that the relief should be given more in accordance with the requirements of the recipients. But if you take the tithe rent-charge as an indication of the recipient's position you will be misled, because while tithe rent-charge stands at varying sums, in one case it stands by itself, and in another case it is added to other sources of revenue. Then, when you have arrived at the full amount of the value of the benefice, you must find out what are the demands made upon the incumbent, upon which depends the net value of the benefice. It would not be possible to draw a hard and fast rule such as that suggested by the hon. Member, which would not involve much greater hardship and injustice than anything which can possibly follow from the scheme proposed by the Government. It can easily be shown that even when the rates paid by the owners of tithe rent-charge have been reduced by one half, they will still pay in a much heavier degree than other ratepayers in a similar position. The suggestion that by adopting this Amendment the relief would be averaged in a fairer way cannot be entertained, because the tithe rent-charge by itself cannot be taken as an indication of a serious necessity.


We are dealing here with old rates, and old rates are not in any respect a burden upon the present owners of property. The present owner takes the property subject to the burden of the old rates. If you make a remission of these old rates it follows that the larger owner gets the larger remission, and you are making a present not merely of the sum in hand, but of the capital value of the rates so long as the remission lasts, to every person who benefits by it. If you give a remission in proportion to the value of the tithe rent-charge, you are giving a larger bonus to the wealthier man, so far as this property is concerned, and a smaller bonus to the poorer man, and that is an injustice against which my hon. friend wishes to guard by this Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman could have pointed in the matter of lighting and watching and sanitary legislation to a case in which Parliament interfered with an old rate being a burden on the land and not on the owner of the land, and give remission therefrom in proportion to the amount of the rate, he would have had a precedent for the course he has now taken. He has in no degree met the principle or the spirit of the Amendment, which is one of the most important that has been or will be moved, and I hope it will be adequately discussed on both sides of the House.


One reason for reducing the amount which incumbents may receive in mitigation of their rates is that which I pointed out last evening, namely, in a very important feature this fund which has been provided by the Government may not be sufficient—for we then showed, and it was admitted by the Government, that the contingency had not been provided for that in the event of a lay impropriator giving back tithes to a benefice, those tithes will be able to claim the benefits of the Act. The basis upon which tithes are now assessed is not the par value, but the varying value of grain, and consequently tithes are now assessed at about 68 per cent. of the par value of the tithe as commuted in 1836. It is perfectly evident that contingencies might arise when the assessed value of these tithes would approximate to the par value again. What would be the immediate effect of the outbreak of an European war? The value would at once rise. There would be no such distinction between the par value and the present assessed value, and consequently the amount at which tithes would be assessed would be enormously in excess of that at which they are now rated. If such a contingency were to occur, it is perfectly clear that the clergy would be rated, not upon a very largely reduced value, but upon a largely increased value, and being assessed upon the increased value the relief which they would be entitled to claim under this Bill would rise in exactly the same ratio. In such a contingency the very raison d'êre of the Bill would disappear, because the tithes payable would be largely increased simultaneously with the reduction of the rates being increased at the same time.


This Amendment seeks to introduce into this Bill that system of graduation which has been adopted in other directions, and which is now universally recognised as a just principle. It has been adopted in the case of the income-tax by means of exemptions. The right hon. Gentleman said it would be necessary to make a number of inquiries into the actual value of the tithe and so on in the particular livings, but he might just as well say that it would be necessary to make an inquiry into the extent of a man's income and the burdens upon that income. There would be absolutely no difficulty in adopting the principle, whether or not the particular form recommended was adopted by the Government. But I am afraid the Amendment will not be accepted by the Government, not because it is not a reasonable one, but because the Government have made up their minds that no Amendment of any kind whatever is to be inserted in the Bill, so as to avoid the Report stage, and that the country may have as little opportunity as possible of judging and pronouncing their opinion upon this Bill.

* MR. MOULTON (Cornwall, Launceston)

It seems to me the Government are very happy in the choice of the Minister to whom they have committed the charge of this Bill. He has two advantages. He has the advantage obviously of never having inquired into the elementary principles of taxation which have relation to the question, and he also has the advantage of not seeing when the arguments of 10 o'clock destroy the arguments he advanced at 7 o'clock. In his mind absolutely contradictory principles never interfere with one another. Let us see the defence he has made for the action of the Government in regard to this Amendment. He says, "Oh, you are quite wrong in thinking that we can distinguish between one clergyman and another by the amount of tithe he possesses. Tithe is only a portion of his income." What then becomes of the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman to the Opposition to find anybody but a clergyman who was rated on his income? Was not the Bill brought in on the pretext that the tithe was his whole income, and that the rating on the tithe meant not a rate on a part of a man's property, but on the whole? But now the defence is that clergymen have much property besides tithe. How then do they differ in ally possible way from lay impropriators who have other property? If the income attached to a benefice is not only tithes, but consists of other property in addition, what is the meaning of the attempt to connect the income for tithe with services rendered? There is no connection whatever between them. Why should we take a particular bit of property of a particular class of people—for that is what it is reduced to now—and proceed to increase that piece of property by paying half the rates? It is exactly the same as saying that where a part of the income of a benefice is derived from Consols we will pay the income tax on those Consols or raise the interest to 3 per cent. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman has destroyed all connection between tithes and services, and has taken away every pretext for this Bill. It is a frank attempt to increase the value of property which in a certain number of cases is held by clergymen. I was astounded to hear cited as a precedent for this that in certain Acts tithes were exempted from special taxes. Yes, as a kind of property, but those exemptions did not apply only to clergymen. Whoever held the property got the benefit of the exemption, and therefore those Acts were not precedents for clerical endowment Acts.


The argument of my hon. friend is absolutely inconsistent with every argument he has heretofore urged upon this Bill. The Amendment proposes that the proportion of rate which the owner of tithe rent-charge should be liable to pay should vary according to the amount of that rent-charge. If there is one principle more certain than another it is that when you decide upon the proper way in which certain property should be rated, you must rate it quite irrespective of the amount of the property.


And irrespective of the person who holds it.


Quite true. Supposing you want to apply the true principle of rating so far as tithe rent-charge is concerned. Can you suggest that that prin- ciple should be differently applied according to the income derived from a particular tithe rent-charge? Where is there any case of such a principle being applied? Whether the property is rated, at £1 or £100 you must rate it on the same principle. It is inconceivable that any member who has any knowledge of, the subject can support such an Amendment as the one now before the Committee.


Limited as we have been in our power of discussing this Bill, the Debate has, at all events, been long enough to enable us entirely to convert the hon. and learned Member for Stroud. In the earlier part of the Debate we attempted to convince him that the rate was upon the property, and not upon the owner. Now he is objecting to this Amendment because that principle is not observed. I have taken my stand upon the ground that it being a tax upon the property you have no right to make any distinction what ever in regard to the persons who benefit from the property. That is the fundamental principle upon which we have argued this matter. The situation in regard to this Amendment is that we are obliged to make the best of this Bill. If you choose to lay down the principle—which we maintain is a false principle—that you have a right to take into consideration, with regard to this tax upon property, the condition of a particular class of persons who enjoy that property, we desire by this Amendment to apply that principle more fairly. If you choose to say that you give this money to the clergy because they stand in a different position from that of all other owners of tithe property, it is quite plain that you ought in dealing with the personal situation of the individuals, to adjust your scheme with due regard to the different position of those individuals. I have said all along that the principle is a rotten one, and that you ought to deal with all tithe property upon the same footing. You have chosen to deny that; you have selected a particular class to deal with in a different manner from other owners of the same class of property. Having done that, the Amendment proposes that you should make the amount of this bonus correspond to the different positions of the persons who are to receive the money.


I accept the challenge of the hon. and learned Member for Stroud, and associate myself with the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Launceston. The only point upon which I dissociate myself from him is in his attack on the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. I think the right hon. Gentleman is the very Member of the Government who really shows that he is the person who ought to be entrusted with the Bill. He knows all about it; he knows that the Bill simply means that half the rates should be given back to every clergyman. He has been equally pleasant to everybody on this side of the House, and he has so excelled in his management of the Bill that he has been able to keep the Solicitor-General, who is bursting with a desire to give information, sitting quietly by his side. If he could only have kept the hon. and learned Member for Stroud as quiet he would have been all right. That hon. Gentleman says, "Can you show me any case in the whole of the law of rating where any difference is made according to the amount of the property?" I would ask him whether he can show me any case in the rating law where two persons in the enjoyment of precisely the same kind of property are treated differently—not only treated by a sliding-scale, but by a sliding-scale which is so favourable to one and so unfavourable to the other that one is put right at the top and the other pushed right to the bottom? Can the hon. and learned Gentleman justify on what he calls the "principle of rating" the omission of a tithe rent-charge owner because he happens not to be a clergyman? The Amendment is a reasonable one in this regard. You say you are going to assist what you call a deserving class of persons. That is perfectly true, but we do not want alms for those who have their pockets well lined. I desire to come to the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman in the matter of drafting. It is the mere changing of a word, and what I desire is to change the words "tithe rent-charge" to "emoluments." I do not know whether the word has gone forth that no Amendment is to be accepted, but that ought not to deter us on this side from doing the best we can for these poor clergymen. I have answered as well as I can the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, who was silent under the argument I put forth—that he cannot justify this proposal by the sacred principle of rating, and I hope we shall not hear much about this principle hereafter. The real question is whether these doles ought to be so given as to meet the real necessities of the case, and that is the principle of the Amendment.


Now we have got back again to the principle of rating, which is the whole groundwork of the opposition by the hon. and learned Member for Stroud to this Amendment. The rating principle, I understood, was to be brought forward at a later stage upon the whole matter of rating, for it has nothing whatever to do with this Bill. You are now trying to put a stop-gap to help the clergy in the country in order to enable them to pay their rates. I do think that this is one of the most important Amendments which have been put down on the Paper, and I am rather pleased to find that the Government are going to refuse to accept it. I object to the Bill from beginning to end, and the people of the country outside are not talking about the justice or injustice of the rating of tithes, but they are talking about the great difficulty in which the poor clergyman finds himself, because he can scarcely provide food and clothing for himself and his family; and the country want you to relieve these poor clergymen, and they do not care one scrap about the injustice or the justice of the rating principle itself. It seems to me that the Amendment of my hon. friend is one which every individual constituent of every Member on the other side of the House would like to see carried, and therefore I am only too pleased to think that the Government will not accept this Amendment. This proposal would have been very acceptable to their own constituents, and therefore its non-acceptance will show their supporters the real nature of this Bill. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that you cannot measure a clergyman's wealth by the amount of his tithe rent-charge, but the same thing could be said about anybody. Take a man with £2,000 and another with 10s. It is possible that the latter is richer than the former, but you certainly would not rate them in the same way. It seems to me that the really deserving clergyman is only given a very small dole, whilst the rich clergyman, who ought not to have any dole at all, takes ten times as much as the poor clergyman. The effect of the rejection of this Amendment by hon. Members opposite will be noted by the constituencies, and if the Government can see their way to accept this Amendment the better it will be for them when they go to meet their constituents.


I think it is useless to urge any further objections to the principle of rating. There is only one principle of rating, and that is the one which is applied to the hypothetical tenant. We all know that certain deductions are made from the tithes for the cost of collecting, but that has nothing to do with what a hypothetical tenant might choose to do with it or for it, and the only principle of rating is distinctly in favour of there being no deduction further than that which is necessary for the tithes. That is perfectly clear, therefore, that this argument cannot be urged against the Amendment of my hon. friend. But this Bill plunges head foremost through this principle, and it says that we have to consider what the person who is in possession of the property does with it or for it. Let us compare the case of two houses, one of which is bought or rented by a person who pays rent, and the other is held in return for services given to someone else. Those two houses are not rated differently, but under this Bill we are considering a totally different principle. We are considering what the person does who is in possession of the property, and we are breaking through the existing principle of rating. If we are going to relieve impecunious clergymen, it is better to adopt this Amendment than to adopt the hard and fast line in the Bill. The Bill gives relief mostly to the larger property, and the intention of this Amendment is to provide that there should be a larger proportion of relief given to the persons with smaller incomes. That is the same principle which is adopted in the income tax and the death duties. When we come to look closely at the Amendment itself as a means of relieving the clergy, I think it is a very great deal better than the proposal which is contained in the Bill, and I do not think that the principle of rating can be urged against this Amendment.


I would point out to the Committee that this proposal is based upon a suggestion made before the Royal Commission by one of the shrewdest members of that Commission. It is true that he signed afterwards the majority Report, but he probably did that with a view of arriving at some kind of common agreement. The suggestion was made by Mr. Elliott that the scale in the Pluralities Act should be applied with a view of ascertaining the amount of relief to be extended to each case. Before the Commission a question was put to a tithe-owner whether he approved of that scale or not, and he said that he did not disapprove of it, and he gave an exceedingly interesting reason why. He said he had received letters from persons saying that they had heard from Members of Parliament, who had stated that they desired and hoped that this proposal was not going to be a relief entirely for the small livings. The real reason is that hon. Members on the opposite side of the House have written to these people urging that they should not accept the scale which confines the relief to the smaller clergymen, but that they should demand relief all round for the general body of clergy. Therefore it is not the clergy themselves who object to this relief going to their most distressed brethren, but it is gentlemen like the hon. Member for Tunbridge and others, who have written to these clergymen, encouraging them not to accept the scale.


I have never written any such letter.


I know that the letters referred to, at any rate, have not emanated from this side of the House, and therefore they must have come from the other Side. I will read the words again. They state: They have written saying that they have heard from Members of Parliament, that they hoped that the relief which is to be given is not going to be entirely a relief for the smaller livings. In the Appendix to the Report of the Commissioners there is one case given which will show how this Bill will work if the Amendment is not accepted. The case I allude to is one where the gross tithe is £1,300. After making every deduction for rates, curates, and every possible deduction for the repair of the church there is a net income of £700 a year. Now the relief which that clergyman will get under this Bill will be £74, whilst in the case of a clergyman whose income is only £116, he will only get relief to the amount of £2 16s.—that is to say, the man with £700 a year gets £74, but the man with £116 a year only gets £2 16s. out of the Bill. Can there possibly be a stronger argument in favour of this Amendment? One of the witnesses gave an answer which bears very strongly upon this Amendment, for he said that: "It very often happens that the man who does the most work has the least salary." In spite of that, the man who does the most work gets £2 16s. under this Bill, and the man who does the least work gets £74. I am glad my hon. friend has proposed this Amendment, because it shows the utter hollowness of the case for this Bill, which has no basis in justice or fair play, for the men with the big salaries get the most relief.

MR. SPICER (Monmouth Boroughs)

I beg to move, Sir, that you report Progress. This measure, after all, is not one which has been called for by any strong expression of opinion from the country. When it is being introduced to this House one prominent Member of the Unionist Party leaves that Party, and even his constitutency do not venture to fight the seat again. In the same county a political contest is fought for two seats, and the two Unionist candidates are——


The hon. Member. must confine his remarks to the Amendment.


I am addressing myself to my motion to report Progress.


I am afraid that I cannot accept a motion to report Progress at this stage, for we are now within ten minutes of the ordinary time for adjournment.


I have listened with a great deal of attention to the speeches which have been delivered by the hon. Member for the Stroud Division, and there appears to be one chord which runs through the whole of his speeches. The hon. and learned Member is a great apostle of the doctrine of equality in rating.


Hear, hear.


The hon. and learned Member accepts that proposition, and I hope he will be able to justify it. I venture to say that this Bill is an entirely revolutionary measure, for it destroys once and for ever all uniformity and all equality in rating. It helps one particular kind of property, and out of that kind one particular section of it. The measure lays down that all the possible benefits which we are able to shower and all the money we can expend—not out of the taxpayers' pockets, but out of the ratepayers' pockets, some of whom are already paying rates to the extent of 6s., 8s., and 10s. ill the £—shall be showered upon this one particular section of this one particular class of property. And upon what principle? Why, simply upon the great principle of services rendered. I have had some connection with rating authorities, for I have been a

Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East) Drucker, A.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart
Arnold, Alfred Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.) Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Chamberlain, J. Aust'n (Worc'r Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Charrington, Spencer Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man.)
Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy Clare, Octavius Leigh Finch, George H.
Baillie, Jas. E. B. (Inverness) Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymonth) Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Baird, John Geo. Alexander Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Fisher, William Hayes
Balcarres, Lord Coghill, Douglas Harry Fison, Frederick William
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) Colston, Charles E. H. Athole FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-
Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W.(Leeds) Compton, Lord Alwyne Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)
Banbury, Frederick George Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)
Barnes, Frederic Gorell Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford) Galloway, William Johnson
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W. Garfit, William
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H.(Bristol Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D. Gedge, Sydney
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Gibbons, J. Lloyd
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Cranborne, Viscount Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)
Bethell, Commander Cripps, Charles Alfred Giles, Charles Tyrrell
Bigwood, James Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Gilliat, John Saunders
Bill, Charles Cross, Herbert S.(Bolton) Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.
Blundell, Colonel Henry Cubitt, Hon. Henry Goldsworthy, Major-General
Bond, Edward Curzon, Viscount Gordon, Hon. John Edward
Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme Dalkeith, Earl of Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Dalrymple, Sir Charles Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. Geo's)
Brassey, Albert Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham) Goschen, George J. (Sussex)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Denny, Colonel Goulding, Edward Alfred
Brookfield, A. Montagu Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Graham, Henry Robert
Bullard, Sir Harry Digby, John K. D. Wingfield- Gray, Ernest(West Ham)
Burdett-Coutts, W. Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Green, W. D.(Wednesbury)
Butcher, John George Dorington, Sir John Edward Greene,Henry D.(Shrewsbury)
Carlile, William Walter Doughty, George Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)
Cavendish. R. F. (N. Lancs.) Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Gretton, John
Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.) Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S. Gull, Sir Cameron
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Doxford, William Theodore Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

member of a very large rating authority, and I have been connected with the Association of Municipal Corporations for the last fifteen years. I want to ask the hon. and learned Member opposite, or any Member connected with a rating authority, if ever they heard anything whatever of the question of services rendered when they came to consider questions of rating. Let the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite go to the Town Clerk of Liverpool—or of Leeds or Nottingham—and ask him what he thinks of the doctrine of services rendered where a rating question is concerned. The proposal is a monstrous and absolutely ridiculous doctrine, and, to use the Words of Mr. W. S. Gilbert, it is dragged in "merely to lend an air of artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative." That narrative is the Bill which we now have before this House.

Question put, "That the words 'one-half' stand part of the clause."

The Committee proceeded to a Division:—Ayes, 228; Noes, 125. (Division List, No. 241.)

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Ed'nb'gh, W. Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W. Malcolm, Ian Ryder, John Herbert Dudley
Hanson, Sir Reginald Martin, Richard Biddulph Savory, Sir Joseph
Hardy, Laurence Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F. Seely, Charles Hilton
Hare, Thomas Leigh Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) Seton-Karr, Henry
Heaton, John Henniker Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Sharpe, William Edward T.
Helder, Augustus Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J. Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol) Mildmay, Francis Bingham Sidebottom, William(Derbys.)
Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) Milton, Viscount Simeon, Sir Barrington
Hobhouse, Henry Milward, Colonel Victor Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Holland, Hon. Lionel R.(Bow) Montagu, Hn. J. Scott(Hants.) Smith, Hon. W.F. D.(Strand)
Hornby, Sir William Henry More, R. Jasper (Shropshire) Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)
Howell, William Tudor Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.) Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn Morrell, George Herbert Stephens, Henry Charles
Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice- Morrison, Walter Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Jebb, Richard Claverhouse Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) Stock, James Henry
Jenkins, Sir John Jones Mount, William George Strauss, Arthur
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Muntz, Philip A. Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Jolliffe, Hon. H. George Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.
Kemp, George Murray, Charles J.(Coventry) Talbot, Rt Hn J G(Oxf'd Univ.)
Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Thornton, Percy M.
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William Myers, William Henry Tollemache, Henry James
Keswick, William Nicholson, William Graham Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray
King, Sir Henry Seymour Nicol, Donald Ninian Valentia, Viscount
Lafone, Alfred Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S. Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)
Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) Percy, Earl Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E.
Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H. Pierpoint, Robert Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Platt-Higgins, Frederick Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.
Leighton, Stanley Pollock, Harry Frederick Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Llewellyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Willox, Sir John Archibald
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Purvis, Robert Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R (Bath)
Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham Pym, C. Guy Wylie, Alexander
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (L'pool) Quilter, Sir Cuthbert Wyndham, George
Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Rankin, Sir James Wyndham-Quin, Major W.H.
Lowe, Francis William Rasch, Major Frederick Carne Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
Lowles, John Rentoul, James Alexander Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l) Young, Commander(Berks,E.)
Lucas-Shadwell, William Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Macartney, W. G. Ellison Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Macdona, John Cumming Robinson, Brooke Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
MacIver, David (Liverpool) Round, James
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Lambert, George
Allen, Wm.(Newc. Under Lyme Duckworth, James Langley, Batty
Ashton, Thomas Gair Emmott, Alfred Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hen. Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan) Leng, Sir John
Baldwin, Alfred Evans, Sir Francis H.(South'ton Leuty, Thomas Richmond
Barlow, John Emmott Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Lewis, John Herbert
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Logan, John William
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Flyn, James Christopher Lough, Thomas
Billson, Alfred Foster, Sir Walter(Derby Co.) Macaleese, Daniel
Broadhurst, Henry Goddard, Daniel Ford MacDonnell, Dr. M. A (Q.C.)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) M'Ewan, William
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Griffith, Ellis J. M'Ghee, Richard
Burns, John Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton M'Kenna, Reginald
Buxton, Sydney Charles Haldane, Richard Burden M'Leod, John
Caldwell, James Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Maddison, Fred.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Harwood, George Maden, John Henry
Causton, Richard Knight Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- Mellor, Rt.Hon.J. W.(Yorks.)
Cawley, Frederick Hazell, Walter Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand
Channing, Francis Allston Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H. Montagu, Sir S.(Whitechapel)
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh. Holland, W. H. (York, W.R.) Morgan, W Pritchard (Merthyr)
Clough, Walter Owen Horniman, Frederick John Morley, Charles (Breconshire)
Colville, John Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Morton, Edw. J.C.(Devonport)
Crilly, Daniel Johnson-Ferguson,Jabez Edw. Moss, Samuel
Dalziel, James Henry Joicey, Sir James Moulton, John Fletcher
Davies,M.Vaughan-(Cardigan Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Davitt, Michael Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U Nussey, Thomas Willans
Dillon, John Kearley, Hudson E. Oldroyd, Mark
Donelan, Captain A. Kitson, Sir James Palmer, George Wm.(Reading)
Doogan, P. C. Labouchere, Henry Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.
Perks, Robert William Smith, Samuel (Flint) Weir, James Galloway
Pickersgill, Edward Hare Spicer, Albert Whiteley, George (Stockport).
Power, Patrick Joseph Stanhope, Hon. Philip J. Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)
Price, Robert John Steadman, William Charles Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)
Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.) Stevenson, Francis S. Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)
Provand, Andrew Dryburgh Strachey, Edward Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Randell, David Stuart, James (Shoreditch) Wilson, John (Govan)
Richardson, J. (Durham,S.E.) Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh. N.)
Rickett, J. Compton Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.) Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Hudd'sf'd
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.) Woods, Samuel
Robson, William Snowdon Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)
Samuel, J (Stockton-on-Tees) Trevelyan, Charles Philips TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Warner, Thos. Courtenay T. Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. M'Arthur.
Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire) Wedderburn, Sir William

It being after Midnight, the Chairman proceeded to interrupt the business; whereupon Mr. A. J. Balfour rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question 'That the words of the clause to the word "and" in line 8 stand part of the clause' be now put."


On a point of order, I should like to ask if there is any precedent for moving the closure in this way after midnight. This motion is not consequential in any way on the question before the Committee when the last Division was taken, and as the closure was not moved before Twelve o'clock, I desire to

Anson, Sir William Reynell Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Chamberiain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.) Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir. J.(Manc.
Arnold, Alfred Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r Finch, George H.
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Charrington, Spencer Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Clare, Octavius Leigh Fisher, William Hayes
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth) Fison, Frederick William
Baillie, James E.B.(Inverness) Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A.E. FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-
Baird, John George Alexander Coghill, Douglas Harry Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)
Balcarres, Lord Colston, Chas. Edw. H.Athole Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r Compton, Lord Alwyn Galloway, William Johnson
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W(Leeds Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) Garfit, William
Banbury, Frederick George Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford) Gedge, Sydney
Barnes, Frederic Gorell Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W. Gibbons, J. Lloyd
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D. Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)
Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. H.(Bris.) Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Giles, Charles Tyrrell
Bemrose, Sir Henry Lowe Cranborne, Viscount Gilliat, John Saunders
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Cripps, Charles Alfred Godson, Sir A. Frederick
Bethell, Commander Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Goldsworthy, Major-General
Bigwood, James Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton) Gordon, Hon. John Edward
Bill, Charles Cubitt, Hon. Henry Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.
Blundell, Colonel Henry Curzon, Vicount Goschen, Rt. Hn. G.J.(St Greo.'s)
Bond, Edward Dalkeith, Earl of Goschen, George J. (Sussex)
Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme Dalrymple, Sir Charles Goulding, Edward Alfred
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham) Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Brassey, Albert Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Digby, John K.D. Wingfield- Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)
Brookfield, A. Montagu Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Greene, W. R.- (Cambs.)
Bullard, Sir Harry Dorington, Sir John Edward Gretton, John
Burdett-Coutts, W. Doughty, George Gull, Sir Cameron
Butcher, John George Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Carlile, William Walter Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S. Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Doxford, William Theodore Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.
Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.) Drucker, A. Hanson, Sir Reginald
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Hare, Thomas Leigh
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East) Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart Helder, Augustus
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph D. Hill, Sir Edward Stock (Bristol)

ask if there is any precedent for moving it after Twelve o'clock.


This is not a consequential Amendment, but it is quite in order to move the closure on the interruption of business even after Midnight.

Question put, "That the question 'That the words of the clause to the word "and" in line 8 stand part of the clause' be now put.'"

The Committee divided:—Ayes 224, Noes 104. (Division List, No. 242.)

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) Milbank, Sir Powl'tt Chas. John Seely, Charles Hilton
Hobhouse, Henry Mildmay, Francis Bingham Seton-Karr, Henry
Holland, Hon. L. R. (Bow) Milner, Sir Frederick George Sharpe, William Ed'ard T.
Hornby, Sir William Henry Milton, Viscount Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)
Howell, William Tudor Milward, Colonel Victor Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)
Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants) Simeon, Sir Barrington
Hutchinson, capt. G. W. Grice- More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Jebb, Richard Claverhouse Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh. Smith, Hon. W. F. D.(Strand)
Jenkins, Sir John Jones Morrell, George Herbert Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Morrison, Walter Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Jolliffe, Hon. H. George Morton, Arthur H.A.(Deptford Stephens, Henry Charles
Kemp, George Mount, William George Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Muntz, Philip A. Stock, James Henry
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William Murray, Rt. Hn A Graham (Bute Strauss, Arthur
Keswick, William Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
King, Sir Henry Seymour Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Lafone, Alfred Myers, William Henry Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Ox'd.Unv.
Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.) Nicholson, William Graham Thornton, Percy M.
Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. Edw. H. Nicol, Donald Ninian Tollemache, Henry James
Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray
Leighton, Stanley Percy, Earl Valentia, Viscount
Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a) Pierpoint, Robert Warde, Lieut.-Col. C.E. (Kent)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Platt-Higgins, Frederick Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Pollock, Harry Frederick Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Long. Col. C. W. (Evesham) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.
Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l) Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw. Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller Purvis, Robert Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Lowe, Francis William Pym, C. Guy Willox, Sir John Archibald
Lowles, John Quilter, Sir Cuthbert, Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh. N)
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Rankin, Sir James Wodehonse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath
Lucas-Shadwell, William Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Wylie, Alexander
Macartney, W. G. Ellison Rentoul, James Alexander Wyndham, George
Macdona, John Cumming Richardson, Sir Thos.(Hartlep'l Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
MacIver, David (Liverpool) Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy
M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'rgh,W Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Malcolm, Ian Robinson, Brooke Young, Commander (Berks,E.)
Martin, Richard Biddulph Round, James
Massey-Mainwaring,Hn.W.F. Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire) Ryder, John Herbert Dudley Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Savory, Sir Joseph
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand
Allen, W. (Newc.under Lyme) Flynn, James Christopher Morgan, W. P. (Merthyr)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.) Morley, Charles (Breconshire)
Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. Henry Goddard, Daniel Ford Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)
Barlow, John Emmott Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) Moss, Samuel
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Griffith, Ellis J. Moulton, John Fletcher
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Gurdon, Sir William B. Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Billson, Alfred Haldane, Richard Burdon Nussey, Thomas Willans
Broadhurst, Henry Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- Pickersgill, Edward Hare
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Hazen, Walter Power, Patrick Joseph
Burns, John Hedderwick, Thomas C. H. Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)
Buxton, Sydney Charles Holland, W. H. (York, W. R.) Provand, Andrew Dryburgh
Caldwell, James Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Randell, David
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Joicey, Sir James Richardson, J.(Durham, S. E.)
Causton, Richard Knight Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Rickett, J. Compton
Cawley, Frederick Kearley, Hudson E. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Channing, Francis Allston Labouchere, Henry Robson, William Snowdon
Clark, Dr. G.B.(Caithness-sh.) Lambert, George Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Clough, Walter Owen Langley, Batty Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Crilly, Daniel Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)
Dalziel, James Henry Leuty, Thomas Richmond Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Davies, M. Vaughan(Cardigan) Lewis, John Herbert Spicer, Albert
Davitt, Michael Logan, John William Stanhope, Hon. Phillip J.
Dillon, John Macaleese, Daniel Steadman, William Charles
Donelan, Captain A. MacDonnell, Dr M A (Queen's C) Stevenson, Francis S.
Doogan, P. C. M'Ewan, William Stratchey, Edward
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) M'Ghee, Richard Stuart, James (Shoreditch)
Emmott, Alfred M'Kenna, Reginald Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Evans, Sam. T. (Glamorgan) Maddison, Fred. Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith) Maden, John Henry Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Trevelyan, Charles Philips Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.) Woods, Samuel
Warner, Thos. Courtenay T. Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)
Wedderburn, Sir William Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Weir, James Galloway Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. M'Arthur.
Whiteley, George (Stockport) Woodhouse, Sir J. T.(Hudd'sf'd

Question put accordingly, "That the words of the clause to the word 'and' in line 8 stand part of the clause."

Anson, Sir William Reynell Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Digby, John K D. Wingfield- Keswick, William
Arnold, Alfred Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph King, Sir Henry Seymour
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Dorington, Sir John Edward Lafone, Alfred
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Doughty, George Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. Edw. H.
Baillie, James E. B.(Inverness) Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S. Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie
Baird, John George Alexander Doxford, William Theodore Leighton, Stanley
Balcarres, Lord Drucker, A. Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Sw'ns'a)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J.(Manch'r Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W(Leeds Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William H. Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Banbury, Frederick George Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)
Barnes, Frederic Gorell Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E. Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H.(Bris.) Finch, George H. Lowe, Francis William
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lowles, John
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Fisher, William Hayes Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Bethell, Commander Fison, Frederick William Lucas-Shadwell, William
Bigwood, James FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose- Macartney, W. G. Ellison
Bill, Charles Foster, Colonel (Lancaster) Macdona, John Cumming
Blundell, Colonel Henry Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk) MacIver, David (Liverpool)
Bond, Edward Galloway, William Johnson M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh,W.)
Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme Garfit, William Malcolm, Ian
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Gedge, Sydney Martin, Richard Biddulph
Brassey, Albert Gibbons, J. Lloyd Massey-Main waring, Hn. W.F.
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)
Brookfield, A. Montagu Gilliat, John Saunders Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.
Bullard, Sir Harry Godson, Sir Augustus Fred. Milbank, Sir Powl'tt Chas. John
Burdett-Coutts, W. Goldsworthy, Major-General Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Butcher, John George Gordon, Hon. John Edward Milner, Sir Frederick George
Carlile, William Walter Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Milton, Viscount
Cavendish, R F. (N. Lancs.) Goschen, Rt Hn G J (St.George's Milward, Colonel Victor
Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbysh.) Goschen, George J. (Sussex) Montagu, Hn. J. Scott(Hants.)
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Goulding, Edward Alfred More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire
Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East) Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Green, W. D. (Wednesbury) Morrell, George Herbert
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury) Morrison, Walter
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.) Greene, W. R.- (Cambs.) Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptford
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r Gretton, John Mount, William George
Charrington, Spencer Gull, Sir Cameron Muntz, Philip A.
Clare, Octavius Leigh Hall, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute
Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth) Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Ld. George Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W. Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Coghill, Douglas Harry Hanson, Sir Reginald Myers, William Henry
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Hare, Thomas Leigh Nicholson, William Graham
Compton, Lord Alwyne Helder, Augustus Nicol, Donald Ninian
Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth) Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol) Northcote, Hon.Sir H. Stafford
Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd) Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Cornwallis, Fiennes Stauley W. Hobhouse, Henry Percy, Earl
Cotton, Jodrell-, Col. E. T. D. Holland, Hon. L. R. (Bow) Pierpoint, Robert
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Hornby, Sir William Henry Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Cranborne, Viscount Howell, William Tudor Pollock, Harry Frederick
Cripps, Charles Alfred Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Hutchinson, Capt.G. W.Grice- Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col Edward
Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton) Jebb, Richard Claverhouse Purvis, Robert
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Jenkins, Sir John Jones Pym, C. Guy
Curzon, Viscount Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Quilter, Sir Cuthbert
Dalkeith, Earl of Jolliffe, Hon. H. George Rankin, Sir James
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Kemp, George Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham) Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. Rentoul, James Alexander

The Committee divided:—Ayes 224, Noes 100. (Division List, No. 243.)

Richardson, Sir Thos (Hartlep'] Stanley, Hn Arthur (Ormskirk) Wharton, Rt. Hon. John L.
Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Stephens, Henry Charles Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Robinson, Brooke Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M. Willox, Sir John Archibald
Round, James Stock, James Henry Wilson, J.W. (Worcestershr.N
Russell, T. W. (Tyrone) Strauss, Arthur Wodehouse, Rt Hn. E.R.(Bath)
Ryder, John Herbert Dudley Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley Wylie, Alexander
Savory, Sir Joseph Strut, Hon. Humphry Napier Wyndham, George
Seely, Charles Hilton Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'dUnv.) Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.
Seton-Karr, Henry Thornton, Percy M. Wyvill, Marmaduke D Arcy
Sharpe, William Edward T. Tollemache, Henry James Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire) Tomlinson, W. E. Murray Young, Commander(Berks, E.)
Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.) Valentia, Viscount
Simeon, Sir Barrington Warde, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Kent) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Skewes-Cox, Thomas Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E. Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-
Abraham, William (Rhonnda) Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton Provand, Andrew Drybrough
Allen, W. (Newc.-under-Lyme Haldane, Richard Burdon Handell, David
Ashton, Thomas Gair Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. Hayne, Rt. Hn. Chas. Seale- Rickett, J. Compton
Barlow, John Emmott Haze11, Walter Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Bayley, Thomas Derbyshire Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H. Robson, William Snowdon
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Holland, Wm. H. (York, W.R.) Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)
Billson, Alfred Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Broadhurst, Henry Joicey, Sir James Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.) Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Burns, John Kearley, Hudson E. Spicer, Albert
Buxton, Sydney Charles Labouchere, Henry Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.
Caldwell, James Lambert, George Steadman, William Charles
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Langley, Batty Stevenson, Francis S.
Causton, Richard Knight Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) Strachey, Edward
Cawley, Frederick Leuty, Thomas Richmond Stuart, James (Shoreditch)
Channing, Francis Allston Lewis, John Herbert Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)
Clark, Dr.G.B.(Caithness-sh.) Logan, John William
Clough, Walter Owen Macaleese, Daniel Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Crilly, Daniel MacDonnell, Dr M A (Queen's C) Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Dalziel, James Henry M'Ewan, William Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan M'Ghee, Richard Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.
Davitt, Michael M'Kenna, Reginald Wedderburn, Sir William
Donelan, Captain A. Maddison, Fred. Weir, James Galloway
Doogan, P. C. Maden, John Henry Whiteley, George (Stockport)
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)
Emmott, Alfred Morgan, W Pritchard (Merthyr Wilson, Charles Henry (Hull)
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Morley, Charles (Breconshire) Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Morton, Edw. J. C.(Devonport) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Moss, Samuel Woodhouse, Sir J. T.(H'dd'rsf'd
Flynn, James Christopher Moulton, John Fletcher Woods, Samuel
Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.) Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Goddard, Daniel Ford Nussey, Thomss Willans TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick) Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.) Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. M'Arthur.
Griffith, Ellis J. Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

Whereupon the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.