HC Deb 10 August 1904 vol 140 cc111-31

Not amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.

MR. BRYNMOR JONES (Swansea District)

said he had put down this Amendment in order to have an opportunity of asking the Attorney-General to explain the meaning of the words "including the repealed portions thereof." He should like to ask what were the repealed portions of the Act, and, if they were repealed, why they were repealed, and why they should now be restored in this Bill. He begged to move.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 6, to leave out the words 'including the repealed portions thereof.'"—(Mr. Brynmor Jones.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,) Inverness Burghs

said that the machinery of the Act of 1878, which provided for the creation of four Bishoprics, was being utilised for the creation of the new Bishoprics of Birmingham and Southwark. All that was required was to see that the machinery should be applicable to these two new Bishoprics with certain modifications. He thought there was no objection to dealing with the Act of 1878 in that way.

MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

expressed the opinion that this was one of the worst examples of legislation by reference that it was possible to find. He did not think the reasons given by the hon. and learned Gentleman for re-enacting these repealed clauses were sufficient. If they were to be re-enacted they should be re-enacted seriatim in this Bill. It was an extraordinary thing to suggest that these clauses should be revived in this way, and he appealed to the House to leave out these words.

MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid.)

asked whether there was any precedent for what was being done in this case. He reminded the House that in legislation by reference Acts of Parliament were referred to which were extant. That was quite intelligible, but to refer to clauses of an Act which had been repealed and were not operative, was an unheard-of thing to do. If a copy of the 1878 Act was referred to, these repealed clauses would not be found in it, and, if the Act was printed without these sections, how were they to know where these repealed clauses were. This was quite a novel proceeding, and the Attorney-General must know that there was no precedent for it. The whole object of it was, in his opinion, to get the Bill through easily. If these clauses had been put into the Bill it would not have been easy to get it through the House. The Bill had been drafted in the fewest possible words for the simple purpose of reducing the difficulty of getting it through the House.

MR. MOSS (Denbighshire, E.)

asked how Section 10 of the Act of 1874, which had reference only to the Archdeacon of St. Albans, would be relevant to the present Bill.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said there were provisions of special significance in the Act of 1874 which were necessary for the Bishoprics there dealt with, but provisions such as that dealing with St. Albans would not, of course, relate to the Bishoprics of Birmingham and Southwark.

MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)

thought the explanation of the Attorney-General only made the matter worse. It would be quite absurd to retain the words, "and the repealed portions thereof." Why should not the particular section be enumerated, so that people might know exactly what was meant? It really seemed as though the Law Officers did not know what had and what had not been repealed, and unless the clause were amended he should support his hon. friend in the division.

MR. HIGHAM (Yorkshire, W.R., Sowerby)

pointed out that the Act of 1878, by which four new Bishoprics were created, was passed amid energetic protests and without adequate discussion, in the month of August, and now this Bishoprics Bill was being passed under exactly similar conditions. The present Bill, however, was even more ridiculous. The Act of 1878 referred back to Acts of Queen Anne and George III., so that the Bill now under discussion was based not only upon the Act of 1878, but upon Acts of Queen Anne and George III.

* MR. SPEAKER

I do not see that this has anything to do with the Amendment.

MR. CALDWELL

pointed out that it was part of the repealed portions which were to apply to this Bill.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

No, it is not.

MR. CALDWELL

Section 2 is a repealed portion.

* MR. HIGHAM

said that no proof had been brought forward of the need for additional Episcopal supervision, and the people of Yorkshire would strongly deny any such necessity.

* MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member's observations might have been relevant on the Second Reading, but they are not relevant to this Amendment.

MR. GEORGE WHITELEY (Yorkshire, W.R., Pudsey)

thought the House was being asked to take a most unreasonable course. When they took out of the Act of 1878 the portions repealed there was very little left. He had copied out the repealed portions of the Act, and they covered four closely written foolscap pages. Those were practically dead clauses and they did not exist on the Statute-book. After being defunct for ten years they were being resurrected and revivified and imported into an Act of Parliament. That was a very unusual proceeding. These clauses had been dead for ten years and the House could have no knowledge of them except by turning up the original Act of 1878. This was an unheard-of proceeding, and perhaps the learned Attorney-General would tell them how much of the original Act of 1878 now existed. He hoped these clauses would be incorporated and set out in the Bill.

MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)

said he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would pay some heed to the arguments which had been put forward in favour of this Amendment. He ventured to think that had it not been for the hurry to get measures through at this period of the session the fairness of the arguments in support of this Amendment would have been recognised. They were proposing to pass a Bill which referred to Birmingham and Southwark, and they were at the same time introducing something which was altogether foreign to the purpose of the Bill. He doubted whether it was in accordance with the rules of the House to do what the Government proposed to do, because by the Bill as it stood they were ignoring an Act of Parliament which had already been passed, and which dealt with something altogether different to the purposes of this Bill. When they were directly repealing or re-enacting a particular portion of an Act of Parliament surely it ought to be clearly set out. He supported the Amendment because it dealt with this all-important question of legislation by reference. After the many protests they had made upon previous occasions he never expected to hear any more of this practice being adopted. The references alone would take anybody a couple of hours to look up. It ought not to be necessary to spend hours in the Library to understand what they were asked to do by this Bill. The protest they were making was a protest against the policy of the Government with regard to this practice. The Government seemed to him when they were instructing the draftsman to tell him that they would like his work all the better if he could put the question into one clause, so as to exclude all possibility of Amendments. In ordinary circumstances it would be only reasonable to ask the Government to insert just what they wanted to carry out. He submitted that the Amendment was one which ought to be accepted. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to adjourn the debate upon this Bill in order that he might bring forward a clause drafted more in accordance with the object they had in view. If the olive branch was not held out from the Treasury Bench he hoped his hon. friend would press his Amendment to a division.

* SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)

said that this Bill was introduced in March, and on the 16th of May his hon. friend who had moved this Amendment made exactly the same proposal, and after full discussion he withdrew it.

MR. SPEAKER

I do not think that relates to the Amendment before the House.

* SIR FRANCIS POWELL

said that it was exactly the same Amendment which was negatived without a division by the Standing Committee on Law.

MR. SPEAKER

I thought the hon. Member was speaking of a Bill which had been previously passed.

* SIR FRANCIS POWELL

said he was much gratified by the tone adopted in the Standing Committee.

MR. BRYNMOR JONES

said the hon. Member was technically accurate. The fact was that he did not press the matter to a division because he saw he was in a hopeless minority. He merely mentioned that fact to the House to show that there was no ground for complaint.

* SIR FRANCIS POWELL

said he thought the tone of the discussion on that occasion was a sign of union and cooperation, and a desire to make the national Church useful. He hoped the same tone would prevail on the present occasion.

MR. BROADHURST (Leicester)

said he wished to direct the attention of the Prime Minister to the statement made by the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark that there were certain clauses referred to which had no existence in law. Without these clauses the House could not possibly understand the Bill. Surely they were entitled to be told where they would find the lost clauses. He understood the Attorney-General to say that they had been repealed. If they were repealed they were not law. The hon. and learned Gentleman then went on to say that none of them knew how much or how little had been repealed. If

the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, and the Prime Minister did not know whether these clauses had been repealed or not how were uninstructed people to get at the facts? He hoped the Prime Minister would come to the aid of the House in a matter of such vital importance as this.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 150; Noes, 62. (Division List, No. 335.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Morpeth, Viscount
Anson, Sir William Reynell Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Morrell, George Herbert
Arkwright, John Stanhope Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Arnold-Forstor, Rt. Hn Hugh O. Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas Mount, William Arthur
Arrol, Sir William Fisher, William Hayes Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Flower, Sir Ernest Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Bain, Colonel James Robert Forster, Henry William Newdegate, Francis A. N.
Balcarres, Lord Gardner, Ernest Nicholson, William Graham
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r) Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. GeraldW. (Leeds Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Parkes, Ebenezer
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Gretton, John Percy, Earl
Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Greville, Hon. Ronald Pierpoint, Robert
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Hall, Edward Marshall Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Bigwood, James Hambro, Charles Eric Plummer, Sir Walter R.
Bingham, Lord Hamilton, Marq. of L'nd'nderry Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hay, Hon. Claude George Pretyman, Ernest George
Bond, Edward Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.) Randles, John S.
Bousfield, William Robert Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W. Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne
Brassey, Albert Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil Ratcliff, R. F.
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Hudson, George Bickersteth Reid, James (Greenock)
Bull, William James Hunt, Rowland Remnant, James Farquharson
Butcher, John George Jameson, Major J. Eustace Renwick, George
Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H. Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred. Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Keswick, William Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Chamberlan Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc. Knowles, Sir Lees Sharpe, William Edward T.
Chapman, Edward Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Churchill, Winston Spencer Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Spear, John Ward
Clare, Octavius Leigh Lee, ArthurH. (Hants., Fareham Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)
Coghill, Douglas Harry Llewellyn, Evan Henry Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R. Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham) Tuff, Charles
Compton, Lord Alwyne Long, Rt. Hn.Walter (Bristol, S.) Valentia, Viscount
Cripps, Charles Alfred Lowe, Francis William Walker, Col. William Hall
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Warde, Colonel C. E.
Dalkeith, Earl of Lucas, ReginaldJ. (Portsmouth) Webb, Colonel William George
Davenport, William Bromley- Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne
Davies, Sir HoratioD. (Chatham Macdona, John Cumming Whitmore, Chas. Algernon.
Dickson, Charles Scott MacIver, David (Liverpool) Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Maconochie, A. W. Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Doughty, Sir George Malcolm, Ian Wylie, Alexander
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Duke, Henry Edward Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Harcourt, Lewis, V. (Rossendale Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Bell, Richard Higham, John Sharpe Shackleton, David James
Benn, John Williams Holland, Sir William Henry Shipman, Dr. John G.
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Horniman, Frederick John Sloan, Thomas Henry
Brigg, John Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Bright, Allan Heywood Jacoby, James Alfred Sullivan, Donal
Buxton, Sydney Charles Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.) Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Caldwell, James Kilbride, Denis Tomkinson, James
Cremer, William Randal Layland-Barratt, Francis Toulmin, George
Crooks, William Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Tully, Jasper
Dalziel, James Henry Leigh, Sir Joseph Ure, Alexander
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Lewis, John Herbert Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Delany, William Lough, Thomas Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles MacVeagh, Jeremiah Weir, James Galloway
Doogan, P. C. Moss, Samuel Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)
Elibank, Master of Nannetti, Joseph P. Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Evans, Sir FrancisH (Maidstone O'Malley, William Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Eve, Harry Trelawney Partington, Oswald Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Ffrench, Peter Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Rea, Russell TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Brynmor Jones and Mr. Broadhurst.
Grant, Corrie Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Griffith, Ellis J. Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
MR. BRYNMOR JONES

said that in proposing this new clause he had no intention of impeding the passage of this Bill; but it raised the question of the relations between the Episcopal Bench and the House of Lords. He only wished to raise a very minute portion of that question, which he, however, thought was quite relevant to the question before the House. It was said that if the Church of England was to carry out its functions, having regard to the enormous increase in the population, it should have many more new Bishops. The question he wished to raise was, whether it was fair to the older Bishops, some of whom occupied Sees of great historical importance, that they should be passed over by these new Bishops? Some people thought that Bishops should be very great persons indeed, living in great style, and practically occupying the position of Peers of the realm. That was not his view, and therefore he begged to move the new clause standing in his name.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 12, after the word 'Act, to insert the words 'but no Bishop appointed in pursuance of the provisions of this Act shall be entitled to sit and vote in the House of Lords, unless at the time of his appointment he was a Peer of the realm, or shall, after his appointment, become a Peer of the realm by descent or creation.'"—(Mr. Brynmor Jones.)

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

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said he hoped the House would be of opinion that it was better to leave this matter in regard to the new Bishops to be dealt with by the general law as embodied in the Act of 1878. The new Bishops would be on the same footing as the other Bishops.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. HIGHAM

moved to omit Subsection (a) of Schedule I.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 5, to leave out paragraph (a) of Schedule 1."—(Mr. Hibham)

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said it was desirable that there should be this provision, because power to rearrange boundaries was necessary to the effective working of these bishoprics.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'with,' in page 2, line 10, stand part of the Bill."

* MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH (Anglesey)

said he saw no reason why the patronage of the old Bishops should be given to the new Bishops. It was perfectly well known that the Bishops had not done their duty too well. There were High Church and ritualistic practices, and it would be well to safeguard the new Bishops against temptations of that kind, though he did not suggest that they would succumb to such temptations. If, as a Nonconformist, he had to take part in making new Bishops, he wished to make them as harmless as possible.

With that view he supported the Amendment.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 51. (Division List No. 336.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Duke, Henry Edward Morgan, DavidJ. (Walthamstow
Anson, Sir William Reynell Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Morpeth, Viscount
Arkwright, John Stanhope Fielder, Edward Brocklehurst Morrell, George Herbert
Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. Hugh O. Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Arrol, Sir William Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Mount, William Arthur
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Fisher, William Hayes Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Bain, Colonel James Robert Flower, Sir Ernest Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Balcarres, Lord Forster, Henry William Newdegate, Francis A. N.
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r Gardner, Ernest Nicholson, William Graham
Balfour, Rt. Hn. GeraldW. (Leeds Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbe tJohn Parkes, Ebenezer
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Percy, Earl
Bigwood, James Gretton, John Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Bingham, Lord Greville, Hon. Ronald Plummer, Sir Walter R.
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hall, Edward Marshall Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Bond, Edward Hambro, Charles Eric Pretyman, Ernest George
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Hamilton, Marq. of L'nd'nderry Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Bousfield, William Robert Hay, Hon. Claude George Randles, John S.
Brassey, Albert Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Heath, James (Staffords., N. W. Reid, James (Greenock)
Bull, William James Henderson, Sir A. (Statford, W.) Remnant, James Farquharson
Butcher, John George Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil Renwick, George
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Hudson, George Bickersteth Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Causton, Richard Knight Hunt, Rowland Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Jameson, Major J. Eustace Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc. Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Chapman, Edward Keswick, William Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.
Churchill, Winston Spencer Knowles, Sir Lees Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Clare, Octavius Leigh Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Tuff, Charles
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Valentia, Viscount
Coghill, Douglas Harry Lee, ArthurH. (Hants., Fareham Walker, Col. William Hall
Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C.R. Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Warde, Colonel C. E.
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Llewellyn, Evan Henry Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Compton, Lord Alwyne Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Webb, Colonel William George
Cripps, Charles Alfred Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne
Crooks, William Long, Rt Hn. Walter. (Bristol, S) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Lowe, Francis William Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Dalkeith, Earl of Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Davenport, William Bromley- Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Wylie, Alexander
Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham Macdona, John Cumming Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Dickson, Charles Scott Maconochie, A. W.
Disraeli, Coningshy Ralph Malcolm, Ian TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Doughty, Sir George Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F. Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Eve, Harry Trelawney Kilbride, Denis
Brigg, John Ffrench, Peter Layland-Barratt, Francis
Bright, Allan Heywood Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington
Broadhurst, Henry Grant, Corrie Leigh, Sir Joseph
Caldwell, James Holland, Sir William Henry Lewis, John Herbert
Cremer, William Randal Horniman, Frederick John Lough, Thomas
Dalziel, James Henry Isaacs, Rufus Daniel MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Delany, William Jacoby, James Alfred Moss, Samuel
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea Murphy, John
Doogan, P. C. Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Nannetti, Joseph P.
O'Malley, William Stanhope, Hon. Philip James Whitely, J. H. (Halifax)
Partington, Oswald Sullivan, Donal Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Rea, Russell Tomkinson, James
Roberts, John Bryn (Eifon) Toulmin, George TELLERS OF THE NOES—
Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) Tully, Jasper Mr. Higham and Mr. Ellis Griffith.
Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Ure, Alexander
Shackleton, David James Weir, James Galloway
Shipman, Dr. John G. Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)
MR. HIGHAM

moved to omit the words "with his consent," on the ground that if the provision was necessary it was not wise to allow the Bishop of Worcester to block the transfer of patronage.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 10, to leave out the words 'with his consent.'"—(Mr. Higham.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

pointed out that it was not unusual, when a transfer of this kind was made, to provide that the consent of the present occupant of the office should be given. It was only in conformity with practice and with what was right that these words should be retained, and he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

MR. LOUGH

thought the words ought to go. Even if his own judgment was in favour of the intention of the Bill, the Bishop of Worcester might not feel free to consent to something restricting the rights of his successors. The Government ought to have the courage to decide this matter for themselves, and not to

put it on the Bishop of Worcester. It was not a matter affecting emoluments or anything in which the Bishop might have any narrow or personal interest; therefore he thought that Amendment should be accepted.

MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH

considered that the words constituted a grave reflection upon the Bishop of Worcester, because they suggested that he might withhold his consent to proposals which the Government considered were for the good of the Church. It was very undesirable that patronage in the neighbouring diocese should be exercised by the Bishop of Worcester, and he hoped the Government would agree to omit these words.

MR. MOSS

said that unless the words were deleted the schedule would be an absurdity, because it already provided, without the consent of the Bishop, for the re-arrangement of the boundaries and the taking away of rights of patronage, and the matters here dealt with were a necessary consequence.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 140; Noes, 51. (Division List No. 337.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Compton, Lord Alwyne
Anson, Sir William Reynell Bousfield, William Robert Cripps, Charles Alfred
Arkwright, John Stanhope Brassey, Albert Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Dalkeith, Earl of
Arrol, Sir William Bull, William James Davenport, William Bromley-
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Davies, Sir HoratioD. (Chatham
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Causton, Richard Knight Dickson, Charles Scott
Bain, Colonel James Robert Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph
Balcarres, Lord Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Doughty, Sir George
Balfour,Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r Ceecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Balfour, Rt Hn. GeraldW. (Leeds Chamberlain, Rt Hn (J. A. (Worc Doxford, Sir William Theodore
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Chapman, Edward Duke, Henry Edward
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Churchill, Winston Spencer Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Clare, Octavius Leigh Fergusson, Rt. Hn. SirJ. (Manc'r
Bigwood, James Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Fielden Edward Brocklehurst
Bingham, Lord Coghill, Douglas Harry Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.
Blundell, Colonel Henry Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C.R. Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Bond, Edward Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Fisher, William Hayes
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Randles, John S.
Flower, Sir Ernest Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne
Forster, Henry William Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.) Reid, James (Greenock)
Gardner, Ernest Lowe, Francis William Remnant, James Farquharson
Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Renwick, George
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Macdona, John Cumming Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Maconochie, A. W. Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Gretton, John Malcolm, Ian Sharpe, William Edward T.
Greville, Hon. Ronald Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Hall, Edward Marshall Montagu, G: (Huntingdon) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.
Hambro, Charles Eric Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry Morgan, DavidJ. (Walthamstow Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Hay, Hon. Claude George Morpeth, Viscount Tuff, Charles
Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Morrell, George Herbert Valentia, Viscount
Heath, James (Staffords, N.W. Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Walker, Col. William Hall
Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.) Mount, William Arthur Warde, Colonel C. E.
Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute Webb, Colonel William George
Hudson, George Bickersteth Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne
Hunt, Rowland Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Jameson, Major J. Eustace Newdegate, Francis A. N. Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred. Nicholson, William Graham Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury) Wylie, Alexander
Kennaway, Rt Hon. Sir John H. Parkes, Ebeneze Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Keswick, William Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington
Knowles, Sir Lees Percy, Earl TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Platt-Higgins, Frederick Sir Alexander Acland Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Plummer, Sir Walter R.
Lee, ArthurH. (Hants., Fareham Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Pretyman, Ernest George
Llewellyn, Evan Henry Pryce- Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
NOES.
Bell, Richard Horniman, Frederick John Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Brigg, John Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Shackleton, David James
Bright, Allan Heywood Jacoby, James Alfred Shipman, Dr. John G.
Broadhurst, Henry Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Butcher, John George Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Sullivan, Donal
Caldwell, James Kilbride, Denis Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Cremer, William Randal Layland- Barrett, Francis Tomkinson, James
Crooks, William Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Toulmin, George
Dalziel, James Henry Leigh, Sir Joseph Ure, Alexander
Delany, Willliam Lewis, John Herbert Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Lough, Thomas Weir, James Galloway
Doogan, P. C. Murphy, John Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
Eve, Harry Trelawney Nannetti, Joseph P. Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Ffrench, Peter O'Malley, William Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Partington, Oswald Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Grant, Corrie Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Griffith, Ellis J. Rea, Russell TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Holland, Sir William Henry Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Mr Higham and Mr. Moss.
MR. CALDWELL

moved to omit Subsection (b) in the first schedule, explaining that it was to provide for the apportionment of money obtainable from the sale of Church lands. A sum of £15,000 was to be utilised for the building of a new palace for the Bishop of Rochester. There was a sum of about £60,000 involved, and it seemed to him that two Bishops were about to swallow up all this money between them. The object of his Amendment was to raise a protest against all that money going to the Bishop of Rochester. If there was a sum of £60,000 available for the diocese as a whole, why should practically the whole of it be distributed between two Bishops? That money ought to go to promoting the spiritual welfare of the diocese as a whole. Under this sub-section the Bishop of Rochester got £15,000 for a residence, and he must have a very big salary in order to keep up a house of that kind. Why should the new Bishop not have this money? Why should the Bishop of Rochester have this money for a new residence whilst somebody else took over his old house? He protested against the use of public money for this purpose instead of it being devoted, say, to the raising of the stipends of poor curates in the diocese or in aid of useful parochial work.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 2, line 16, to leave out paragraph (b) of Schedule 1."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

Question proposed, "That the words of paragraph (b) to the word 'fifteen' in page 2, line 21, proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

SIR LEES KNOWLES (Salford, W.)

said that the sale of Addington, augmented by the payment by the Archbishop for accrued dilapidations, and reduced by the discharge of a mortgage, raised £46,000, of which £29,000 was devoted to the cost of the site and the erection of the residence of the Archbishop of Canterbury. That left £17,000, making, with accrued interest, the sum of £19,000 and this provided £15,000 for the new residence of the Bishop of Rochester and £4,000 for the Bishopric of Southwark.

MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH

asked what was to become of this money? Was it to be a sort of trust? The money was not being spent to augment the salaries of the poor clergy, but upon two Bishops. He thought £15,000 was a very large sum to spend upon a residence. It was rather a large order, and they ought to have some further explanation from the Government in regard to this proposal.

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said that this money was being spent for a public purpose. If the present residence of the Bishop of Rochester were transferred to the new Bishop of Southwark another residence for the former Bishop would

have to be provided, and £15,000 could not be considered an extravagant sum for that purpose. He hoped his hon. friend would not press his Amendment.

SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derbyshire, Ilkeston)

said the difficulty about this Bill had arisen from the fact that there were in the proposed new diocese a large number of clergymen carrying on the work of the Church on very insufficient remuneration, and they felt that the sum of £15,000 might be much better spent in allowing the work to be done by individual clergymen than in building a palace for a new Bishop. Hon. Members on that side of the House, who loved the Church probably as much as hon. Members opposite, felt that in the present position of the Church of England thousands and tens of thousands of pounds ought not to be spent in building palaces for Bishops. There were a number of clergymen who had not the wherewithal to carry on their work in a proper manner. He thought that the funds accruing to the Church could be best used to enable the clergymen carrying on the spiritual work of the diocese to do it in a proper way, and this section of the Bill was opposed to that because it placed a large amount of money at the disposal of the Bishop instead of the hard-working clergymen.

SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON (Preston)

said he did not think, all things considered, that £15,000 was too much to provide a suitable house for the efficient conduct of the work the Bishop would have to do.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 131; Noes, 44. (Division List No. 338.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Bigwood, James Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich
Anson, Sir William Reynell Bingham, Lord Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc
Arkwright, John Stanhope Blundell, Colonel Henry Chapman, Edward
Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. Bond, Edward Clare, Octavius Leigh
Arrol, Sir William Bousfield, William Robert Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Brassey, Albert Coghill, Douglas Harry
Bain, Colonel James Robert Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.
Balcarres, Lord Bull, William James Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'. Butcher, John George Compton, Lord Alwyne
Balfour, Rt. Hn. GeraldW. (Leeds Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H. Cripps, Charles Alfred
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Causton, Richard Knight Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Dalkeith, Earl of
Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Davenport, William Bromley-
Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Dickson, Charles Scott Keswick, William Percy, Earl
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Knowles, Sir Lees Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Doughty, Sir George Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Plummer, Sir Walter R.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Lee,ArthurH. (Hants., Fareham Pretyman, Ernest George
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r. Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Randles, John S.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham) Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol,S. Reid, James (Greenock)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lonsdale, John Brownlee Remnant, James Farquharson
Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon Lowe, Francis William Renwick, George
Forster, Henry William Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge
Gardner, Ernest Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. Macdona, John Cumming Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Maconochie, A. W. Sharpe, William Edward T.
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Malcolm, Ian Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)
Gretton, John Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Greville, Hon. Ronald Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Tuff, Charles
Hambro, Charles Eric Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow) Valentia, Viscount
Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry Morpeth, Viscount Warde, Colonel C. E.
Haslett, Sir James Horner Morrell, George Herbert Webb, Colonel William George
Hay, Hon. Claude George Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne
Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Mount, William Arthur Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Heath, James (Staffords, N.W. Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W. Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Hudson, George Bickersteth Newdegate, Francis A. N.
Hunt, Rowland Nicholson, William Graham TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred. Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)
Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton Parkes, Ebenezer
NOES.
Brigg, John Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea) Shackleton, David James
Bright, Allan Heywood Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Stanhope, Hon. Philip James
Broadhurst, Henry Kilbride, Denis Sullivan, Donal
Cremer, William Randal Layland-Barratt, Francis Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Crooks, William Lewis, John Herbert Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Dalziel, James Henry Lough, Thomas Toulmin, George
Delany, William MacVeagh, Jeremiah Tully, Jasper
Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles Moss, Samuel Walker, Col. William Hall
Doogan, P. C. Murphy, John Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Ffrench, Peter Nannetti, Joseph P. Weir, James Galloway
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) O'Malley, William Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Grant, Corrie Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Griffith, Ellis J. Rea, Russell
Higham, John Sharpe Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Tomkinson.
Holland, Sir William Henry Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Horniman, Frederick John Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

MR. MOSS

said he moved his Amendment as a protest against the unequal manner in which the endowments of the Church were distributed. It was a perfect scandal to the Church that some of the most hard-working clergymen in the great centres of the population were only paid £50, while others had salaries amounting to many thousands.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 3, line 17, to leave out the words 'four thousand,' and insert the words 'three thousand five hundred'"—(Mr. Moss)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words 'four thousand' stand part of the Bill."

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said it must be borne in mind that this was a very ancient See indeed, and that the funds for the new Bishopric had been very largely subscribed in the district. Under these circumstances he trusted the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.

MR. CALDWELL

said he objected to taking this sum of £8000 from the Bishopric of Worcester for the purpose of endowing this new Bishopric of Birmingham. Why should not the people of Birmingham, which was a very wealthy community, raise all the money necessary to endow the new Bishop? They were being asked to transfer £800 from the diocese of Worcester to the diocese of Birmingham; and he was surprised that the people of Birmingham should have made such a suggestion. It was said that the Bishop of Worcester had consented; but the proposal would not operate during the lifetime of the present Bishop.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 3, line 29, to leave out paragraph (4) of Schedule 2."—(Mr. Caldwell.)

Question proposed, "That paragraph (4) of Schedule 2 stand part of the Bill."

SIR ROBERT FINLAY

said he hoped the House would reject the Amendment. There had been very large subscriptions from Birmingham for the purposes of the new Bishopric, and it was not unreasonable in carving out this new Bishopric that the sum mentioned should be transferred from the diocese of Worcester. The unselfish devotion of the present Bishop of Worcester was well known.

SIR WALTER FOSTER

said he hoped his hon. friend would not press his Amendment. The most populous part of the diocese of Worcester was being taken away; and, surely, it was not unreasonable that a few hundreds a year should be taken away also.

MR. CALDWELL

said he did not wish to press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill to be read the third time to-morrow.