Commons Sitting of 5 December 1912

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
Petitions were presented praying the 1 rouse not to pass into Law the Established Church-(Wales) Bill by—
Mr. George Lloyd, (36 petitions) from the Western Division of Staffordshire containing 7,745 signatures; and (52 petitions) from the Southern Division of Somerset containing 8,530 signatures.
Mr. Gibbs (57 petitions) from the four Parliamentary Divisions of Bristol containing 23,878 signatures.
Mr. Hambro, (43 petitions) from the Eastern Division of Somersetshire containing 6,270 signatures; and (28 petitions) from the Southern Division of Somersetshire containing 4,444 signatures.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of statements as to the Administration of Medical Benefit and Correspondence thereon between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the British Medical Association [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 5th December 1912, made by the Joint Committee, the Insurance Commissioners, and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Administration of Medical Benefit) Regulations, 1912 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 386.]

RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL.
Copy presented of Memorandum explanatory of the Bill [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Declaration of London.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs what law now obtains in respect of contraband and blockade; what effect, if any, is to be given to the Declaration of London; whether the action of Italy and Turkey in the recent war is to be regarded as a precedent; whether other States are strengthening, or contemplate strengthening, their legislation against breaches of neutrality; and whether, since Great Britain is more adversely affected than any other Power by a stiffening of the standard of neutrality, the Government proposes to persist in efforts to obtain the ratification of the Declaration of London?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): The rules now governing questions of contraband and blockade are those based on the view of international law prevailing in the several belligerent countries. The Declaration of London, not having been ratified, is not, as such, binding on any country, although, in several instances, belligerents have declared their acceptance of the provisions of the Declaration, so far as they do not conflict with their national law. I do not know what action on the part of Italy and Turkey the hon. Member refers to as raising the question of precedent. I have no information respecting the intentions of other Governments in the matter of legislation directed against breaches of neutrality. I am not prepared to accept the view of the hon. Member as regards the effects on this country of a raising of the standard of neutrality, nor to admit that this would be the general effect of the Declaration of London. The circumstance which does adversely affect Great Britain is the uncertainty as to what is at present accepted by foreign Powers as the correct rule of international law on these matters. This would be removed by the ratification of the Declaration of London and it is therefore desirable to effect it.

  Tibet.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Chinese have formed a new province of Eastern Tibet to the west of Szechuan; whether such province includes a portion of South-Eastern Tibet: and, if so, whether any objection has been raised on behalf of Great Britain.
  Sir E. GREY: Proposals have been put forward by the Governor-General of Szechuan for the formation of a new province, with the object of asserting more effectively the authority of the Chinese Government over the Tibetan Marches and portions of Eastern Tibet. His Majesty's Government are watching developments with a due regard for British interests and Treaty rights.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I ask whether Papers will be laid on the Table on this question?
  Sir E. GREY: No, Sir, I do not think there will be any advantage in laying Papers at the present stage.

  Chinese Mongolia.
  Mr. GINNELLasked whether, Russia having now taken that control in Chinese Mongolia hitherto sought through the six-Power financial group and to obtain which was the reason for admitting her to that group, Russia will now be excluded from that group and its future negotiations in China?
  Sir E. GREY: The statement made in the hon. Member's question is not true, and the answer is therefore in the negative.
  Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in what respect it is not true, and if that is not the present position what is the present position?
  Sir E. GREY: The statements are not true. Russia has not taken control in Chinese Mongolia and the six-Power group has not obtained control of Chinese Mongolia, and that is not the reason for permitting Russia to resign.

  Cyprus (European Conference).
  Mr. MARK SYKESasked whether, in the event of a general European Conference being convened to discuss the situation arising out of the war in the Balkans, the status of Cyprus will be liable to come under review?
  Sir E. GREY: It would be premature to make any statement as to the subjects which might or might not come within the purview of a Conference. Discussion of a programme, before it has been decided whether the moment is opportune for a Conference at all, is hardly possible.
  Mr. M. SYKES: May I ask whether the Committee of Imperial Defence will be consulted before any decision is arrived at by the Conference?
  Sir E. GREY: I should think it was probable that the Committee of Defence would be consulted if we contemplate raising the question of Cyprus, but we have not yet contemplated that.
  Mr. G. LLOYD: May I ask whether, at all events, it would not be possible to rule out certain matters like Cyprus out of the Conference?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no doubt it would be possible when the programme comes to be discussed to decide that certain subjects should be included and that certain subjects should be excluded, but until you have arrived at the moment at which you have agreed that a Conference is opportune you cannot possibly go into that.

  Putumayo.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked whether Mr. Brown, who is acting Vice-Consul (unpaid) at Iquitos, the nearest seat of a British Consulate to the Putumayo, is himself in any way connected with the rubber traffic in the Amazon forest or Putumayo regions, or connected directly or indirectly with the transport of rubber from those regions, having regard to the fact that great efforts were exerted to obtain this position of acting Vice-Consul (unpaid) at Iquitos for the agent of a company which ships the rubber from those rivers to Liverpool?
  Sir E. GREY: Mr. David Brown is the Resident Agent of the Booth Steamship Company at Iquitos. He is Vice-Consul, not Acting Vice-Consul. We were advised that Mr. Brown, who is also in charge of the United States interest, might properly be left in charge during the absence of His Majesty's Consul on leave, and I have no reason to doubt the propriety of this decision. So far as I am aware, no efforts were made to secure the appointment of Vice-Consul for Mr. Brown.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is this Mr. Brown agent of this Shipping Company which transferred rubber from those regions to England?
  Sir E. GREY: He is the agent of the Booth Steamship Company. I do not know more about him.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Will the right hon Gentleman inquire whether the Booth Steamship Company is the company that transfers the rubber from Putumayo where all these horrors and outrages occurred to England?
  Sir E. GREY: I had to decide whether Mr. Brown is a fit person to act temporarily for the British Consul while he is away. I took the best advice I could on that subject and I was informed he was a fit person, and I see no reason to reconsider the appointment.

  Treaties.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he is aware that on 19th March, 1886, a Resolution was all but carried, being defeated by a majority of four only, in the House of Commons desiring all treaties to be laid before Parliament for its approval before being finally concluded; and whether, having regard to the almost unlimited discretion of the Executive in this country in foreign affairs and its power to commit the country to the greatest international obligations without consulting Parliament, any treaties which may be made with foreign Powers resulting from the present crisis in the East will be laid before Parliament before being finally concluded, according to the practice which obtains in the United States of America under its Constitution and according to the constitutional laws of the French Republic in reference to treaties of peace and commercial treaties?
  Sir E. GREY: The subject raised by the hon. and learned Member is one of a grave constitutional character, and could not appropriately be dealt with by the process of question and answer. The hon. and learned Member raised the same issue in Debate on 12th April of last year, and I then explained at some length the considerations by which the Government must be guided in the matter. I would also recall to the hon. and learned Member's attention that, in answer to his question on 16th May, 1911, I pointed out more particularly that the question whether Parliament should or should not be given an opportunity of discussing a given treaty before His Majesty was advised to ratify it was one of constitutional practice and expediency rather than of principle. I cannot at this moment usefully add anything to what I said on those occasions, nor make any promise about hypothetical treaties.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: May I ask, does the assurance which he has given to the House many, many times still remain, namely, that he will take, as far as he can, the House into his confidence in all matters of international complications?
  Mr. MOORE: May I ask whether, from a constitutional point of view, it is worse to commit the country without consulting Parliament or to commit Parliament without consulting the country?
  Sir E. GREY: Those things appear to me to be questions on which the answer may vary according to the particular occasion. I adhere to any statement I made. I do not recall the particular one the hon. Member quoted, but if it was to the effect that we desired to take the House of Commons into our confidence, as far as possible in foreign policy, it is perfectly true.

  Speeches (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention had been drawn to speeches delivered at demonstrations held in Cork, Enniscorthy, and other places in Ireland and England, on Saturday, 23rd November, in honour of three Fenian leaders who were executed for the murder of a police-constable in Manchester in 1867; whether he has read the statement made by Mr. Bulmer Hob-son to a gathering in Cork to the effect that nothing would satisfy the Irish people but the absolute and complete independence of Ireland and the establishment of an Irish Republic, and that the Irish Nationalists should arm themselves to secure this independence; whether he has seen a report of a speech delivered at Enniscorthy by Major M'Bride, an employé of the Dublin Corporation, in which he said it was the duty of the Irishmen of to-day to bring about absolute independence; whether he is aware that meetings in honour of these Manchester criminals were held at Manchester, Tipperary, and elsewhere; whether any policemen were present at the meetings in Cork and Enniscorthy; and, if so, whether notes were taken of the speeches delivered with a view to prosecutions for treasonable language?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): My right hon. Friend, who is unavoidably absent, has asked me to reply. My right hon. Friend has seen newspaper reports of the speeches referred to. The Enniscorthy meeting was held indoors and no police were, therefore, present. The meeting at Cork was small and unimportant, and it was not considered necessary, to take a shorthand note of the proceedings. A prosecution in such a case,

  2459
  even if evidence were available, could only have the effect of giving notoriety to an obscure individual.
  Captain CRAIG: Why is it apparently the policy of the Government to quash these statements as much as possible by not taking any action in the matter?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I do not know, but I think there are eases where it is better to ignore statements.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    BASIS OF REPRESENTATION.
    Captain O'NEILLasked what would be the number of Members, respectively, in English, Scotch, and Welsh Parliaments on the same basis of population as that adopted in the Government of Ireland Bill for representation in the Irish House of Commons?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The Bill contemplates a House of Commons of 162 Members for county and borough constituencies in Ireland, or one representative for every 27,100 inhabitants. If separate Parliaments were established for England, Scotland, and Wales on the same basis of population, the number of Members in each House of Commons would be 1,256, 175, and 74, respectively; but there does not appear to be any reason whatever for adopting a uniform basis in each case.

    IRISH REVENUE (TELEPHONE SERVICE).
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked what are the items composing the increase of £700,000 in the Irish revenue in the past year; how much was due to new taxes; how much to revision of the system of computation adopted in preparing the Annual White Paper; how much to the inclusion of new revenue-producing services like the telephone service; and how much to the normal increase in revenue?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Presumably the hon. Member is referring to the increase in the true Irish revenue for 1911–12 (£10,688,000) over the average revenue for 1909–10 and 1910–11 (£9,960,500). The only new revenue-producing service which could affect the figures is the business transferred from the National Telephone Company, the receipts from which in 1911–12 were £29,500. The precise effect of the other causes mentioned in the question is obviously a matter which admits of con-
    2460
    siderable argument and could not be dealt with within the limits of question and answer.

    STAMP DUTIES.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether, under Clause 15 of the Government of Ireland Bill, it will be competent to the Irish Government to impose directly, or by means of stamp duties, taxation on other than Irish companies, and to require deposits in the case of British insurance offices which Irish insurance offices may not be required to make?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It will be possible for the Irish Parliament to impose taxation, subject to the limitations of the Bill as respects stamp and other duties, which will affect other than Irish companies in respect of any business transactions, etc., carried on in Ireland. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether British companies may not be to this extent prejudiced and endeavour to rectify the matter?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is a matter for debate.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will assure us that this opportunity of debate will arise as the matter is of much interest in the City?

  Reinstated Evicted Tenants.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary in how many cases have the Estates Commissioners instituted legal proceedings against reinstated evicted tenants for non-compliance with the rules as to the working of their lands, and the results of such proceedings; in how many cases are proceedings pending; in how many cases have tenants carried out their undertakings to comply with the Commissioners' requirements; and the results to date of the investigation which has been directed in regard to other cases of reinstated evicted tenants who are apparently not residing on or working their holdings in a proper manner?
  Mr. RUSSELL: By the direction of the Estates Commissioners, notices were served on ten reinstated evicted tenants to deliver up to the Commissioners the possession of holdings which had been allotted to them as evicted tenants, and also to refund the amounts of the Grants

  2461
  made to them. In six of these cases writs in Chancery have been issued to recover possession of the lands and the refund of the Grants, and in the four remaining cases the Commissioners are of opinion that the parties are now endeavouring to comply with their requirements, and do not propose to issue writs at present. As regards other cases under consideration, the Commissioners are not in a position at present to make any statement.

  Housing (Ireland).
  Mr. GUINEYasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to a resolution unanimously adopted by the members of the County Cork Joint Hospital Board, asking the Local Government Board to assist the rural districts of the county in their endeavour to build proper houses for the labourers, as they believed that the bad housing and bad sanitary surroundings of the poor were responsible to a large degree for the existence of and spread of consumption, and to facilitate loans for the small farmer; and, if so, what steps he will take to carry the resolution into effect?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The resolution referred to has not been received by the Local Government Board. With regard to the remainder of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the question asked on this subject by the hon. Member for Mid-Cork on 17th October, from which it will be seen that up to 31st March last nearly 5,000 cottages were authorised in the county of Cork.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. DORISasked whether the trustees of the Achill Mission estate, county Mayo, have yet entered into negotiations with the Congested Districts Board for the sale of the estate, or have expressed their willingness to do so; and, if not, whether, having regard to the congested condition of the tenants and their wretched housing accommodation, steps will be taken at an early date to acquire the estate compulsorily?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on this subject on the 15th October, to which there is nothing to add at present.

  Jermyn Estate, Caherdaniel.
  Mr. BOLANDasked whether steps have been taken to carry out the improve-
  2462
  ments on the Jermyn estate, Caherdaniel, promised by the Congested Districts Board; and, if so, how many men are employed and when is it estimated that the work will be completed?
  Mr. RUSSELL: There are twenty-five men at present employed in carrying out improvements on this estate, and the Congested Districts Board arc unable to say when the works will be completed.

  Outrages (Ireland).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been cabled to the evidence given by District-Inspector Davis and Acting-Sergeant Beegan at the hearing of a case at Ennis on the 28th November, when the district inspector stated that, in the district of Corofin alone since January, 1910, 104 serious outrages have occurred, of which forty-two were committed by the use of firearms; whether Acting-Sergeant Beegan swore that twelve outrages had been committed on one family alone; whether there are at present two persons under constant police protection and sixteen protected by patrols in the Corofin district; and whether, in view of these statements, he proposes to take steps to supplement the ordinary law for the protection of law-abiding people in this part of county Clare?
  Mr. RUSSELL: My right hon. Friend's attention has been called to the evidence referred to in the question. The number of persons under police protction in Corofin district is as stated. All possible precautions are being taken by the police to prevent the commission of outrages, and for that purpose the stations in the district have been augmented where necessary. The answer to the last paragraph of the question is in the negative.
  Captain CRAIG: What will be the protection of these people under Home Rule if you cannot protect them under the present Government?

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. LARDNERasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that on 22nd March, 1912, John Alexander Graham was admitted to the Monaghan union hospital as a patient from the Blind Institute, Dublin, and that at that date he was in receipt of an old age pension which was continued to be paid him till the 14th June, when, in common with the pensions paid

  2463
  to other inmates in the union hospital, payment was discontinued by the pensions authority, but, on appeal to the Local Government Board, all the pensions were restored except Graham's; and will he now direct the payment of the pension to be made from that date, and state under what circumstances payment was discontinued?
  Mr. RUSSELL: Graham's pension was disallowed by the Local Government Board on the ground that he was in receipt of disqualifying Poor Law relief. The Board have no power to reopen consideration of this case or to direct that payment of the pension may be resumed. The Board have no means from the statement in the question of identifying the other cases referred to by the hon. Member.
  Mr. LARDNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the law in Ireland that a blind man, an invalid, over seventy years of age, who goes into a union hospital, is disqualified for the pension?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I am not prepared to give any opinion as to the state of the law on the subject. My hon. Friend had better consult the Chief Secretary.
  Mr. LARDNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is not the law in England?

  Forestry (Ireland).
  Mr. MULDOONasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether his Department is in receipt of any annual Grant from the Treasury in respect of forestry work, and, if so, will he state the amount of any such Grant and what steps have been taken in prosecuting the work whether any profits hare been made; and what sum in accumulated profits is now in existence for the general purpose of forestry transactions?
  Mr. RUSSELL: An annual sum of £6,000 has been provided, since the financial year 1909–10 inclusive, for the purchase, under the Irish Land Acts, and development of woodlands and lands suitable for forestry. Nine such areas, comprising about 7,000 acres, have been acquired, and are being worked as forestry centres. The receipts from the working of these centres are, in accordance with the usual practice, surrendered to the Treasury at the close of each year. These
  2464
  receipts up to the end of the last financial year were as follows:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  For financial year 1909–10

  513

  0

  8

  For financial year 1910–11

  1,432

  7

  1

  For financial year 1911–12

  1,551

  8

  0

  Mr. MULDOON: Were not the sums realised by the sale of timber taken by the Treasury? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think they ought to be accumulated under the Department?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The usual course has been followed. All such sums are surrendered to the Treasury. These are not profits; they are receipts.
  Mr. WATT: How does this £6,000 Grant compare with the £1,000 additional Grant to Scotland?

  Aird and Company v. The Tanjong-Pagar Docks Board of Singapore.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary for the Colonies whether it was with the sanction of His Majesty's Government that an offer of satisfactory settlement was made by the defendants in the case now pending between Aird and Company v. the Tanjong-Pagar Docks Board of Singapore, on condition that the charge of fraud made by the plaintiffs was withdrawn; whether this offer is now the subject of negotiation between those parties; what is the total amount of public money spent and contracted by and through those defendants; whether the Colonial Office has any control over them; and whether an independent inquiry will be held into this expenditure and into the present proposal to compound fraud, irrespective of the result of the negotiations between the parties?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. This matter is now before the Courts, and the Secretary of State must decline to make any statement in regard to it, further than that the hon. Member may rest assured that there will be no compounding of fraud.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question not connected with the proceedings in Court: "The total amount of public money spent and contracted by and through the defendants; whether the Colonial Office has any control over them: and whether an independent inquiry will be held"?
  Colonel SEELY: I think it would be undesirable to make any statement while the matter is before the Court.

  Gold Coast Ordinance.
  Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTONasked when the Papers relating to the Grants under the Gold Coast Ordinance will be in the hands of Members?
  Colonel SEELY: The draft Palm Oil Ordinance, to which I assume the right hon. Gentleman refers, should be in the hands of Members this evening. I hope to be able to lay correspondence on the subject shortly.
  Mr. A. LYTTELTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the correspondence that took place with the Chamber of Commerce, the Secretary of State promised to lay Papers. It must have been three weeks ago that I asked a question. Will the right hon. Gentleman expedite the matter?
  Colonel SEELY: I will certainly at once report the matter to my right hon. Friend, with a view to seeing that it is dealt with without further delay.
  Mr. MOORE: Has Sir William Lever yet been placed in possession of his new territory under this Ordinance?
  Colonel SEELY: I am afraid I know nothing of that.

  Irish Agricultural Organisation Society.
  Mr. MULDOONasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) the date upon which his Department withdrew the Grant from the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society; what was then the amount of the Grant; whether its withdrawal was approved of by the Council of Agriculture; and what were the grounds put forward by that body for taking this step?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Department's Grant to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society ceased on 31st December, 1908, in consonance with a minute of the Agricultural Board passed at a meeting held on 28th January in that year. The Minute pointed out that it was of primary importance that the Department should not be involved, directly or indirectly, in attacks upon any political party, in or out of Parliament, or upon any legitimate trading interest. The amount paid by the Department to the society in the calendar year 1908 was £3,450. The Council of Agriculture, at their meeting on 19th November, 1907, had approved of the gradual withdrawal and cessation of the subsidy on the following, among other, grounds, as mentioned in the
  2466
  Debate: (1) that it was not expedient that the funds of the Department should be expended through a nonrepresentative body over which the Department had no adequate supervision and control; (2) that the Organisation Society were encouraging co-operative trading in competition with shopkeepers, and that it was inequitable that State aid should be given to assist such trading, even indirectly; and (3) that, owing to the controversy that had arisen in the country in regard to the matter, the continuance of relations between the Department and the society would seriously impair and hamper the Department's work.
  Mr. MOORE: Is it not the fact that this withdrawal was also approved of by every gombeen man in the country?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I have no knowledge of gombeen men, Nationalist or Unionist.
  Mr. MULDOON: Will the right hon. Gentleman send a copy of his answer to the Development Commissioners?

  Steam Trawlers (Bantry Bay).
  Mr. GILHOOLYasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he is aware that since the latest inquiry was held in connection with steam trawling in Bantry Bay two additional steam trawl boats are constantly fishing there; whether the local trammel and line fishermen allege that this system of steam trawling is destructive of the spawn and militates against their interests; whether he is aware that boxes of small fry, captured by the steam trawl boats, are sold at the Bantry fish market; and whether he will cause inquiry to be held in connection with steam trawling in the said bay?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Department are not aware that two additional steam trawl boats have come to fish in Bantry Bay since the date of the last inquiry. The Department have received statements from fishermen, who are not trawlers, that the fishing in the bay is injuriously affected by that mode of fishing, and that the refuse fish are sold in the local market. During the last fourteen years four public inquiries have been held into the matter and by-laws made restricting trawling. In these circumstances the Department see no necessity for holding another inquiry.
  Mr. GILHOOLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman further inquire whether there are not three trawlers in Bantry Bay—I know there are?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I did make inquiry when in Dublin last week, and the information I had was that only one local trawler was in Bantry Bay.

  Tobacco Growing (Ireland).
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether the new plan for encouraging tobacco growing in Ireland on the lines recommended by the Development Commissioners has yet been commenced; and if he can state briefly what the main provisions of this new plan are?
  Mr. RUSSELL: Arrangements for carrying out the further experiments in tobacco growing, for which an advance from the Development Fund has been sanctioned by the Treasury, are now almost complete, but the experiments have not yet been commenced. The main provisions of the new plan are as follows: (1) That the approved experimenter shall arrange for the cropping of an area not exceeding 150 acres, at least three-fourths of which shall be on the land of working farmers; (2) that the experimenter shall undertake to provide the growers with all necessary instruction and equipment; (3) that the experimenter shall purchase the growers' crop at a price fixed on a commercial basis as soon as the tobacco is in a position to be delivered to him; (4) that the experimenter shall establish a rehandling station equipped with approved machinery for re-handling all the tobacco in accordance with American methods adapted to Irish conditions; (5) that the experimenter shall manufacture a considerable portion of the crop in a factory under his control in such a way as to ascertain the best possibilities of Irish tobacco; (6) that all the operations shall be open to inspection by the Department and that full reports, including statements of accounts, shall be furnished by the experimenter in respect of each portion of the work; (7) that, subject to compliance with the prescribed conditions, a Grant at the rate of £25 per acre cropped will be payable to the experimenter; (8) that the experiment shall be continued ever a period of ten years.
  Mr. MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman grant a Return showing the names of the persons who have been selected for this Grant of Government money?
  Mr. RUSSELL: At the present moment they have not been selected—
  Mr. MOORE: No, when they are?
  Mr. RUSSELL: So far as the Department is concerned, the rehandler will be Sir Nugent Everard, the only one possible in the country; and, so far as possible, the original growers in Wexford, Louth, and other counties will be brought into business with him.
  Mr. MOORE: If the Department are going to provide these people with equipment and a money Grant, surely we may have a Return of the names of the persons who are expected to get these State Grants?
  Mr. RUSSELL: Certainly, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman will move for a Return when the matter is complete I shall have great pleasure in giving it.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask whether it is not the fact that the Development Commissioners have made provision for two experiments by two experimenters; whether it is true that only one scheme has yet been agreed to by the Departments; and is it not a fact that the names of the tobacco growers in Ireland are quite well known?
  Mr. RUSSELL: That is so. It is quite true that the Development Commissioners were willing to make a larger grant of £70,000 instead of £35,000, but there was the condition attached to it that there should be a second rehandler or experimenter—as he is called in the answer—and he has not yet been selected.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Sir WALTER NUGENTasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) when the last case of foot-and-mouth disease occurred in Ireland; whether he is now prepared to make a statement as to the removal of restrictions from or contraction of the restricted area in the county of Westmeath; and if, in the opinion of the experts of his Department, Ireland is now entirely free from all trace of disease?
  Mr. RUSSELL: This matter is now under the consideration of the Department, and a proposal has been submitted to the Board of Agriculture for their concurrence.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether, having regard to the fact that the last outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at Mullingar occurred on 7th November, and that twenty-eight days have now elapsed since that case was discovered and no further case has occurred,

  2469
  he will now issue an Order restricting the operations of the Westmeath and District Removal of Animals Order to seven miles, so as to entirely clear county Longford, in which there has been no outbreak at all from that disease, and allow fairs to be held freely in all parts of that county?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the answer given to-day in my reply to the hon. Member for South Westmeath.
  Mr. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the fair in connection with which this question is asked is to be held on the 16th, and there is no time to make other arrangements, and does he not see his way to alter his mind?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The only answer I can give to the hon. Member is that a good many things have happened since he asked his question. The Department has to proceed with extreme caution in this matter, and I should have thought I would have had the assistance of the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. FARRELL: May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is not going to remove the embargo on this district?
  Mr. RUSSELL: No, the hon. Member must take what I say in reply to the hon. Member for South Westmeath.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether complaints have been made that preferential treatment with regard to available quarantine space in Great Britain has been received by large consignors of cattle from Ireland; whether, having regard to the fact that his Department is the only authority that can secure fair play to small shippers by withholding licences for shipment and regulating their issue in such a way that every applicant will have his case considered, and, if at any time refused, his next application will have priority over those previously granted; and whether, in all cases, the tenant fanners who feed cattle will receive special consideration?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I am having inquiries made upon this subject. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat his question on Tuesday next.
  Mr. FIELD: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture
  2470
  (Ireland) a question of which I have given him private notice: Whether he can state the circumstances regarding the suspected cases of foot-and-mouth disease reported to have occurred at Dublin and Newry?
  Mr. RUSSELL: There are three cases to which I wish to refer in answer to my hon. Friend. First, there is the case of an animal, one of a large cargo which it was proposed to ship to Dundee. One animal was found by the inspector of the Department to be suffering from some ailment, and was challenged and not allowed to go on board. It was examined, and three of our principal inspectors saw the animal. The lesion in the tongue was an old lesion, said by the chief veterinary inspector of the Board of Agriculture in England to be a month or two old. Our three inspectors in Dublin were unable to pronounce it foot-and-mouth disease, and they were confirmed in their action by the fact that the animal had been for eight months in a field near Kells, in the county of Meath, with eighty other animals, which were also on board the ship, and none of them had ever shown the slightest symptoms of disease. They belong to a Scotchman who has an eleven months' taking, and they had been very carefully watched. The three inspectors, each of them a most competent man, declined to pronounce it foot-and-mouth disease, and the Secretary called upon to decide whether the cargo should be stopped or not, held that on these two grounds he was warranted in dispatching the cargo to Dundee, which he did. I am glad to say, although they have been a week there, we have received no intelligence of anything wrong there. The second was a case almost similar, only the lesions were pronounced to be three weeks old. That animal was from near Dunshaughlin, in the county of Meath. The inspectors were unable to pronounce it foot-and-mouth disease, and Professor Wettam, president of the Royal Veterinary Society for the United Kingdom, an authority who will not be questioned by anyone in this House or in the country, said that the lesions were imperceptible from those of foot-and-mouth disease, but the infection had not been conveyed by either of them, although they had been alongside other cattle. It appeared to him to be a case of what the Germans call pseudo-foot-and-mouth disease, that is foot-and-mouth disease that is not infectious. We held that cargo up and did not allow it to proceed. It is now at South.

  2471
  Wall, Dublin, and nothing has happened to any animal. These are the two Dublin cases which have caused us very great anxiety. I should also add that with regard to these cases I dispatched officers on Sunday last to Kells and Dunshaughlin and for many miles all round those places to examine the animals in the neighbourhood, and we could find no trace of the disease at all. As regards the Birkenhead outbreak, that, I regret to say, is a much more certain and serious case. There can be no doubt that an animal shipped from Newry developed foot-and-mouth disease. I have seen our own inspector in town today. He has seen the tongue, and he admits it is foot-and-mouth disease, and I am sorry to add that other animals in that cargo have developed the same disease, so that is a very serious matter. I think we did absolutely right with regard to the two others, that we were justified in dispatching the one cargo to Dundee and in holding up the other; but the case of Birkenhead is certainly a most serious thing, which will require very great attention on the part of the Department to find out where the animals came from and to deal with the district. That we are now doing.
  Mr. W. REDMOND: May I ask whether information has reached the right hon. Gentleman to the effect that a large number of cattle and pigs are now held up at the port of Waterford; that these came from a district in the country where there is no outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, and whether he will have them inspected and allow them to proceed to their destination?
  Mr. RUSSELL: Cattle of all kinds are being held up in every quarter. The condition is extremely serious, and I hope my hon. Friend will see that it is necessary, and I have no power to alter the circumstances unless it can be proved to the Board of Agriculture that the outbreak is local, and not general.
  Mr. W. REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman represent to the Minister of Agriculture that there is a difference between holding up cattle from an infected area and holding up cattle from a neighbourhood in which there has been no outbreak of disease for many years?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I have been representing that for a long time.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how, in the first case, to which he referred—the case where the animals were clearly suffering from foot-and-mouth disease, three or four weeks ago, they entirely escaped detection, although the disease is so easily diagnosed; and can he say also why the English Board of Agriculture do not recognise the existence of non-infectious foot-and-mouth disease?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I am bound to follow the advice of the inspectors of my Department, and they are of opinion that this was not a true case of foot-and-mouth disease. As to why the cases were undetected while the animals were in Meath, I do not know whether the hon. Member understands the enormous task which the Board is called upon to perform. We have had an enormous number of cattle to deal with and to trace, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will realise, and my point is that on these two farms, neither then nor since, nor now, could we find any trace of disease.
  Mr. CRUMLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 36,000 pigs are lying beside the docks in Dublin waiting for shipment; and that there are 5,000 more in different ports: Dundalk, Waterford, Belfast, and Derry. Will these animals be allowed to be shipped for slaughter at Birkenhead or Liverpool, as the case may be, and will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions to his officers at Dublin to permit these pigs to be shipped to their destination?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I am aware of all the hon. Member has said and a good deal more. But a moment's consideration will show him that I have no power to do as he wishes. Even if they were shipped from the ports he mentions, there is the question of landing them at the English ports. That is the real difficulty, and over it I have no power.
  Mr. LOUGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where the animals undoubtedly infected which were shipped from Newry came from?
  Mr. RUSSELL: We are carrying out investigations as to that at this moment. Our inspectors are busy making inquiries and I hope before night closes they will have been able to trace the fifteen animals.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: May I ask whether there is any instance, either in England

  2473
  or in Ireland, or in any Continental country, where animals suffering from true foot-and-mouth disease have not conveyed the contagion to other animals on the same farm or in their immediate vicinity?
  Mr. RUSSELL: My opinion on that subject is not worth anything. But I have made strict inquiry from the veterinary officers of the Board and they maintain it is almost impossible for an animal sniveling from foot-and-mouth disease to be with eighty others in a field and not convey the disease to any of them.

  Irish Fisheries (Fethard).
  Mr. FFRENCHasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he is aware that a list of fishing boats was made out by the secretary to the Fethard fishermen and the coxswain of the lifeboat and laid before the Development Commissioners, and if that list was discounted and contradicted without any evidence to the contrary; is he aware that the people of Fethard and the surrounding district are not only handicapped in the fishing industry, but, being so far from market, are also handicapped in getting in their supplies of coal, artificial manures, etc., and in the exportation of farm produce; and will the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) grant an inquiry into the necessity for improving Fethard Harbour and give the fishermen, traders, and farmers a chance to prove their case for a Grant from the Development Commissioners?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Department have no information regarding the list of fishing boats referred to, but are aware that better harbour accommodation at Fethard would prove of benefit to the district. The suggestion of the Department to the Development Commissioners that a sum of £6,000 should be granted for the improvement of Fethard Harbour, on condition that a local contribution of £1,000 was forthcoming, did not meet with the approval of the Commissioners. Under the circumstances it does not seem necessary to hold an inquiry for the purpose indicated in the question.

  General Post Office (Old Portico).
  Mr. KINGasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the front of the old General Post Office will be offered to any municipal or public authority outside London, if such
  2474
  authority is willing to re-erect it in connection with a public building; and, if so, whether he will communicate to a few of the larger municipalities the conditions on which this noble facade may be acquired for re-erection?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The First Commissioner is willing to consider any reasonable offer from any municipal or public authority in connection with the re-erection of the portico of the old Post Office, and he is making this known as widely as possible by advertisement in the public newspapers.

  Shops Act (Wexford).
  Mr. FFRENCHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Wexford Traders' Association passed a resolution calling the attention of the Government to the inequality of the Shops Act in localities where a closing order has been made in allowing licensed traders to retail merchandise other than liquor, whilst unlicensed traders, carrying on the same business, are compelled to close-their premises; and, seeing that both classes of traders do not get the same facilities under the Act, can he promise its amendment in the direction indicated in the resolution?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The attention of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has been called to the proceedings of the Wexford Traders' Association referred to by the hon. Member, but at present there is no prospect of any further legislation on the subject.

  Taff Vale Railway Company (Mountain Ash Station).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked whether the Taff Vale Railway Company have not yet begun to carry out the undertaking to put their station at Mountain Ash into a decent condition, an undertaking to do so having been given to this House by him on their behalf many months ago; and what action he proposes taking to secure compliance with the promise on an early date?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. The undertaking given on behalf of the Taff Vale Railway Company referred to Aberdare Station. I have no recollection of any undertaking-having been given on the part of the

  2475
  Board of Trade relating to Mountain Ash Station. I have, however, invited the company's observations on my hon. Friend's question and will communicate with him when I receive their reply.

  Stow-Boat Fishing in the Thames.
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked whether, in view of the fact that notice has only been given to the fishermen of the Thames regarding the prohibition of stow-boat fishing on the eve of the season after the fishermen have undergone considerable expense in the renewal of their gear, the prohibition will be suspended at least for this year, and so prevent hardship from falling upon a class of working man who earns a meagre living?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): This question should have been addressed to the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. The notice to which the hon. Member refers was issued by the Port of London Authority for the purpose of drawing the attention of fishermen to a by-law which has been in force since the year 1895, and could only be altered by the making of a new by-law. The Board have no authority to intervene in the matter, but they will be glad to consider any representations which the fishermen may make to them with respect to it.

  Midland Railway Company (Trade Unionist Employés).
  Mr. THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the action of the Midland Railway Company in their repeated intimidation of trade unionists, especially in the Sheffield district; and, having regard to the fact that this is contrary to the signed agreement of both sides following the railway strike of August, 1911, and is calculated to not only destroy the conciliation and arbitration scheme but involve companies which are acting honourably in a serious railway dispute, whether he is prepared to have a complete investigation made into the discontent and intimidation practised on this railway with a view to avoiding a recurrence of last year's dispute?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: My right hon. Friend has received particulars of certain cases in which it is alleged that employés of the Midland Railway Company have been penalised because they came out on strike
  2476
  in August, 1911; and he is enquiring into these cases.

  Unknown Airship at Sheerness.
  Mr. MIDDLE MOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that an unknown airship of Foreign nationality passed over Sheerness on 14th October last, he will state what steps, if any, are being taken to protect our naval establishments against aerial observation or attack?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): All necessary precautions are being taken.

  First Lord's Party.
  The following question was on the Paper but was not put in its order:—
  Viscount WOLMER: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that last Saturday the First Lord of the Admiralty entertained to luncheon and tea in the Royal Naval Barracks, Portsmouth, a party of 130 friends, who arrived by special train from London, and that during the afternoon the party in various groups was conducted round the naval establishment by naval officers; and whether he will state if either the special train, the luncheon, or the tea was paid for out of public funds?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: As this question is personal to myself, and as the Noble Lord has it on the Paper, I shall be glad to answer it.
  Lord BALCARRES: May I, on behalf of my Noble Friend, put the question?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: One hundred and thirty officers and men from the Henley and Woodstock squadrons of the Oxfordshire Yeomanry, one of which I command, were entertained, as stated in the question, at the Royal Naval Barracks, Portsmouth, on Saturday last, and were shown round the dockyard. The expense of their entertainment was defrayed by me, with the exception of the special train. This was subscribed for by the men themselves. No charge of any kind fell upon public funds; and I am surprised that the Noble Lord should have made such a suggestion.

  Keyham Barton (Postal Facilities).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused to business men residing at Keyham Barton

  2477
  owing to the absence of a telegraph and telephone office connecting with the General Post Office at Devonport; that the population of Keyham Barton ranges from 8,000 to 9,000, and that the nearest telegraph and telephone office is at Devon-port, a walk of twenty minutes from Key-ham Barton; and whether he will consider the advisability of meeting the present deficiency by establishing a telegraph and telephone office at Keyham Barton?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am inquiring whether the circumstances have changed since the matter was last under review. I will communicate with the hon. Member.

  Cape Mail.
  Mr. CAMPIONasked whether letters for the Cape mail have to be posted on Saturdays and are only received from the Cape on Saturdays; and whether he can do anything to obviate the consequent inconvenience to the public?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am fully aware of the inconvenience of the present arrangement under which there is no adequate interval in this country for replies between the delivery of correspondence received from South Africa and the departure of the next outgoing mail steamer. The presence in England of the Postmaster-General of the Union of South Africa has enabled me recently to discuss with him the many difficult questions which any alteration in the dates of sailings presents. I am glad to be able to say that I hope that, with his concurrence, a rearrangement will shortly be effected so as to give a sufficient interval for reply to correspondents in this country.

  French Syndicalists and British Army.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether he will obtain and communicate to the House information from the French Government regarding the recent conviction in France of certain Syndicalists for insulting the Army, preaching anti-militarism, and inciting soldiers to refuse to carry out repressive measures at times of public disorder when orders to this effect are given by their superior officers?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: It would be unusual to ask a foreign Government for information of this kind, and I am unable to comply with the hon. Member's request.

  War in Balkans.
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether the policy of Great Britain in respect of the war in the Balkans is still one of strict neutrality, or whether her policy is to promote as far as she can the permanent happiness of the Bulgarian and Hellenic peoples?
  Sir E. GREY: The policy with regard to the war continues to be one of strict neutrality. The war will, I trust, not last for ever, and we shall be very glad if it is then in our power to promote the permanent happiness of the Bulgarians and Hellenic peoples, but this will not be exclusive of a desire to promote the happiness of other States also.
  Sir J. D. REES: Have the Government seen the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty which exhibited a complete indifference to the happiness of the Turks? May I ask if words to that effect were not used?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice. The right hon. Gentleman cannot carry all the speeches of all his colleagues in his head.

  Established Church (Wales) Bill.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the last paragraph in the White Paper issued last week on the distribution of the property of the Church in Wales under the terms of the Established Church (Wales) Bill, in which it is stated that the present beneficiaries will retain their intersets in this property during their tenure of office in the Church in Wales; it has been estimated to be the equivalent of £62,000 a year in perpetuity; whether he can state who is responsible for this estimate; and whether it implies that the existing beneficiaries are not to be permitted to have the use of the money during the remainder of their lives?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The Prime Minister has asked to reply to this question. The estimate which I gave on the First Reading of the Bill is an actuarial one made by a Treasury official. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: May I ask if the existing incumbents are to be allowed to use up all the money during

  2479
  the remainder of the time they are in office; how can there still be £62,000 endowment in perpetuity?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is only an actuarial estimate of the value of the life interest.
  Mr. KING: Was not this estimate made and given to the House again and again months ago, and has it ever been questioned before to-day?
  Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend is quite right.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: If it is only an actuarial estimate, why is it stated to be £62,000 in perpetuity?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is estimated to be equivalent to £62,000 a year in perpetuity.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: What is the real value?
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman send a Treasury expert to explain?
  Mr. HOAREasked what is the number of livings in the presentation of the Crown affected by the Established Church (Wales) Bill?
  Mr. McKENNA: The number of Crown livings in Wales and Monmouthshire to which the Prime Minister presents in full right is six; the number to which he presents alternately with the bishop is ten. The number of livings in Wales and Monmouthshire in the presentation of the Lord Chancellor is sixty-seven.

  Price of Coal (South Wales).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Prime Minister whether the South Wales mine-owners have this week advanced the price of house coal by 2s. per ton, thereby bringing the price up to 26s. and 27s. per ton for best qualities; whether he can state the reasons for this increase in price; and whether, as the price of coal is inflicting hardship upon the poor and on the working class generally during the severity of the wintry weather, he proposes to introduce legislation to end this state of affairs, preferably by nationalising the mines and by empowering municipal authorities to undertake the supply of coal to their citizens?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The Prime Minister has asked the President of the Board of Trade to reply to this question. My right hon. Friend cannot hold out any prospect
  2480
  of legislation for the purpose of regulating the price of coal.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Are we to understand that the public of South Wales and elsewhere are not to be protected against this form of robbery?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I am afraid I am unable to suggest a remedy.

  Weights and Measures (Uniform System).
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the existence of a general desire for a uniform system of weights and measures; and if he is able to appoint a Committee to inquire into the best method to be adopted to secure it?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Under Section 19 of the Weights and Measures Act, 1878, all contracts, bargains, sales, or dealings involving weight or measure have to be made according to the Imperial weights or measures defined by that Act, and the use of local or customary measures is unlawful. The only departure from the uniformity thus laid down has been that the use of the Metric system of weights and measures has been made permissive. My right hon. Friend is not aware of any general demand for an alteration of the present arrangements in the direction of greater uniformity, and he does not on the information before him see any occasion to appoint a Committee.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Would the hon. Gentleman consider the question of appointing a Committee if it can be brought to his knowledge that there is a great sense of difficulty about the situation at the present time and confusion caused by the different scales?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The question would then be reconsidered.
  Mr. STANIER: Is the hon. Member aware that there have been over thirty resolutions sent to the Government upon this subject from the Central Chamber of Agriculture asking them if they could not appoint a Committee to go into these matters?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I presume they have been before my right hon. Friend, but that would scarcely amount to the general desire which the hon. Member expressed.
  Mr. STANIER: If there was a large number of resolutions brought forward, would the right hon. Gentleman go into the matter?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: If there is any general desire, the matter will certainly be reconsidered.

  Teachers' Annuity Fund.
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the President of the Board of Education what is the number of contributors to the Teachers' Annuity Fund under the Superannuation Act of 1898 who have not been awarded the annuity to which they were entitled on the expiration of their certificate, after having attained the age of sixty-five years; and what is the total amount of the contributions which they have paid?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Pease): The Board are not always informed as to deaths of teachers, and I cannot therefore say whether any contributors to the Deferred Annuity Fund have attained the age of sixty five years and have not claimed their annuities. In every case in which the annuity has been claimed, the amount due in respect of the contributions made has been paid.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that some time ago the right hon. Gentleman stated that a considerable number of contributions had been paid in respect of which no annuity was ever paid?
  Mr. PEASE: I would like notice of that question.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Would it not be possible to get the statistics?
  Mr. PEASE: No, because we have no knowledge of the dates when these teachers died. If they died before attaining the age of sixty years, they were not entitled to any share of their superannuation.

  Walsall Education Committee.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Midland Leather Trades Federation applied for representation on the education committee about to be established by the Walsall Borough Council, and that, on a resolution drafted by the town clerk, the federation's request was refused; and whether, in view of the fact that the Midland Leather Trades Federation is the chief body of organised workpeople in the district, whose help is necessary for the success of the borough council's scheme, steps will be taken by the Board of Education so that no scheme will be sanctioned that does not provide for the representa-
  2482
  tion of such bodies as the Midland Leather Trades Federation?
  Mr. PEASE: The federation referred to in the question wrote to the Board on 23rd September last with reference to representation on the Walsall Education Committee. Their communication was forwarded to the Walsall Borough Council, who, however, declined to make any amendment in the scheme. The Board were not prepared to interfere with the discretion of the council with regard to the constitution of their education committee and the new scheme, which satisfies the requirements of Section 17 of the Education Act, 1902, was approved by the Board on the 16th October last.

  House of Commons Library (Writing Materials).
  Mr. MILDMAYasked the Secretary to the Treasury why those responsible for the supply of writing materials in the Library and elsewhere have been forbidden to issue further supplies of rough writing-paper and envelopes; why Members are to be in this way deprived of the opportunity of using any but very smooth writing-paper of an inferior quality; and whether he is aware that dissatisfaction has been very generally expressed by hon. Members in this connection?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): I think there has been some misunderstanding on this matter, but I understand that rough writing-paper and envelopes are now available for the use of hon. Members.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Will the smooth writing-paper continue to be provided?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes.
  Lord BALCARRES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of improving the quality of the smooth writing-paper?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: My attention has not been called to this matter, but I will inquire into it.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: The Publications Committee found that the most expensive paper used in the House was only used elsewhere in Buckingham Palace.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    SANATORIA (IRELAND).
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what counties

    2483
    in Ireland are availing themselves of the accommodation, either on a temporary or permanent basis, of the Peamount, Rossclare, or Allan Ryan Sanatoria, under the control of the Women's National Health Association in Ireland?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I am informed by the honorary secretary of the Women's National Health Association, that the counties in Ireland which have intimated their intention of availing themselves of accommodation, either on a temporary or permanent basis of the Peamount, Rossclare, or Allan Ryan Sanatoria, under the control of the association are: Armagh, Carlow, Cavan, Clare, Donegal, Dublin, Fermanagh, Kerry, Kildare, Kilkenny, King's County, Leitrim, Limerick, Londonderry, Louth, Meath, Monaghan, Roscommon, Tipperary North, Tipperary South, Tyrone, Waterford, Westmeath, and the county boroughs of Dublin, Limerick, and Londonderry.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Peamount sanatorium will be ready for occupation?
    Mr. RUSSELL: It is already occupied.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALE: Do I understand that the water supply has been found satisfactory, and that the—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of those questions.

    BLACKSMITHS' BENEFITS.
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked whether, under the National Insurance Act, a blacksmith, on payment of 4s. 8d. contribution, can obtain benefits of the value of £200?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes, Sir, a blacksmith or any other insured person suffering from tuberculosis could be recommended by an insurance committee for sanatorium treatment, the cost of which might involve an expenditure reaching to £200, even though the amount of contributions paid by or in respect of the insured person before the date of his illness did not exceed 4s. 8d.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Is that a case which could honestly be put as a typical case under the Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is a case which actually occurred, and it is a very remarkable one.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: But is it a fair case to he quoted as typical, or is it exceptional?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is a true case and a perfectly fair one, and I have no means for suggesting that it is a unique case receiving benefit. The recommendation for sanatorium benefit will continue so long as the patient is receiving benefit from the sanatorium.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is possible under the Insurance Act for an insured person, say age twenty-one, after being insured for two years and paid £l 14s. 8d. in premium, to draw in benefits £617 10s.?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes. That is one of the beneficent results of national insurance.

    SERVANTS WORKING A PORTION OF THE YEAR.
    Captain CRAIGasked whether, under the National Insurance Act, an employer who employs servants working a portion of the year in England and a portion in Ireland is obliged to affix the 7d. stamp when the servant is in England, and the 5½d. stamp when he is in Ireland, or, if one denomination only, which; in that event, if 5½d. only, how is the employé to secure medical benefit if taken ill in England, and, if 7d. only, what benefit does he receive to compensate for paying the higher rate, although he cannot claim medical treatment if he is taken ill in Ireland; and, if two denominations of stamps are to be used, will he explain how the employé partially employed in Ireland will not be worse off than an employé engaged all the year round in England?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Contributions will be payable at the English rate in respect of insured persons while in England and at the Irish rate while in Ireland. An insured person coming from Ireland to England will, on giving notice to the insurance committee of the area to which he comes, be entitled to medical benefit under the ordinary conditions.
    Captain CRAIG: In the case of a man who travels backward and forward constantly, has he to give special notice?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: We have not made provision for that, but the ordinary method would be that if he passed from one place to another he would have to give notice, and he would receive medical benefit in England.
    Captain CRAIG: Could the right hon. Gentleman not have an automatic machine placed in the Library so that we

    2485
    could just drop a penny in the slot and get an answer to all these conundrums?

    DIFFICULTY IN ADJUSTING COINS.
    Captain FABERasked whether many firms employing a large number of hands whose wages are an even number of shillings experience difficulty in adjusting the coins in consequence of the provisions of the National Insurance Act; and whether he will consider the desirability of minting a new coin of the value of 8d., which could be paid to employés from whom 4d. has to be deducted each week?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no sufficient evidence that the minting of a new coin of the denomination suggested is necessary or desirable.

    SURVEYORS OF EXCISE ENGAGED.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked how many surveyors (late supervisors of Excise) have been engaged on duties under the National Insurance Act; what special remuneration has been paid to them for such extra duties; and, if no remuneration has been given, is it intended to remunerate those surveyors who have been given no present or prospective payment for the duties in question?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not able to state the number of surveyors (late Excise supervisors) who have had duties to do under the National Insurance Act. A certain number of surveyors (late Excise supervisors and assistant supervisors) have received improvement in salary under the concessions made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in May last, but no particular concession was ear-marked by my right hon. Friend as special remuneration for insurance work. To meet the increase of work the number of surveyors has been considerably increased, and clerical assistance has been given to surveyors where required.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked what remuneration has been given to officers and surveyors of Customs and Excise for extra duties in connection with the National Insurance Act (Part I.); and if no remuneration has been given or will be received for a period of from two to twenty years by the officers and the great bulk of the surveyors concerned?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I can add nothing to the replies which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the hon. Member for Horncastle on the 14th and 20th ultimo, in which he ex-
    2486
    plained the conditions under which the new duties under the Insurance Act were entrusted to the Customs and Excise service, except to point out that the staff of the Department was largely increased by reference to these new duties.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Are we to understand that the only remuneration given for this extra work is an increase in the maximum salary of £20 a year which will not be reached for something like twenty years?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not sure what the new conditions were, but the extra work was considered when the new conditions were fixed.

    MEDICAL REMUNERATION.
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked whether, under the present proposals for medical remuneration under the National Insurance Act, doctors will have to wait until after the end of each quarter before they are paid in respect of that quarter, or whether he can arrange for advance payments to be made?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Although the exact sums to be paid in respect of any quarter can, of course, only be determined after the end of that quarter, arrangements will be made whereby it will be possible for doctors on the panel to receive payments in advance based on the numbers of insured persons on their lists at the beginning of the quarter.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT (NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE MEDICAL PROFESSION).
    Mr. BOOTH: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he can make any statement with regard to his negotiations with the medical profession respecting the administration of medical benefits under the National Insurance Act?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I made a statement to the House on 23rd October as to the amount of money which the Government proposed to ask Parliament to grant, namely, £1,650,000 for the purpose of increasing the funds available for the remuneration of practitioners attending insured persons, and I then explained briefly the main features of the proposal, which I also described in greater detail in a statement that I made the same day to the Advisory Committee appointed under the Act. Subsequently the British

    2487
    Medical Association, after discussions on the subject in their various divisional meetings, appointed a deputation of five representatives to confer with me in regard to various points on which they desired further information. The five representatives accordingly saw me on Monday morning, 25th November, and again the next day. Various points upon which the deputation had been instructed by the representative meeting to obtain further information were brought before me, and a Memorandum was prepared setting fully the decisions of the Government, together with the explanations on points upon which doubts had existed. The five representatives had been instructed to prepare a Report for their council upon their conferences with me, and the council was subsequently to circulate a Report to all the members of the association for the consideration of the profession as a whole. As the deputation informed me that it would be impossible for that Report to be completed for circulation till 6th December, at their request I agreed that what passed between us at the conference, and my Memorandum, should be kept confidential on both sides until that date. I therefore propose to lay on the Table of the House this evening the Memorandum representing the reply of the Government, together with other Papers on the subject, and I have arranged that the White Paper containing these shall be available for Members at the Vote Office to-morrow (Friday) morning. Copies of the medical benefit regulations, revised, to carry out the changes that have been decided upon, will also be laid upon the Table to-day, and published to-morrow.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman include in his statement his proposals regarding an equivalent for Ireland in this matter?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This has nothing to do with Ireland. It simply has reference to the medical benefit under the National Insurance Act.

  Poor Rates (Ireland).
  Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, as the result of the Irish Local Government Act, 1S98, Lord Lansdowne was saved a burden of £788 in poor rate annually; whether Lord Londonderry was similarly saved the annual payment of £930 in
  2488
  rates, which sums, or somewhat similar amounts, had for generations past been paid by the Noble Lords referred to or their predecessors; and will he state the amount saved to Irish land and town lords annually since the 1st April, 1899, stating the amounts involved in 1900, 1901, 1902, and 1910, 1911, and 1912?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Local Government Board have no information which would enable an answer to be given to this question.
  Mr. KENNEDY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the exact figure I want is £730,000 annually, and may this sum be regarded as an Imperial charge?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I have given the only answer I have received. The hon. Member can put his question to the Chief Secretary.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Is it not a fact that the Irish landlords made it a condition precedent to the passing of the Irish Land Act—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

  Internal Combustion Engines (Coal Mines).
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked whether the right hon. Gentleman will cause a thorough examination to be made by competent experts of the latest improved type of internal combustion engine, with the view of allowing the introduction of such engines into coal mines in this country where practicable, under Section 58 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, in substitution for animal haulage, seeing that such engines are now so employed in many gaseous mines in Belgium and other Continental countries?
  Mr. McKENNA: As my hon. Friend is aware, the question of the use of internal combustion engines below ground in coal mines was considered on the Coal Mines Bill of last Session and the feeling of Parliament was against the use of present types of such engines. In the circumstances, I do not propose to institute suck an inquiry as my hon. Friend suggests, but if improved types should hereafter be produced and particulars are submitted to the Home Office, the question of allowing: their use will of course be carefully considered.

  Charge of Assault (Weatherell and Smith).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked whether the right lion. Gentleman's attention has been called to a case, tried on 2nd December at Old Street Police Court, in which a man named Chapman was charged with assaulting two police-constables, Weatherell and Smith; whether he is aware that the prisoner stated that one of the policemen pushed against his wife and called her an offensive name, and that she struck him with her umbrella and the policeman knocked her down; and whether, seeing that the magistrate dismissed the case, saying that he was satisfied that the prisoner's version was the correct one, he will say what steps he is taking as to the retention of Police-constables Weatherell and Smith in the police force?
  Mr. McKENNA: My attention had not previously been called to this case, but I am making inquiries.

  Suffragists in Prison.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked whether Miss Ethel Slade, now undergoing a term of imprisonment in Holloway Gaol, has engaged in a hunger strike; has she been, and is she now being, forcibly fed; has she suffered in health since her imprisonment commenced; and what is the present state of her health?
  Mr. McKENNA: This prisoner refused her food, and had to be fed forcibly for some days. She offered violent resistance, and as there was some risk that she might do herself an injury, which in her anæmie condition would be serious, I have advised her release.

  Mental Deficiency Bill.
  Mr. BOOTHasked the respective ages and period of service of the two Masters in Lunacy, and of the official solicitor associated with the Masters in Lunacy in the Lunacy Department of the Royal Courts of Justice; and whether the services of these officials will be utilized under the proposed Mental Deficiency Bill?
  Mr. McKENNA: These officials are not under my jurisdiction, and I have no knowledge of the particulars desired. Clause 1 of the Bill provides for the application to mentally defective persons dealt with under the Bill of Part IV. of the Lunacy
  2490
  Act, 1890, which refers to the administration of property, and to this extent the services of the Masters in Lunacy and their staff will be utilised.
  Mr. GOLDSMITH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the House will be given an opportunity of discussing the Report of the Committee on the Mental Deficiency Bill?
  Mr. McKENNA: I understand such an opportunity is not usual, but I will make inquiries.

  Old Colwyn, Denbighshire (Acts of Heroism).
  Mr. CLYNESasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the acts of bravery on the part of two workmen whilst engaged in rescue work when men were entombed recently in a dangerous sewer trench in Old Colwyn, Denbighshire; and whether he can take steps to ensure suitable recognition for admitted acts of heroism?
  Mr. McKENNA: My attention has not hitherto been called to the case. If any recommendation is made to me I shall be happy to consider it.

  Bedford Union (Vaccination Officers).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked whether the vaccination officer to the Bedford Union was, upon his application for the appointment, given to understand that if the office was properly looked after it would bring him in an income of £100 a year, and seeing that this officer's income for the year 1911 was only £60 9s., what are the reasons for refusing to allow the guardians to pay to this officer the fee of threepence for each certificate of exemption received by him?
  Mr. LEWIS: I have been informed by the Vaccination Officer that he was given to understand on appointment that the post would be worth £100 per annum, but it is of course obvious that where the remuneration is derived from fees it is liable to variation. I do not consider the payment of a fixed fee for exemptions a desirable method of remuneration.

  Golder's Green Crossing.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board what is the outcome of his further communications with the Middlesex County Council about the danger to pedestrians at the Golder's

  2491
  Green crossing from motor vehicles; and if any action is to be taken to lessen the danger which has already been responsible for the loss of several lives?
  Mr. LEWIS: I am informed that this matter has been very carefully considered by the highways committee of the county council, who, after a local inspection by a sub-committee and conferences with local representatives and others, are of opinion that the object in view will not be attained by the imposition of a speed limit for motor vehicles. The matter will, however, come before the county council on the 19th instant.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Does the hon. Gentleman say that decision has been arrived at in consultation with the district authorities, and, if that is so, is he aware the local council has repeatedly petitioned the county council to impose a speed limit, and that quite recently several accidents have occurred there, only last week a boy being all but killed?
  Mr. LEWIS: I am told that no police regulations and no speed limit would have prevented the latest accident of which we have any information. The decision of the highways committee of the county council was arrived at after conference with local representatives and others, as I have already stated.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Will the hon. Gentleman ask for the opinion of the local district council on the matter?
  Mr. LEWIS: Yes, I shall be glad to do so.

  Cheshire Agricultural Society (Farmers' Losses).
  Mr. ALAN SYKESasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has received a resolution from the Cheshire Agricultural Society urging him to consider the question of granting loans on easy terms to farmers who have suffered loss through foot-and-mouth disease and through loss of crops owing to floods and heavy continuous rains; and, if so, whether he intends taking any action in the matter, and, if so, what?
  Mr. LEWIS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, my right hon. Friend regrets that he can add nothing to the answers which he has already given to questions on this subject.

  Swine Fever Order of 1908.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, seeing that 2,516 outbreaks of swine fever were confirmed in Great Britain during the first ten months of this year, and that the amount paid for animals slaughtered was £63,350, showing no diminution in the prevalence of the disease or in the public burden involved in its attempted suppression such as to justify the policy embodied in the Swine Fever Orders of 1908, he will consider the advisability of modifying such policy in the direction of making it less harassing to pig owners and less costly to the public?
  Mr. LEWIS: My right hon. Friend recognises with regret that the operations of the Board' against swine fever have not been attended with anything like the success which was anticipated when they were originally undertaken; but, before making any change in the general policy of the Board in the matter, he thinks it desirable to await the completion of the investigations which are being made at the instance of the Departmental Committee over which the hon. Member for the Rye Division presides. The Committee have not yet presented their final Report, and my right hon. Friend proposes to ask them, before doing so, to review the whole question in the light of the further experience gained since their interim Report was issued.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask what the business will be next week?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday it is proposed to continue the Committee stage of the Government of Ireland Bill. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will address a further question to the Prime Minister on Monday as to the business for Friday.

  CLAIM TO A SEAT.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLES: I wish to ask with very great respect a question of which I have given you notice, Sir, and that is whether you desire to correct or explain a statement which you made yesterday in which I think you inadvertently fell into an error, and which is reported as follows in the OFFICIAL REPORT:—
  "Sir W. Byles: Surely I may be allowed to say that there are several Radical Members who had possession of these seats long before the Labour party came, and they have retained them regularly.
  "Mr. Speaker: That is not so; those seats were on the other side of (be House, and. since the Labour party came here in 1900, they have sat there."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1912, col. 2268.]
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am obliged to the hon. Member for pointing that out. I had already corrected it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It should have been 1910, not 1906.
  Sir W. BYLES: That does not touch the other point. You said "That is not so" in reply to the allegations which I made that several Radical Members, I think six or eight at least, have regularly sat in these seats ever since the Labour party came across here.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have no knowledge of that. The only Radical Member I have seen on that seat was the late Sir Charles Dilke, and he always occupied it by leave and licence of the Labour party. He frequently asked if they had any objection to his being there, and it was because they raised no objection that he remained there.
  Sir W. BYLES: If it is only this seat you are speaking of, Mr. Speaker, I presume that is no embargo on the remaining seats.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. SPEAKER:I think it is very inconvenient if an hon. Member insists upon
  2508
  placing himself in the middle of a party which generally occupies that place. It is perfectly true that it does not rest with me; in fact, I have no power to allot seats to any particular individual, and there is no absolute right to any seat, except for right hon. Gentlemen who are Members of the Privy Council, upon the Front Opposition Bench. They have a right there if they choose to exercise it. Of course, Members of the Government have a right to sit upon the Government Bench. It has always been the habit where a small party has been formed that that party should be allowed to sit together for the purposes of consultation and convenience, and hon. Members generally have recognised that and have not put themselves in the middle of that party when it was pretty obvious that they were not wanted.
  Sir W. BYLES: I entirely appreciate and, I hope I may say, entirely concur in the spirit of your observation. I only wanted to point out to you and to the House that I am only one of seven or eight Liberal Members who have steadily sat here ever since the Labour party came in. When I say "here" I do not mean in this particular seat, but upon this bench. Will you allow me one personal word before this incident passes into the, obscurity from which it should never have emerged. I only want to say to you, Sir, and to the House, that I am the last man who would desire to sit anywhere where I am unwelcome. I desire to be, and I hope I am, on amicable terms with every single one of my colleagues in the House of Commons, and my only object has been to assert the immemorial right of any Member of this House to sit where he pleases.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Arising out of the statement you, Sir, have just made, and without in any way binding you, would it be possible for you to make some suggestion to Members of the House that the Conservative party should be allotted some more seats owing to their rapidly increasing numbers?
  Mr. SPEAKER: If their numbers increase so rapidly as all that, I think they will be quite able to take care of themselves.

  BILLS PRESENTED.

    SHERIFFS-SUBSTITUTE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    "To make provision for choice of Law agents as Sheriffs-Substitute in Scotland,

    2509
    and to fix an age limit for their retiral." Presented by Mr. WATT; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 8th January, and to be printed. [Bill 332.]

    REVENUE ACT (1889) AMENDMENT BILL.
    "To amend Section 2 of the Revenue Act, 1889, with reference to the importation of imitation coins." Presented by Mr. HENRY TERRELL; supported by Mr. Radford and Mr. George Terrell; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 333.]

  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
  [First Allotted Day.]
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [29th November], "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision for facilitating the redemption on an equitable basis of the tithe rent-charge in Wales and Monmouthshire dealt with by the Bill."—[Mr. Pollock.]
  Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: The Instruction which I rise to support is not one that deals with the most contentious parts of this Bill. It is an Instruction the object of which is to enable the Committee to deal with the question of the commutation of tithe rent-charge as part of the proposals of the Government which are now before the House. I do not think that anyone who has given any attention to the subject of lithe will deny that tithe rent-charge is not a convenent form of Endowment. It has led to a good deal of dispute in time past, and even to something like a tithe war some years ago in Wales; and it has always been the subject of considerable dispute and discussion, so much so, that in 1892, as the House is aware, a Commission or Committee was appointed to consider the matter, and they reported in favour of the commutation of tithe rent-charge and in favour of a variety of changes in the law in that connection. The proposal that we are actually considering at this moment does not deal, I quite admit, with the whole subject. It only deals with it as respects Wales. I was rather surprised to hear the Chancellor of the Duchy say on Friday last that it would only affect £17,000 a year of tithes.
  The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Hobhouse): I did not say that.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Yes, you did.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I was misreported. I said £117,000.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman no doubt intended to say £117,000, but we on this side of the House heard him say £17,000, and so did the Reporter. I quite agree with him that if he said £117,000 he would be nearly correct, and I do not quarrel with that figure. That is not so very small a sum, and the right hon. Gentleman's objection to the Instruction on the ground that it deals only with a small sum appears to fall to the ground. Unquestionably the existence of this tithe rent-charge is a matter which requires the attention of the House. It leads to misrepresentation of all sorts. In this very controversy we have had every kind of allegation made about tithes. There is the allegation that tithe is a tax, on which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite base a great deal of their case for Disendowment. I am not going to discuss that, because it appears to me to be the most absurd doctrine ever put forward, for a tax is a compulsory contribution to the Exchequer of the country for the general purposes of the country.
  Mr. BOOTH: Hear, hear!
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Gentleman is good enough to agree with me. I am always glad to receive the assent of the hon. Gentleman on any subject. Whatever may be doubtful about tithes—and a great many things are doubtful—the one thing that is certain is that no part of a tithe was ever paid into the Exchequer of this country in any circumstances, nor was it ever devoted to the general expenses of the administration of this country. That is only one instance of the kind of misapprehension freely indulged in with regard to tithes. I think a more remarkable confusion is as to the incidence of tithes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose name is on this Bill, but who does not appear to think it necessary to attend the Debates upon the Bill, said, according to a report in the "Manchester Guardian," of 20th May, 1912:—
  "By tithe payers, I mean the tithe producers, the farmers and the labourers. The man who pays the tithe, which is one-tenth of the produce of the land, is the man whose labour is responsible for the yield. That man pays his own minister first for services really

  2511
  rendered to him, and then he has to pay twice as much to maintain a man whose spiritual counsels he has never asked for and whose ministrations he does not need."
  That is a very striking statement that the tithe, which is unquestionably a burden on the land—no one doubts it—is paid by the farmer and the labourer.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: It is rent.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I know the hon. Gentleman has certain views on that subject. Is that to be said of all burdens on the land? Are all land taxes, for instance, paid by the labourer and the farmer? If that is true, I regret it was not stated in 1909. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on a previous occasion, put forward an entirely different view. On the Tithe Bill of 1891 it became important that the right hon. Gentleman should represent that the tithe was paid, not by the farmer, but by the land owner. There was a provision in that Bill which enacted that where tithe exceeded two-thirds of the annual value of the land, then so much of the excess should be remitted to the tithe payer. In that case, the right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "The Government propose that, one-third shall be taken off. That means that one-third of the value of the property is to be taken from the nation and put into the pockets, not of the labourer and the farmer, but into the pockets of the landlord. That is, I submit, a monstrous proposal, and simply confiscation and robbery."
  The right hon. Gentleman was not afraid to speak of robbery in those days. The next day he said:—
  "I submit there is no reason at all why we should rob the whole country for the sake of a few landlords."
  That is extremely characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman's controversial methods. What it comes to is this: That this charge is of such a nature that it is possible for a controversialist who is anxious to find some stick with which to beat the Church of England, at one time to represent that tithe is paid by the landlord and at another time to represent that tithe is paid by the tenant. I do not propose to discuss at any great length which view is right. My own view, and, I believe, the view generally accepted by political economists, is that it is a burden on the landlord. That may or may not be true. Whatever is the truth, it shows what an inconvenient and cumbersome form of payment it is when it lends itself to misrepresentation of that character. I do say that since it has proved to be a handle against the Church in 1891, and is now
  2512
  being taken by the other end as a handle against the Church in 1912, this is an appropriate time at which the House might well consider whether, in the words of the Instruction, some equitable basis for redeeming tithe rent-charge might be found. It will be said, "Why does it matter now? This Bill is going to destroy the interest of existing tithe owners in the tithe; does it matter whether you commute it or not?" I would ask the House to consider the two alternatives. I think it is conceivable that either in the present Session, or in some future Session, the growing indignation of the country with regard to this form of spoliation will become so great that even the Radical party, even the Cabinet of the Radical party, will feel themselves bound to yield to it, and though, personally, I say it would not remove my objections to the Bill if you struck out the Disendowment Clauses altogether, unquestionably I would make hon. Gentlemen opposite a present of saying that by striking out the Disendowment Clauses you would strike out the most objectionable Clauses of the Bill. If that happened I think the redemption of tithe rent-charge would be a very desirable reform, and a Bill which dealt with that would be, I believe, a very important measure for the pacification of the country, and if it only dealt with it in Wales it would still be an important measure in that country. I believe it might well be the solution of such grievances as may possibly exist, though I do not myself think there is any real one, in reference to the Endowment of the Established Church that it should be taken from this ancient and rather cumbrous form of a charge upon land and converted into an ordinary Endowment and an ordinary interest in the funds or some other security of this country. I believe that would be an important change and would make the grievance, such as it is, much less, and would satisfy such sentimental feelings as at present exist in connection with the matter.
  But if that is not what happens to the Bill, and if, as a matter of fact, the Bill passes in its present form, I wish to press this point very much upon hon. Gentlemen opposite. Do not imagine that your Bill is going to diminish friction. It is going to increase friction, and it is going to increase friction in the matter of the payment of tithes. It is one of the grave delusions that hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to labour under that the feeling of the Churchman for his Church

  2513
  is less strong than what seems, to us at any rate, the perverted feeling of the Welsh nationality. The two feelings are strictly comparable, and they are just as strong the one as the other. In my view, the feeling of the Churchman is a stronger one, because it is founded, as it seems to me, on a better reason than the other feeling, but whether it is stronger or not I do not stop to inquire. It is very strong, and when your Bill is through every tithe payer who is a Churchman—and according to the allegation of hon. Members opposite most of the tithe payers are Churchmen, because they are never tired of telling us that most of the landowners in Wales are Churchmen—will feel a bitter sense of grievance that the money which he thinks ought to be going to his Church, and which he thinks rightly and justly belongs to his Church, is being diverted every time he pays it to some other purpose. I am profoundly convinced that such an iniquity will not be allowed to be consummated, but, assuming that your Bill is going to pass, you are laying up for yourselves a greater feeling of injustice and a greater indignation in the tithe payers of the future than can possibly exist among the tithe payers of to-day. What are the arguments against this Instruction? I trust we shall have something more decent than the speech that has so far been delivered against it, for a more perfunctory performance it has never been my pleasure to listen to in this House. What did the Chancellor of the Duchy say? He said absolutely nothing except that this Instruction would only deal with tithe in Wales. He said:—
  "I submit respectfully to the House that as the law which now prevails governs the redemption of tithe all over the United Kingdom, if it is to be amended it should be amended for the whole of the United Kingdom."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, col. 1839.]
  And this is a right hon. Gentleman who is proposing a Bill for the Disestablishment of that part of the Church of England which is in Wales! A more grotesque objection I never heard. Here is the right hon. Gentleman and the Government who are proposing a fundamental change in the Church of England in Wales dealing only with Wales, and he says, "Your proposal to deal with tithes only touches Wales." Of course it only touches Wales. The objection is really utterly unworthy of any Minister of the Crown, and I trust we shall hear some better argument than that against the Instruction, but at present that is the only argument which has been put forward. I submit that this
  2514
  is an Instruction of real importance giving the House an opportunity of really entering upon a useful measure, whatever happens to this Bill. When hon. Gentlemen opposite accuse us of only desiring to propose wrecking Amendments—Amendments which will destroy the Bill—I submit that here, at any rate, we are proposing an Amendment which would be a substantive improvement in the law. If they have any controversial honesty let them accept this Instruction and let us see Clauses drafted, which could be done without any great elaboration or any great difficulty, to deal with this particular question. If this Instruction is really resisted by the Government it will be because they are determined to resist all Amendments and proposals coming from this side, and not because they can adduce any argument whatever against it on its merits.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The Noble Lord complains of the answer given last Friday by my right hon. Friend, and observes that it was perfunctory in character. My right hon. Friend's answer, I would submit, although brief, was complete. There is now a body of law dealing with the subject of tithe. That law is embodied in several Statutes relating to the whole country. It is a mere question of convenience that is proposed to be dealt with under the Instruction—the convenience of the landlord who is now the tithe payer. I am not going to follow the Noble Lord into the various questions he dwelt upon, as to the origin of tithe, whether it is a tax, who pays it, and who pays other Land Taxes. These topics, however interesting and inviting, are not relevant to the discussion now. The only issue we have to consider is whether it is appropriate to introduce into a Bill for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the English Church in Wales, provisions to enable landlords more conveniently to redeem their tithes. The whole House will agree—Parliament has agreed more than once—that it is desirable that an Amendment should be made in the law in order to enable landlords to redeem their tithes more conveniently. The only question now is whether we ought to introduce such a provision into a Bill for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church. It has nothing to do with Disestablishment. It has nothing even to do with Disendowment, and it is very undesirable that we should occupy time which could be devoted to the discussion of the most im-

  2515
  portant question of Disestablishment and Disendowment, with the consideration of whether we should or should not relieve landowners of certain inconveniences which they now suffer in the payment of tithe. I admit the inconvenience. I admit that the subject might properly be dealt with by Parliament. I recognise that Parliament has made several efforts to deal with it, but I submit that this is not a proper occasion. That is the brief answer which the Noble Lord wanted, and I hope he will not take it, if we refuse to accept the Motion, that it means that we do not intend to consider any Amendments moved by hon. Members opposite. We have every intention to consider proposals in a fair and considerate spirit; but a proposal of this kind, which would occupy an immense amount of time in dealing with the subject, which has nothing to do with Disestablishment and Disendowment, is not a proposal which we can possibly accept.
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW: I want to refer to two statements which have been made by the Home Secretary and by the Chancellor of the Duchy with regard to this Instruction. When the Home Secretary got up to explain and defend the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy, I did not think he would be so ill-advised as to repeat, almost in the same words, the words which the Chancellor used when he said that this Instruction was really not very relevant to the Welsh Disestablishment Bill. But he went further. He said it had nothing to do with the Disestablishment Bill at all. We have been referred all through this Debate, and shall be referred over and over again in the Debates to come, to the precedent of the Irish Church. We are told if only we refer to the Act Disestablishing the Irish Church we shall find that everything the Government do is based upon that Act. If we are asked what Disestablishment means, we are told to turn up the Act and see. Clauses dealing with compensation, and so on, we are told are drafted on the analogy of the Irish Act. Will it be believed that the two official Ministers responsible for this Bill can tell us that we are to refer to the Irish Act for all precedent, and, in the same breath, that this question of tithe redemption has nothing to do with Disestablishment? If they had only taken the trouble to look up the Debates on the Irish Bill they would have found that their great Leader, Mr.
  2516
  Gladstone, devoted a considerable deal of time to this very question; that he moved a Clause which was hotly discussed in the House, which was eventually carried, and which formed Section 32 of the Irish Act, providing for this very thing which the Ministers responsible tell us has nothing whatever to do with Disestablishment and ought never to be inserted in a Disestablishment Bill. The thing is too absurd. Either the Ministers responsible were ignorant of the state of the case—I do not think that is a very satisfactory alternative for them—or else they knew what had taken place in 1869, but did not take the trouble to inform the House of it. What took place in 1869? Mr. Gladstone himself moved a Clause for dealing with this question of tithe redemption. The Clause, as eventually modified and carried, proposed that the tithe rent-charge should be redeemable at twenty-two and a half years' purchase; in other words, that the owner of the land might, by agreement with the Commissioners, buy his tithe at that price, and if he had not the ready money with which to do it at once to get rid of the charge upon his land, he was entitled to make an arrangement with the Commissioners by which the amount would be payable over a period of years by instalments. It was originally proposed in the Bill that it should be forty-seven years, but Mr. Gladstone eventually moved an Amendment extending it to fifty-two years, with this result: That as the Government can borrow money cheaper than a private individual, and allowing for a difference of 1 per cent, in the rate of interest which the Government has to its advantage, Mr. Gladstone, with great financial skill, was able to arrange that the owner of the land, by a payment no greater than that of his tithe, if extended over fifty-two years, would at the end of that time hold his land entirely free from any tithe rent-charge whatever. When the policy of this proposal was discussed Mr. Gladstone argued the matter with his usual firmness and lucidity. These were the words which he used at the conclusion of the whole matter. He said:—
  "There was a great principle of public policy involved, and considering how unhappy for a long series of years had been the history of that question of tithe rent charge, he believed there was a great policy in getting rid of it altogether and causing it to merge in the general revenue of the land."
  Whoever pays the tithe, whether it is the landowner, whether it is the tenant or whether it is, as suggested in some quarters the labourer for this purpose does not

  2517
  matter, nor does it matter whether under the new Pill which conies into law different people will receive the tithe from those who have received it hitherto. What is essential is this, that when you are pulling down both public institutions and private rights of property relating to the Church, including tithe, you have got an opportunity, and not only an opportunity, but you are also of necessity required to deal with this question of tithe redemption. You have got in front of you, as the result of Mr. Gladstone's action in 1869, a perfectly adequate and simple precedent, and it would only have been reasonable if the Government in dealing with the matter had followed that precedent. I think they need not take the trouble to come to the House and tell us that this Instruction is not relevant to the Welsh Disestablishment Rill.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I think the House may congratulate itself on having this Instruction brought before it. It does admirably illustrate the policy that actuates hon. Members opposite. Just see what the Instruction is. It is:
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision for facilitating the redemption on an equitable basis of the tithe rent-charge in Wales and Monmouthshire dealt with by the Bill."
  So long as these tithes were paid to the Church there was no pressure, certainly from the Noble Lord the Member for the Hitchin Division (Lord Robert Cecil) to facilitate redemption, but now that these tithes are to be paid to the community for educational and religious purposes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Secular purposes"]—the same purposes as those to which the Monastery funds were applied before. Now we have hon. Members opposite representative of the landlords of the country demanding that they shall be given facilities greater than they already possess for the redemption of tithe rent-charge. What would be the exact effect of facilitating the redemption of tithe rent-charge? It would mean that tithes would be redeemed at twenty-two and a half years' purchase instead of, as at present, thirty-five years' purchase. Who would get the benefit of that greater facility of redemption of tithe? Obviously the landlords of the country. They would benefit by the carrying of the Instruction, and that is the reason why the Instruction is proposed by the hon. Member opposite. Who would gain and lose on account of the greater facility of redemption.
  2518
  Obviously the general community would suffer loss and the landlords would gain. Up to the present time it has been merely the Church that would lose and the landlords who would gain, but now that you are going to Disestablish and Disendow the Church in Wales the landlords are anxious to get something out of it. They are anxious to get their finger in the pie as in 1636–7.
  I would not have risen but for the remarks that fell from the Noble Lord the Member for the Hitchin Division. He laid great stress on the fact that the Chancellor of the Duchy had pretended or said that tithes were paid by the labourer. I think he would agree in any case that tithes are produced by the person who produces the wealth from the land. The man who owns the land produces nothing. It must obviously be the labourer and the tenant farmer who produce tithe just as they produce rent, and it is an injustice to make these people pay for the teaching of religious doctrines that they do not approve. That is the basis of the Disestablishment and Disendowment movement. It is quite true that the tenant and the labourer do not in the first case hand over the money to the Church. They use the landlord as an intermediary in the payment of the tithe, just as the Noble Lord when his Income Tax is collected uses the bank through which his business is done as the intermediary in collecting the tax. Nevertheless, the man who pays the tithe is the man who produces the wealth from the soil. That is what makes it particularly necessary that we should emphasise the fact that the injustice of the present state of things is that you compel to pay for the teaching of certain religious doctrines people who do not share these religious views, and who therefore are not contributing either with good will or voluntarily to the needs of the particular Church.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that argument is relevant to this Instruction.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I bow to your ruling. I was merely trying to reply to the Noble Lord opposite, and I will not pursue the question. I will only say as to the question whether the arguments we put forward on this side of the House have not very great relevancy to the justice or injustice of the Bill that the Noble Lord himself is discussing upstairs at the present time—
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am not.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I thought you were on the Trade Unions Bill Committee.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken. I am not a member of the Trade Unions Bill Committee.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I withdraw that. The Noble Lord the Member for the Newton Division (Viscount Wolmer), who is on that Committee, is one of the most prominent opponents of the Bill. The question whether a trade union has not, at any rate, the same right—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Really we have got quite enough to discuss without going into issues which are being considered upstairs.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I will not pursue that question. In conclusion I urge that this Instruction, which is proposed so suitably from the party opposite, should be voted down by all those who do not desire to see more power, privilege, and money put into the hands of the landlord class of this country.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not intend to follow the line of argument of the hon. Member (Mr. Wedgwood), who always reminds me of one who has only one idea in his head. Suffice it to say that if his theory is that the labourer pays tithe—
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I said produces.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the labourer produces tithe and uses the landlord as his agent to pay tithe—
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I said the landlord collects it from the producer.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The landlord collects it from the producer and hands it over. Under the proposal we are making the labourer is not going to redeem tithe, and therefore, on the hon. Member's own showing, the labourer will be better off, for it is perfectly clear that the landlord will be no longer called upon to collect tithe from the producer. I wish to say one or two words in reply to the speech of the Home Secretary. I cannot see how he can found himself on the Irish Act in opposing this Instruction, and stating that it is not relevant to a Bill dealing with the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church. He reminded us that there was a large body of law dealing with tithe, and that therefore it would be wrong to deal with that question in the way we suggest. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is a large body of ecclesiastical law—far
  2520
  larger than any body of tithe law—dealing with the whole Church in England and Wales. He is going to cut off a portion of that ecclesiastical law which relates to the Church in Wales, though he declines to interfere with the whole body of ecclesiastical law. This Bill is, as we understand, going to be the forerunner of a Bill dealing with the Church in England. That is perfectly clear from statements made by the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues. Lord Beauchamp, speaking in January this year, said he would not be afraid to say that the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales would be only the first step for Disestablishing and Disendowing the Church in England. What we want to know exactly is how the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in Wales is to be carried out.
  I speak as an English Member, and as one who supports an undivided and not a dismembered Church. We are entitled to know exactly what line is to be adopted in regard to Wales because of the open threats which the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues have made in regard to the Church of England. The President of the Board of Agriculture said more recently that he had no compunction in saying that the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church was only first in the order of precedence. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has used words almost to the same effect. I am one of those who say that the tithe question is at the bottom of the agitation against the Welsh Church. It is really the demagogues, if I may say so, of the type of the Chancellor of the Exchequer— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would disclaim the title demagogue—who have for years past used this question—
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. Member entitled to deal with this justification of tithe paying when you prevented me from dealing with the question?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member has got rather far away from the subject, just as the hon. Member himself did.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am always pleased to bow to your decision. The argument I was trying to put was that the proposal of this Instruction, which you have admitted to be in order, is with the view to the inclusion in this Bill of sections dealing with the redemption of tithe. My argument in favour of doing that is that the non-redemption of tithes has been utilised by supporters of the Bill on the

  2521
  Government side of the House as one of their prime reasons for Disestablishing the Church in Wales. We are entitled, in order to get rid of this grievance—an imaginary grievance some of us think—to have the matter dealt with in the Bill, and as a guide when we come to deal with our own Church in England. We have very little time to discuss the Clauses of the Bill under the guillotine, and if the Government have no better answer to make than that made by the Chancellor of the Duchy on Friday last, and by the
  Home Secretary this afternoon, I hope my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Pollock) will pursue the matter to a division.
  Question put, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision for facilitating the redemption on an equitable basis of the tithe rent-charge in Wales and Monmouthshire dealt with by the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 297.

  Division No. 391.]

  AYES.

  [4.45 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Gardner, Ernest

  Moore, William

  Archer-Shee, Major M.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Nield, Herbert

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Grant, J. A.

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S. E.)

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Barnston, Harry

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Barrie, H. T.

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Blair, Reginald

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hunter, Sir C. R.

  Sassoon, Sir Philip

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Butcher, John George

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Campion, W. R.

  Joynson-Hicks, William

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Cassel, Felix

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Cator, John

  Kerry, Earl of

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Cautley, H. S.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.)

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Dixon, C. H.

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Duke, Henry Edward

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.)

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Faber, Cant. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Falle, B. G.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Fell, Arthur

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

  Yerburgh, Robert A.

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  R. Cecil and Mr. Hoare

  Forster, Henry William

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Armitage, Robert

  Barnes, George N.

  Adamson, William

  Arnold, Sydney

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Barton, William

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Allen, Arhur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Boland, John Plus

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Healy, Maurice (Cork)

  O'Grady, James

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Brady, P. J.

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  O'Malley, William

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Hinds, John

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

  Hodge, John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Clough, William

  Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Clynes, John R.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Hudson, Walter

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

  Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Crean, Eugene

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Crooks, William

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Radford, G. H.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Cullinan, John

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Reddy, M.

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

  Keating, Matthew

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  De Forest, Baron

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Delany, William

  Kilbride, Denis

  Richards, Thomas

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  King, J.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Dillon, John

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Doris, William

  Leach, Charles

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Duffy, William J.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robinson, Sidney

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Lundon, T.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rowlands, James

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Lynch, A. A.

  Russell, Rt. Hon, Thomas W.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  McGhee, Richard

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Falconer, James

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. D. B.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Sheehy, David

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Field, William

  M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)

  Shortt, Edward

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Manfield, Harry

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

  Gilhooly, James

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Gill, A. H.

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Snowden, Philip

  Ginnell, L.

  Meagher, Michael

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Millar, James Duncan

  Sutton, John E.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Molloy, Michael

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Tennant, Harold John

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Thomas, James Henry

  Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  Mooney, John J.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Morrell, Philip

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Guiney, Patrick

  Morison, Hector

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hackett, J.

  Muldoon, John

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Hancock, John George

  Munro, R.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Needham, Christopher Thomas

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Neilson, Francis

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wardle, George J.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Waring, Walter

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Wason. Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Webb, H.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Mr. SPEAKER: There are no other Instructions appearing on the Paper which are in order.

  MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
  Mr. McKENNA: I have a message from the King signifying to the House that His Majesty has been pleased to place at the disposal of Parliament for the Established Church (Wales) Bill His Majesty's interest in the bishoprics and other ecclesiastical dignities and benefices in Wales and Monmouthshire.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Mr. LYTTELTON: I should like to know whether it would be convenient now to say what Amendments you propose, to select?
  The CHAIRMAN: The first Motion on the Paper on Clause 1 is not admissible under the Resolution of the House governing our present procedure. The next three Amendments on the Paper are outside the scope of the Bill. The first one which I propose to take, the first one which is in order, is that which stands in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Mid-Bucks (Sir A. Cripps). As regards the next one, I am in some difficulty, because I do not know what the Debate or decision of the Committee may be on the first Amendment to be taken. It may be that it will rule out some of the subsequent Amendments. If it were not so, the one I had in my mind to take would be that in the name of the hon. Member for the Ashford Division of Kent (Mr. L. Hardy), but that may be covered, as I have stated.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Is the Amendment m the name of the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs, to leave out "Disestablishment" and insert "Secularisation," not in order?
  The CHAIRMAN: It is not one which I propose to select.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: On that point I wish to know whether you would take a
  2526
  similar Amendment which is down in filename of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Pollock), on page 31, in order to see what exactly Established and Disestablishment mean?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Before you reply to the point of my hon. Friend, I beg very respectfully to submit that it would be a convenient course if, on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Barlow), that we should have an opportunity of deciding a matter of great importance, what is meant by Disestablishment and what is not. Under the Standing Order I believe that we are entitled to submit that any particular Amendment is of importance, and I venture respectfully to submit that from some such Amendment as that is a matter on which we should have a decision.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have been glad on this occasion to hear Members, but there is no right under the Standing Order. With regard to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, I will reserve my opinion on that

  Part I.
    DISESTABLISHMENT AND VESTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY.

      CLAUSE 1.—(Disestablishment and Prohibition of Future Appointments.)
      On the first day of July next after the passing of this Act (in this Act referred to as the date of Disestablishment), the Church of England, so far as it extends to and exists in Wales and Monmouthshire (in this Act referred to as the Church in Wales), shall cease to be established bylaw, and, save as by this Act provided, no person shall, after the passing of this Act, be appointed or nominated by His Majesty or any person, by virtue of any existing right of patronage, to any ecclesiastical office in the Church in Wales.
      Sir A. CRIPPS: I beg to move, after the word "the" ["the first day"], to insert the words "expiration of two years."
      This Amendment will have the effect of postponing the operation of the Clause until the expiration of two years after the

      2527
      passing of the Act. It appears to me that the question of time when the Bill is brought into force is of great importance. It depends on three considerations, and I wish to put each of them as shortly as I can. In dealing with this question of time, it is hardly possible to omit a somewhat general reference to the terms of the Clause, because they are necessarily of vital importance in considering the time within which the Bill should come into operation.
      5.0 P.M.
      The CHAIRMAN: I do not wish to restrict the hon. Member narrowly. Just one other point: I should have called the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that his Amendment is not quite in the right form. He should move to leave out "the first day of July next," and substitute for those words, "expiration of two years."
      Sir A. CRIPPS: The question put would then be, "That 'the first day of July next' stand part."
      The CHAIRMAN: That is so.
      Sir A. CRIPPS: And if those words are emitted, then of course the words of my Amendment would be put as if they were to be the substantive?
      The CHAIRMAN: Yes.
      Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: On a point of Order, Sir. Will it be in order to discuss the Amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Newton (Viscount Wolmer) to insert the words, in Sub-section (1) of Clause 1, after the word "law" ["established by law"], the words, "but shall not be separate from the remainder of the Church"?
      The CHAIRMAN: It does not appear to me that it arises on the question of time. The proposal here is that there shall be a longer time allowed, after the passing of the Act, for its coming into actual operation.
      Sir A. CRIPPS: I was about to say, in submitting my Amendment, that, having regard to the subject matter of the Clause, it appears to me to be a matter of great importance that there should be reasonable time allowed, after the passing of this Act, in order to proceed with any reorganisation which may be necessary under the proposals embodied in the Act, should this Bill by mischance or by misfortune become law. In one respect this
      2528
      Clause, for the point with which I am dealing, is absolutely and entirely distinct from the Irish precedent. I wish to put that quite fairly in regard to the point I am now dealing with, in order that it may not be said, in regard to the Amendment I am now proposing—and I think the same argument might be used as regards other Amendments—that, after all, we are only following the precedent established in the Irish Church Act. In the Irish Church Bill there was no question whatever of the dismemberment of the Church at all, and one of the great reasons which occurred to me why additional time is wanted is because, in this so-called Welsh Bill, we are really dealing with a portion of one Church. If the Bill is carried, it would necessitate the dismemberment of a body which is now one body, namely, the whole National Church, whether the dioceses happens to be in Wales or in any other part of the Kingdom. Just consider for a moment what that means. It is the first time, as far as I know, in this country, that a religious community has ever been dismembered compulsorily against the wish of its members. We are dealing, therefore, with an extraordinary important proposition. Let me take the case of the Nonconformist community. I say again, as I have often said, they ought to be treated with all respect when discussing matters of this kind. What would be said if, as regards the various Nonconformist communities which spread both into Wales and the other parts of the United Kingdom, you were to compulsorily dismember them and you were not to allow the members of a particular religious community in Wales to be a part of the same community that has residents in England who hold the same views that they do?
      I should like to hear what the outcry would be if, as regards the Wesleyan community, or if as regards the various communities dealt with by the Free Church Councils, you were to pass an Act of Parliament saying, whether the members of that community desired it or not, that they were to be dismembered according to their territorial position. The point which has been put as to the feeling of the Welsh nationality has really nothing to do with a question of this kind. I agree that in religious matters religion overrides questions of nationality, yet no member of the Church of England desires to do anything, if he can help it, in contravention of what I call the spirit of Welsh nationality. But

      2529
      as a religious body, in our view, we have nothing to do with that, either one way or the other. But even assuming that the question of Welsh nationality comes in, how can any person who come from Wales desire that a religious body should be dismembered against the wish both of Welshmen and Englishmen? I believe the answer to this question on the other side would be, and I think the fair answer would be, "We do not desire it if it can be avoided." I beg to say that it can be avoided. Why should you break up Convocation, including both the Welsh part of the Church and the English part of the Church; why should you break up all the arrangements which we now have as regards the whole Church for common purposes? I am dealing not with our voluntary meetings, but the meetings which we have under the ægis of our existing constitution. It is an extremely important point, and I want an answer to it. What is there which Welsh nationality demands, what is there that the principle of religious equality demands, what is there as regards any principle put forward in favour of Disestablishment and Disendowment, which makes it right to dismember a religious community against the wish of all its members, wherever resident?
      I beg to say that this is a wholly unparalleled suggestion which is being made. It is the use of coercive authority in matters of religion for which there is no precedent, and which this House has never heretofore exercised. If we are going to have this principle, which I consider a very monstrous principle, surely it is right that a dismembered community should have sufficient time to reconstitute itself, whether in Wales or in England. I think that consideration must appeal to everybody. How can that reorganisation be effected without you allow sufficient time for it after the passing of the Act? It is not an easy thing for the two disjointed members to reorganise themselves under the new conditions, and if you bring this Bill into operation before this reorganisation has been properly carried out, you leave both the portion in Wales and the portion in England subject to risks to which no religious community ought to be subject, even if you vote Disestablishment and Disendowment. I await an answer to my argument on this point. I protest in the name of the religious community to which I belong that this principle of coercive dismemberment is contrary to the whole principle and doctrine
      2530
      of religious freedom and religious equality as we have heard it heretofore in this country. Let me come to the next branch of this subject, the question of Disestablishment. Let us for a moment try to appreciate what that means. I am one of those who agree with the great dictum, often referred to, of Lord Mansfield, in dealing with the Toleration Act. He said that Nonconformist religious communities would properly be called Established according to the principles of our English law—Established in this sense, that they have got defined rights, defined property, and a defined constitution, protected under the legal rules and principles applicable to all corporations in this country. What I deduce from that is that, apart from the question of Establishment by law or not, you have the preceding consideration, as I have often put it, namely, the Establishment per se of a corporation with defined rights, defined privileges, and defined duties, and defined property, which is entitled to be considered from that point of view as one entity and one community. When we are dealing with the proposition in Clause 1 we have the expression "cease to be Established by law." What does that mean? Does that mean that the Church is no longer to be under what we call the Reformation Constitution—I mean the Acts of Unity.
      The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I have been misunderstood in my reference to allowing rather wide discussion on this Amendment. I did not mean that the whole Clause, or the principle of the Bill decided upon by the Second Reading, should be discussed. The real subject for discussion is the difference between the time of the passing of the Act and the time of its coming into operation, and I think that is the real purport of the Amendment.
      Sir A. CRIPPS: I bow to your ruling, Sir, and that was why I was anxious, in the first instance, to ascertain the limits of discussion to be allowed. I am dealing with the limit of time applied to the subject matter which I find in Clause 1, and what I am going to argue is that, having regard to the subject matter of that Clause, we ought to have an extension of time. I wanted to know, as regards the time limit, whether "Established by law" was some technical expression, or whether it referred to what we call established religion. I should have thought it would have been relevant to the

      2531
      question of time to know what the subject matter of the Clause is. I said on the point of dismemberment why I thought the time ought to be extended, because when you dismember a Church or community you ought to allow reasonable time for the reorganisation of a dismembered body. I assume for the moment we are dealing with Establishment by law in this Clause. Does that mean Establishment in the wider sense, or does it mean Establishment as brought about by the Reformation Statutes, and in reference to which I quoted Lord Mansfield's argument? If it means Disestablishment as regards the Reformation Statutes, and nothing else, and you leave the Church as an Established Church, although its statutory position has been so far altered, then I should agree, if I may say so, with great submission, that the period of time need not be so long; but, as I understand the Bill to mean, you do not limit the Establishment in that sense, and you mean that from top to bottom there is to be a new constitution differing entirely from the old constitution under which the Church is working at the present moment. If it is not a question of a new constitution—let me be careful about this—if it is merely a question, as it was in the time of the Reformation, of dealing with certain Statutes which affect the Establishment, that is one thing; but if, as I understand the Bill, under this Clause you mean something quite different, namely, a new constitution on a new foundation altogether, then I say myself distinctly that you must have a proper limit of time allowed in order that the new arrangements and the now constitution may properly be brought into force. I hope that will be dealt with. I do not think it will be out of order on this point, because to my mind it is a most crucial difficulty. It is vitally different to the Church, if I may put it in that way to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If yon are going to repeal certain Statutes affecting our Establishment, that is one matter. If you are going, on the other hand, to say you must have a new constitution from top to bottom, and that your old constitution is to be put into the fire and something substituted in its place, that is a different consideration altogether. If that is to be the proposal, and I gather that it is, then I say it is a monstrous suggestion that you could carry out that in a month or two after the passing of the Act, instead of
      2532
      giving sufficient time for having a reorganised body, with a new Constitution, which, as I read the Bill, is provided for it.
      That is the second point I want to make, and let there be no mistake about it, in reference to what may be said by the Home Secretary or the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is an entirely different thing to repeal certain Statutes which now affect Ecclesiastical Law and the law of my Church, and it is an entirely different thing to Disestablish it and to introduce a new constitution from top to bottom. I want to know which is meant. I understand that the Bill means the latter, and if it does, then I say that the time given under Clause 1 is utterly inadequate. There is one other point which I admit is of wider range. I do not want to take up the time too long because many people want to bring to the notice of the House and the Committee important points which are raised under this Bill. There is another very important matter. I am not going into the question of mandate and matters of that kind, because I admit that is a Second Reading discussion in substance, and we get into a quagmire of difficulties and into the mere throwing across the House one at the other of reproaches when we come to this mandate point. This being a Bill dealing with the foundations of what I consider ought to be the religious constitution of this country, I want to go further than that. What I say is this, that supposing this Bill is going to be passed under existing conditions—that is to say, passed by the vote of one House only, and while there is no Second Chamber, under the Parliament Act—then under those circumstances the country is entitled to have reasonable and sufficient time before the Bill comes into operation, not only to consider that reorganisation, but really to consider—and it will be their first chance as I understand the matter—whether the Bill, although passed, should become operative at all. I think that is most important, because it is an entirely different point from the other point with which I am dealing. I am certain hon. Members opposite will appreciate this, that if something which touches their conscience and their faith very fully is being attacked, every Member opposite would say, "I may have to give way; I may be in a minority, but let us see what the people really feel and think about this in the first instance."

      2533
      That would be quite right, because as long as you have a representative system the whole basis of it is ascertaining as far as you can what the will of the electorate really may mean when they understand what the question is. We all admit that. Ought that not to be allowed in a Bill of this kind, and, as far as I can see, the only guarantee you have would be by postponing the operation of the Bill until an opportunity of that kind could be given. I say quite frankly that that is quite a different reason from my other reasons, but it is one of the reasons why I hope this Amendment will be carried, and I say it is a most legitimate reason. I am a law-abiding citizen; I am not in favour of law-breaking; but, on the other hand, surely I am entitled to say if a law is to be passed which excites all my feelings to the law-breaking point, if I ever were to do so, then surely I am entitled to say, as regards that Bill, that it ought not to be made a coercive Bill against my views until in the real and true sense I am satisfied, and those who agree with me, that we are bowing to the will of the majority of the electorate of the Kingdom. Hon. Members opposite must admit that that is a most important consideration. I am not going into it further at present. What you mean by law-abiding is really recognising, however much you may dislike the matter, that you are in a minority as regards the considered opinion of your country. That makes you submit, but until that is brought home to anyone on a matter of conscience and religion, you are stretching his law-abiding qualities to the utmost possible limit. Under your ruling, Sir, I do not think I ought to travel further as regards the Clause on this question of time, but I repeat the three points, and more particularly the first two, and I rely perhaps more particularly on the first one, and that is, that the fact that dismemberment of a religious community is being brought about for the first time is a new precedent and is, I say, out of conformity with everything Liberals have preached in the past as regards religious liberty and equality in the case of a Church. If the Church is to be dismembered, at least a reasonable time ought to be given to reorganise the two dismembered portions, and on that ground I move the Amendment, and you have already indicated how you would put the Question.
      Mr. McKENNA: The first part of the hon. and learned Member's Amendment, I
      2534
      do not propose to oppose, that is to say, to leave out the words "First day of July next." I ought to explain to the Committee that those words were put originally in the Bill at a time when it was hoped, and when there was the somewhat sanguine expectation, that the Bill might pass the other House in the course of the present year. That would have left something over six months for the Bill to be brought into operation. I propose therefore, as we now see that the Bill cannot possibly become law this year, to leave out the words "First day of July next," but not to substitute, as the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes, an extended period of two years, but, as hon. Members will see, we have a proposal on the Paper that there shall be after the passing of the Bill into law a minimum period of six months, and by Order in Council an extension of that period, if required, to twelve months. For reasons which I can give, that time will, I think, prove amply sufficient to give the Disestablished Church sufficient time to organise itself. The hon. and learned Member made the point, and I think he put it as his strongest point, that by this Bill we are for the first time dismembering a Church. I would like to ask the hon. and learned Member whether Disestablishment of the Welsh Church is possible without dismemberment.
      Sir A. CRIPPS: Certainly.
      Mr. McKENNA: That Disestablishment is possible?
      Sir A. CRIPPS: Certainly without dismemberment.
      Mr. McKENNA: Perhaps the hon. and learned Member would explain to me how we can Disestablish the English Church in Wales, by which I mean, bring the English Church in Wales into the same position as other Free Churches in Wales?—
      The CHAIRMAN: That is really opening up an argument which I conceive is an interesting one, but does not necessarily arise on this Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman put two alternatives, but did not argue the merits.
      Mr. McKENNA: I am only too glad to be relieved of the necessity of replying to that part of the hon. and learned Member's statement which I understand not to have been directly relevant to the discussion.
      Sir A. CRIPPS: If I understood your ruling, it was this: What I said was that

      2535
      there was no precedent for the dismemberment of a Church up to this point, and that I consider that inconsistent with liberal thoughts on religious equality and religious freedom. What I want to know is, apart from the details, can the Home Secretary give any such precedents?
      The CHAIRMAN: I thought that was the preamble of the hon. and learned Member's speech, and that he was leading up to the point that more time was required if his second proposition was not embodied in the Bill.
      Sir A. CRIPPS: I do not want to misunderstand you, and I do not want to argue the matter with you, but in that sense was I not right? I was saying that this Bill, or the first Clause, implies dismemberment and Disestablishment, which might mean one of two things. I said, taking that as the purport of the Clause and without going into details, whether on that basis the time should not be extended.
      The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member was right, and except in those opening sentences he did not really call for a reply on the merits to his first proposition, which was put as his preamble, and the point may arise on some later Amendment, but not on this.
      Mr. McKENNA: He addressed his argument to the Committee by observing that time would be required for the two branches of the dismembered Church.
      Sir A. CRIPPS: Yes.
      Mr. McKENNA: Consequently, he has got in his mind the conception of dismemberment as requiring time for the Church of England to heal itself, which I do not think is an idea ordinarily accepted. How can it be relevant to the time which should be given after the passing of this Bill and before it becomes operative in Wales to say that the Church of England in England, which has got all the time before it, should have an adequate period to heal itself from the wound? I cannot see the relevance of that argument. The only point which appears to me to be relevant in his observation is that the Church in Wales after Disestablishment will have to reorganise itself on a new basis, and I admit that, and SD far as time is concerned that appears to me to be the only relevant matter. The fact of dismemberment
      2536
      is not relevant to the question of time. Reorganisation is relevant to the question of time when the Church has to reorganise itself, but the fact that it was an integral member of the Church of England, and will still remain in communion with the Church of England and not Established, does not appear to me to be relevant to the question of time. I am going to submit to the Committee that the only point is, whether the time which we propose will give the new free Church of England and Wales time to reorganise itself before the Act becomes operative. What precedents have we got on that point? In the Irish case the actual period allowed was nearly eighteen months, but what had the Irish Church got to do? It had first of all to disentangle the whole of its finances, which was the longest part of the operation they had before them. With regard to Wales, the major part of that work has already been done. It must be appreciated by the Committee that the labours of the Royal Commission on the Welsh Church were in a large measure directed to this very point. We have now materials which I admit would have taken at least a year to accumulate, but are now in our hands and fully mastered, so that the difficulty with regard to finances is a difficulty which has already been got over. What, again, had the Irish Church to do with regard to reorganising itself? The case of the Irish Church was the first; newly Disestablished Church had for the first time to establish an organisation for its own government. We have to-day the precedent of the Irish Church. For forty-three years we have seen a free Anglican Church in Ireland working with a constitution without friction and without difficulty. What has the Welsh Church got to do? It has this precedent in front of it. It knows precisely what is the task that it has to perform. It has a model organisation before it. The hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of our breaking up its constitution.
      Sir A. CRIPPS: Dismembering it.
      Mr. McKENNA: Dismembering the constitution and requiring the introduction of a new constitution from top to bottom. We require nothing of the sort. If we were requiring a new constitution in the Church of England, such as would be needed if we were to abolish Episcopacy, there would be something in his argument. But we abolish nothing in the Church of England except its connection with the State. If the Church in Wales

      2537
      approves, the day after Disestablishment it can, through its bishops, clergy, and laity, meeting in Synod, elect a representative body. It may, if it pleases, set up a constitution for itself, exactly the same as the constitution under which it is now, with the single exception—
      Mr. GOULDING: What time is given to an ordinary public company to reorganise itself on winding up?
      Mr. McKENNA: I think that question would come better elsewhere than on this particular Amendment. I will answer it later if the hon. Member wishes.
      Mr. GOULDING: The Church, one day.
      Mr. McKENNA: I was submitting to the Committee the argument, which may be contradicted if I am wrong, that if the Church likes it can, with a single exception—the exception is a large one, I admit—reconstitute its reorganisation on precisely the same footing as it exists to-day. The single exception is that representatives of the Church in Wales will not be summoned to Convocation. That is not disastrous to the Church. For nearly 200 years the Church, whether in England or in Wales, was not summoned to Convocation.
      Sir A. CRIPPS: It was summoned every year.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: It was always summoned, but it did not act.
      Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord uses the correct term, but the substance is the same.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: The disaster is well known.
      Mr. McKENNA: I am dealing with what is essential to the Church. I am desirous of saying nothing in the least controversial. I am stating my point of view as simply as I can, and directing my observations solely to the question of time. I submit, in the first place, that it is desirable that the interim period after the passing of the Act and the date of Disestablishment should be as short as is convenient and suitable for the work that has to be done. I submit, secondly, that six months ought to be an adequate period, having regard to the facts I have stated, for the Church to reconstitute for itself a governing body. I submit, further, that the argument put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman that we should allow an extended
      2538
      period in order that the nation may have an opportunity of being consulted upon the Welsh Bill, is not relevant to this Amendment. If he had placed that argument on the Paper in words which could have been appreciated, the Amendment containing it would have suffered the same fate as other Amendments on the Paper, which were ruled out as not being within the scope of the Bill. I would remind the hon. and learned Member that the principle of the Referendum has been recently repudiated by his own party.
      The CHAIRMAN: I am reluctant to interfere in regard to a single sentence or two, but, if they are allowed, hon. Members pick them out, make a point of them, and follow them up, and then the whole Debate has to go on.
      Mr. McKENNA: Once again I am much obliged to you for relieving me from following that argument. The only case that can be argued on this Amendment is whether sufficient time is given to enable the Disestablished Church to constitute for itself a representative body. I submit to the Committee that a minimum period of six months, and a maximum period of twelve months, is ample for that purpose.
      Mr. A. LYTTELTON: The Home Secretary has absolutely ignored my hon. and learned Friend's distinction of the Irish precedent. My hon. and learned Friend anticipated what is rather a stock answer with hon. Gentlemen opposite, and himself at the very outset of his observations distinguished the so-called Irish precedent from the present case. The distinction is that there were no dismemberment provisions in the Irish Church Bill, whereas, for the first time in the history of these matters all over the world, dismemberment provisions—that is to say, provisions which mutilate the organism of the Church—have been inserted in this Bill. I submit with confidence to the Committee that that at once makes a complete difference with regard to the question of time. The present constitution of the Church of England, which of course embraces that of Wales, includes Convocation as one of its primary institutions. By the provisions which they have put in this Bill the Government not only cut off the Welsh portion of the Church from its position in Convocation, but, as I read the Bill, they make it absolutely impossible for it hereafter to join Convocation. Therefore, not only is the governing body or Convocation, to which the allegiance of

      2539
      Churchmen is due, cut off from the Welsh Church, but the Welsh Church is hereafter never to be able to join in its deliberations or to have part or voice in its decisions. That being so, it is absolutely childish to say in face of the provisions of the Bill, which the right hon. Gentleman ought to have mastered, that the Welsh Church can do as it likes afterwards. It cannot do precisely what I have said. It cannot join the ancient constitution under which it has for so many years existed.
      Mr. McKENNA: I mentioned Convocation.
      Mr. A. LYTTELTON: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Welsh Church could do precisely what it liked.
      Mr. McKENNA: With one exception.
      Mr. A. LYTTELTON: And what a large exception it is. What an extraordinary thing it is that, whereas it has been publicly claimed for the Wesleyan body in Wales that it shall never be severed from the main body of Wesleyans in this country, most stringent reasons having been given showing the immense loss that the Wesleyans in Wales would suffer, and whereas the Free Church Council, speaking with very great, authority, has promulgated precisely the same view; yet the ancient body of the Church in Wales is to be selected as the one religious body to be fettered against the will of its own people in the matter of having the constitution which it desires for its own spiritual wants and requirements. The time required for reorganisation is surely much longer than the right hon. Gentleman proposes. Directly you upset the old constitution for the government of the Church, it must be perfectly obvious to every hon. Member opposite that you embark on most difficult and delicate questions. You have to ascertain the different functions and powers of the bishops, clergy, and laity. Anybody who knows the elements of this subject knows that that is a most difficult and delicate matter, and that anything like haste in the decision of such points simply takes the ship on to the rocks. If you want these decisions to be made in a satisfactory and pacific way you must give plenty of time. It being proposed to accord such unprecedented treatment to the Church in Wales, I appeal to the Committee to allow that Church the time pro-
      2540
      posed by my hon. and learned Friend, which I submit is manifestly necessary and reasonable.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I really think the Government might grant this Amendment. Why on earth should not the Church have sufficient time for this purpose? The Home Secretary, who takes the opportunity of going away—
      Mr. McKENNA: I will wait.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I do not mind whether you wait or not. The Under-Secretary may be a little more yielding. Here you are Disestablishing the Church, separating the Church in Wales from the Church in England, taking away two-thirds of its funds, and now you will not give us more than six months in which to reorganise. Why not? What difference does it make? If you pass your Bill it will make no particular difference whether it comes into operation in six months, twelve months, or two years after. The Amendment proposed by the Home Secretary is that there should be a period of six months, which may be extended to twelve months by Order in Council. Why cannot the Government allow it to be extended to whatever length of lime is found necessary? We are not asking for anything unreasonable; we simply ask for time. The Home Secretary is the most sanguine man on earth. He told us that, first of all, he hoped the Bill would pass this year. He then said that the new body could be constituted in a day. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He said that the representative body, consisting of clergy and laity of the Church in Wales, could meet the day after the Bill passed. That is a most absurd and foolish statement. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise the difficulties connected with this reconstitution? We are not told in the least, in the Bill what is to be the Church in Wales. Who are to be the laity? That is not laid down in the Bill. There is a very vague Clause—Clause 13—stating that a new constitution may be formed, but no indication is given as to how it is to be formed. We know who the bishops and clergy are, but it is a very important question who are to be the laity—who are to have the right to take part in the Church franchise and the Church assemblies. That is a question which certainly cannot be settled in a day, and for the settlement of which in decency we contend you ought to give us sufficient time. Why on earth this hurry? We do not

      2541
      in the least know in what this process of Disestablishment is going to involve us. I do not want again to go into the arguments hinted at by my right hon. and learned Friend, but what precisely does Disestablishment mean? We know that the Church of Wales is to be Disestablished when the Bill passes. We know further that it is to be re-established and become a State Church by charter. If you only give us six months to arrange matters, there may be an interval between Disestablishment and what I may call re-establishment. What is to be the position of the Church in that interval? I submit that it is not possible to re-establish in the interval of six months. That being so, we may well ask what exactly you mean by Disestablishment, because there will be this interval after we are Disestablished, and we do not know exactly what it means, because there will not have been time to be re-established.
      Take, again, the precedent of the Irish Church. I really think the Home Secretary has not given sufficient consideration to that matter. It is all very well to say that in the case of Ireland that you have got a precedent. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Irish Church was definitely Established by Statute, and that when the Irish Church was Disestablished we knew what was being done? We knew the Statutes that were being repealed. I may remind the Under-Secretary and the Committee that at the commencement of the Committee stage of the Irish Church Disestablishment Bill the Statutes by which the Irish Church was Established were read out in the House. I invite the Under-Secretary, who is a very clever lawyer, to read out the Statutes under which the Church of Wales was Established, and which are to be repealed by this Bill! If he does, we shall know rather better than we know now what we are doing. He tells us, again, that it will be much easier to disentangle the funds. I question that. Let me remind him of this: There was not that mix up—if I may use a common phrase—in the case of Ireland as there is now in the case of the funds of the English and Welsh Churches. If he will only look at Clauses 5, 6, and 7 of the Bill he will find that there is special machinery by which Queen Anne's Bounty and the Ecclesiastical Commission are to separate those funds now going to the Church in Wales which are provided from English sources, and those funds derived from Welsh sources. Nothing
      2542
      of the sort took place in the case of Ireland—because it did not arise. So I say, in the case of Wales, there will be much more to do than in the case of Ireland as regards disentanglement of funds.
      I take another and a broader point, which gives us a very strong additional reason why we should have more time than in the case of the Irish Church. The endowed funds of the Irish Church were very great. You took away about half of them. You left the Church in Ireland more money, a good deal, than the Church of Wales has got now. If this Bill passes, and Disendowment is carried out in the way you suggest, whereby you take away two-thirds of the Endowments of the Church in Wales—I am taking the figures given by the Home Secretary, who is going to leave us 6s. 8d. in the £[An HON. MEMBER: "Of the Endowments?"] Exactly! two-thirds of the Endowments—it will be a tremendous question for the new Church body to know to what extent it will be possible to maintain the existing parochial system. It will be necessary to look around and see to what extent the inadequate sum that you leave us can be supplemented by voluntary contributions. It will be necessary for Churchmen to see exactly what their position will be, what parishes will have to be amalgamated—as I am afraid they will have to be in some cases—and to what extent it will be possible to maintain existing Church organisation. That is not going to be done in a day. That cannot be settled in this offhand, slap-dash manner. That will require a lot of time. You have no right, when you are taking away the money of the Church in Wales, robbing her of two-thirds of her property, to say that this thing is to come into operation at once—to add insult to injury, and to say you must get all your now arrangements into order. This is only a small machinery Amendment, but it is a matter of great importance to the Church, and I venture to make an appeal to the Under-Secretary and hon. Members opposite, who are never tired of telling us that they are doing this for the good of the Church—though I have never been able to distinguish the good myself—to meet us in this small matter of machinery. It cannot possibly make any difference to them. I therefore most earnestly hope that the Government will give way, at all events to the extent of taking out the maximum, and allowing the Church such time as is really required to bring the new constitution into operation.
      Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: You mentioned, Mr. Whitley, an Amendment of mine as being possibly in order after this discussion. Seeing the line that much of the discussion has taken, I had perhaps better put the special point connected with my Amendment in connection with the present discussion. I confess that I do not entirely like the Amendment that is before us, especially as qualified by the Amendment of the Home Secretary, because the object of my Amendment is to obtain a more indefinite time for a special object, that object being that at no moment shall the portion of the Church in Wales which is now to be severed from England cease to be part of the Church as a whole. If you have any particular time fixed, especially if it is reduced to six or twelve months, it is quite possible, even probable, that there will be a time between. The result will be that Churchmen in Wales will be exposed to having their Church Established by Statute, a thing that has not, in our opinion, ever taken place in connection with the National Church in England or Wales. I desire, therefore, until the Church as a whole in Wales and England, acting together through their Convocations, have had time to consider this new position, have given thought to it, and have devised a scheme of their own for carrying on the Church in Wales under very different circumstances—the still incomplete union with the old Church, with that part of the Church in England—that this Bill shall not come into operation. I certainly desire to have a more elastic arrangement, as mentioned in my Amendment.
      Surely there cannot be anybody on the other side of the House who can deny to the right of Churchmen to decide in the future how this and that should be organised? They cannot deny us that right, because they would always assume it for themselves in connection with any question of religious equality or religious liberty. Therefore it is on those grounds, I think, that we may very justly ask hon. Members opposite to support us in the appeal we are making for more time. If I cannot get my Amendment accepted, I shall support my hon. and learned Friend in his desire to have two years, because possibly that might be time enough to do what I require. At all events, that question of time is one which is of very much larger importance than the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has given to
      2544
      it. He said lightly: "The Church may tomorrow meet and do everything that is desired." My hon. Friend below me just alluded to the question of the laity. We know that by Clause 3 Ecclesiastical Law is abolished. I do not know that Statute Law is abolished in this land. Therefore we shall still be under the Toleration Act. We know the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary claims to be a Churchman under the Toleration Act. As an Ecclesiastical Commissioner he will be one of the laity of the new Church in Wales, one of this representative body which can meet on the morrow after this Act has passed! I think that he must realise that this is really a more serious matter than we can gather from the way he treated it. This new constitution is not a question that can be settled in a moment. Still less can it be settled how it is to work.
      Churchmen are unanimous, I believe, or practically unaimous, in a desire that the Church shall remain an ecclesiastical whole, and unity. I think we are perfectly justified in asking for a great deal more time than the Government are affording us in connection with this. Of course there are the extreme difficulties of the Endowment question. We do not know yet really how we stand in connection with that matter. There are plenty of difficult questions raised under the Bill already which certainly require a considerable amount of time to consider. The Government have suggested that they are treating us with a certain amount of generosity because they have allowed Queen Anne's Bounty and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to pay English money in Wales. That question requires a good deal of consideration before we know that it can be done, and what security can be given to Wales that this money from England may not subsequently be taken from England by a Ministry which follows the present Government, and tries to Disestablish the Church in England? We have, on the one hand, a new proposition entirely different from those which arose in connection with the Irish Church. But I do not myself desire to go into that side of the question, because I want rather to confine myself to the special point in connection with my own Amendment. I do feel on that question we have the right to appeal to hon. Members opposite to support us in our desire. We have been told that this is not a question of dismemberment. It is a question of dismemberment. It must remain a question of dismemberment. We have a

      2545
      reasonable claim to call upon hon. Members to help us when we are trying to prevent this dismemberment. We may be overcome on the question of Disestablishment, but we do require this one thing—that we shall be given time to make our new constitution without having any lapse whatsoever between the old condition of the Church and the new constitution that may be devised. It is that we may know that, that we do ask for a longer time than the Government now are affording us.
      6.0 P.M.
      I do not know that I shall be in order now in going into the question of how far the great changes in the Church, for which the State is responsible, were or were not supported by Convocation at the time they passed. At all events, we know that at a period which the Government are very fond of quoting, the period of the Reformation, King Henry VIII. was always most careful that in the great changes he made he was supported by Convocation. On every occasion I think you will find that Convocation is quoted as supporting that passed by the State. You will see that the King was especially careful that the Church remained one right through all these great moments of change, and did not, as has been put forward by some Members of the Government, somewhat rashly, become entirely a new Church. They got through that period by an appeal to Convocation, and by an appeal to the opinion of the Church. And it is that opinion and that appeal we make again now when you are making another far greater change by tearing to pieces the Church. We ask that you should at all events allow Churchmen on the ecclesiastical side to state exactly what they desire with reference to the future constitution of the Church. It is impossible for us to do it if you limit the time; it is impossible for us to carry through that reorganisation which we believe to be necessary if you limit it to six months, and it is upon that ground that I most earnestly ask hon. Members opposite to support us and to give us more time in order to carry out the system.
      Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I wish to add my appeal to that of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, to the Government and to hon. Members on the other side, for some further elasticity in regard to the time they are giving for the reconstitution of the Church and for consideration of the aspects in which Disendowment will
      2546
      immediately place the Church the moment it passes into law. This is a point which affects the whole of the Bill, but the only other reference to time that I can find in the Bill is that in Clause 5, Sub-section (2), which says, "Queen Anne's Bounty shall, as soon as may be after the passing of the Act," go into all these questions. Let me put the Disendowment point first. The moment this Act passes, under Clause 6, Queen Anne's Bounty ceases to have any power in Wales or any jurisdiction in Wales, and what is the first thing that will happen? Security for the loans which Queen Anne's Bounty has made to Wales immediately comes in, and I presume these loans will have to be paid the first thing. The first thing Queen Anne's Bounty will require under their Statutes and re-establishment will be the repayment of these temporary loans by the Welsh Church, suffering at that moment from disorganisation, disruption, and Disendowment. But that is not all. Under Clause 8, Sub-section A (4), the moment the Church is Disestablished and Disendowed she has suddenly got to find money under that Subsection (4) to repurchase all the glebes which are actually to be taken away. The hon. Member for Merthyr said "No" two or three times. He said "No" the last time I raised this point.
      Mr. EDGAR JONES: I did not say anything now.
      Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am glad of that. What is the Church required to do the moment it is Disestablished and Disendowed? She has got to find the money to rebuy all these glebe lands, that is to say, she has got to hand over to the Welsh Commissioners at their valuation a sum of money which certainly will not be less than half a million sterling. That will be found at the top of page 7 of the Bill. I do submit that the Church does require time for that. How can the Church, going through this crisis in its history, suddenly raise this large sum of money? I could enumerate several other points, but it is perfectly clear under your drastic Disendowment proposals, the Church will require two years or at any rate a period of elasticity in order to get any sort of organisation to start this work. Let me go back to the point of dismemberment. The Home Secretary this afternoon said he is going to leave the Church free with the exception of one point. That is to say, the Church is no longer to be represented in Convocation. He seems to forget he answered

      2547
      questions on this subject between the time of the First and Second Reading. I bombarded him from day to day with questions and I discovered that the Church is not going to be constituted merely under a representative body, there is to be a sort of bifurcated system. The Synod is suddenly going to be given power. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] An hon. Member says "Why not?" Because we do not want it. You say you are going to free the Church; you are going to do nothing of the kind. Under Clause 3, which we shall probably not have an opportunity of discussing at all, you are going to have no delay or give any time for the Church to look round. You are going to set up this under a bifurcated constitution. Certain parts of the Church is to be governed by a Synod; the right of ceremony and various other things are to be governed by representative bodies.
      I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's attention was called to a protest by the Bishop of North Queensland, published in the "Nineteenth Century," arising out of his reply, where the Bishop shows that this system of Church government in Australia from his experience is the very worst you could possibly have. The whole of this Clause will necessitate and make it absolutely essential that we should have time. There will be most difficult negotiations. The first thing to be settled is admittedly exceedingly difficult in this country. That is, what exactly is a member of the Church? The Home Secretary says he is a member of the Church, but he is rather a peculiar member of the Church. Then you have got to have some representative organisation, and they have got to decide how-many laymen and clergy are to be represented in the Synod and how many in the representative body, and these negotiations have to take place, and the King in Council is to re-establish the Church by charter under Clause 38. One thing is perfectly clear from the feeling amongst laymen and clergymen in the Church in Wales, and it is that we are not going to have the Home Secretary's draft constitution forced upon us in this matter, and the first thing we shall do before anything of this sort takes place is to press for a most drastic provision, for some order or re-Establishment proposal under Clause 3, binding ecclesiastical laws or matters of contract on an appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is to be no longer any part of us, and will be a sort of court, to
      2548
      whom all ecclesiastical points are to be put, but whose decision will not be enforced, as we find in the ridiculous proposal like that at the bottom of Clause 2. No Church can constitute itself under a constitution of that kind; no Church could live and frame any constitution under the proposals in this Bill or in your charter. This question of Establishment and re-Establishment will be full of the strongest and most bitter controversy. Yet you are going to try and force this through without delay in opposition to this appeal and without any elasticity. It seems to me you are going to take away all the revenues of the Church and the money for Queen Anne's Bounty, and the Welsh Commissioners will want to be repaid without delay for the glebe lands belonging to the Church for centuries. We ask for elasticity for some delay, and therefore I urge the Government to accept this Amendment.
      Mr. EDGAR JONES: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down made a very pointed allusion to me personally. That has become the practice of the hon. Member, and he has done it before. I do not think he has any business to do anything of the kind.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: Why?
      Mr. EDGAR JONES: Does the Noble Lord suggest that an hon. Member who, like myself, never said anything, neither whispered nor shook his head, is to be accused across the floor of the House of having made an interruption or an interjection. Does the Noble Lord justify that?
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not think if the hon. Member said nothing anyone would be justified in making an accusation that he had said something, but as I understand it my hon. Friend immediately withdrew that. As for the right of an hon. Member of this House to refer to any other hon. Member or make any criticism on an hon. Member I think that right is undisputed and indisputable.
      Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I made a mistake. It was the hon. Gentleman near the hon. Member for Merthyr who dissented, and I attributed it to the hon. Gentleman because it was on this particular point the hon. Member for Merthyr interrupted me the last time. I beg the hon. Member's pardon, and I hope he will accept my apology.
      The CHAIRMAN: May I point out the inconvenience of interruptions of any kind. We are here to listen to things that we do not agree to and it is not necessary to express dissent at everything that is said.
      Mr. EDGAR JONES: I made no interruption and said nothing and I never moved my head, but I am not going to allow the hon. Member by implication to suggest that I was doing a thing I never did and never intended to do, and I do not think the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs has the right to make imputations of that kind.
      The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member in accordance with the usual courtesy of the House withdrew and apologised.
      Mr. DUKE: I do not think that right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite really appreciate what they propose to do in not giving a reasonable period for carrying out the purposes of this Clause. It is said, and reiterated that there is no intention to disturb in any way the spiritual and religious work of the Church in Wales or to destroy the spiritual and religious identity of the Church in Wales. If that is a true profession and if right hon. Gentlemen appreciate the difficulty of the position which exists they will feel themselves bound to yield to the demand for a reasonable time for bringing this Bill into operation in order that the continuity of the existence of the work of the Church in Wales may not be broken. As I said I do not think that what is proposed to be done can be fully appreciated. Take the case of the parochial life of the Church in Wales. That is suddenly by a stroke to be extinguished. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Yes, it is to be extinguished, but as I say I do not think that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen really appreciate what they are doing. There will be no status for parishioners of any parish in the Church in Wales when this Bill becomes law unless it is preserved. I gather, from the observations made across the floor, that there are hon. Members who do not think that that is any misfortune, but we believe it is a great misfortune, and, at any rate, it is declared not to be the object of this Bill. This Debate has shown clearly that what is proposed to be done is to establish a new organisation in Wales. You are to replace in six months an organisation which has grown up in the course of very nearly 2,000 years. It cannot be done, and hon. and right hon. Gentle-
      2550
      men will appreciate that it cannot be done if they think about it. Take the case of the parochial organisation. Every parishioner in Wales at the present time has, at any rate, a set of rights as a parishioner and as a member of the National Church as it at present exists. When this Bill has become an Act, unless Clauses are introduced which preserve those rights they will be gone. With regard to the position of the clergy vis-a-vis with the members of the Church, and what I might call the hierarchy of the Church, their duties will have been destroyed, their duties to their parishioners will have ceased, and their obligations to any authority above them will have passed away, obligations and duties which depend not upon the statutes of the time of Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Charles II., but which depend upon laws as old as the Common Laws of England, and some a good deal older. Can it be conceived that six months is a sufficient time in which you can reorganise an old Church or constitute a new Church? It is impossible. Take the higher question of the spiritual and religious life of the Church of England as it at present exists as one organic entity. The only consistent feature in the operation of this Bill is that it proposes to blot out for the time being the Welsh member and the Welsh minister of the National Church, and it leaves them to be brought into a new institution, and it leaves all the future relations of the Churchman to the Church in which he has been born to be established either by new Statutes or a new Charter. Is six months a sufficient time to carry such a purpose as that into effect? My hon. Friends who live in Wales, and are members of the Church there, feel a sensitiveness about this which no man who shares and enjoys the membership of the Church of England can fail to appreciate. They realise that the effect of this Bill will cause them to cease by Statute to be members of the Church in the sense in which they are members at the present time. The Home Secretary rather boasts of his membership of the Church of England, but if it is a real membership, if it carries with it either responsibilities or privileges, and the right hon. Gentleman appreciates them, his sympathy ought to go out to people face to face with what they regard as a catastrophe to a Church to which they are devoted, he ought to see that if this blow is to fall it should not produce the detestable result of lopping off—[laughter]—that amuses some hon. Members opposite

      2551
      who are not going to hurt the Church in England. You should see that it does not produce the lopping off of dioceses and great masses of the parishioners of that ancient National Church, leaving them to flounder under the care of the Privy Council to ascertain whether they can ever again come into effective communion with the Church of England. I beg the Home Secretary to consider what he is doing in this respect, and do it with ordinary humanity and regard to the deep-seated feelings and apprehensions of members of the Church in this country and members of the Church in Wales.
      Mr. GOULDING: I desire to join in the appeal made by so many of my hon. Friends on this side that the Government should give more serious consideration to this Amendment. May I remind the Home Secretary that when the Prime Minister moved the Guillotine Resolution in regard to this Bill he specifically stated that when the Bill got into Committee, while the Government would resolutely adhere to the principles of their measure, they would lend favourable consideration to any proposals put forward by Churchmen on this side of the House. Now we are in the Committee, and this is the first proposal made by Churchmen on this side of the House, I ask the right hon. Gentleman can he or one of his colleagues explain to us where the principle of this Bill will be hurt, or where the party opposite will be hurt, or where a single vested interest will be created against their desire, or in what single material point will they, and those who hold their views, gain any advantage by not conceding this Amendment? The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that no vested interest will be created by accepting this Amendment, and not a single penny will be taken from all your glorious aims for providing funds for museums and menageries. This Amendment will enable you to show clearly the bona fides of your statement, again and again repeated, that you do not want to persecute the Church, that you do not want to level at her unfair and harsh treatment, and that all you do want is, to the best of your ability, to do away with what you call an injustice as regards the inequalities of religious institutions in Wales.
      I again most earnestly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider the facts. This is a Church you are going to
      2552
      attack and from which you are going to take two-thirds of its funds. Is there a single individual who possesses an average amount of wealth who himself would not feel crippled in his affairs if two-thirds of his income were taken away from him? You are dealing with an institution which has not great wealth, and you are going to take two-thirds of the funds of the Church. Under these circumstances I think it is only common decency that she should have ample time to put her house in order, so that she can carry out and continue the good missionary work which the Prime Minister has submitted she is doing to-day for all classes of the community in Wales. It is perfectly idle for the right hon. Gentleman to say that this question is on all fours with the Irish Church, because there is no analogy whatsoever between the two. The Irish Church creation was quite of recent date, whilst the history of the Welsh Church goes back to the Dark Ages. Her history is entwined with all these questions, which you cannot unravel in a moment, and which will require the care and infinite pains of those who are going to put this house in order. The right hon. Gentleman says this thing can be established in a day. In the case of the Synod established in Ireland at that time, we see to-day immeasurable loopholes and difficulties which, if there had been more time for discussion would not have existed. Every single person knows when you set up any of these institutions, if you are going to make the basis sound, it must be done at the beginning, for then you have a better chance of success than if you delay the matter until the thing is established, when the people concerned have other duties more closely associated with their own interests which engage their special attention.
      The Home Secretary said that the Irish Church was only given this short time because it was found impossible to disentangle the conditions. Remember, the Irish Church was a rich body with ample funds, and even when they were taken away from her she was left richer than the Church of Wales is before you take anything from her. Therefore, it is not right to say that you are going to impose upon these people only the task of disentanglement, because you are also imposing upon them the task of having to find the necessary money to keep the Church going in the particular parishes and districts where your spoliation will lead to the crippling and shutting down of Church institutions.

      2553
      If you take any single institution, like the Church in Wales, where there maybe some 1,200 or 1,500 parsons, there must be an average of something like fifty or sixty of them who die every year, and that entails upon individuals the huge task of paying their successors the inadequate salary of £150 a year, and that means raising £7,500 each year to enable them to carry on the work. I ask the right hon. Gentleman what do you secure in this Bill by depriving us of ample time to put our house in order? Even if this iniquitous Bill is carried into force, do you wish it to be said that not only did you carry out your spoliation, but you did every single thing you could in order to prevent us putting our house, in order and to prevent the people in Wales from carrying out the great work they are doing? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell me where you are going to be harmed by accepting this Amendment. If you are not being harmed, are you not bound by the statement of the Prime Minister that you would give favourable consideration to the suggestions coming from Churchmen on this side of the House, if those suggestions did not interfere with the principle of the Bill?
      The Home Secretary alluded to the Irish Church, and he asked us to remember that her Disestablishment did not lead to dismemberment of the Church of England. May I point out that the Irish Church was a perfectly separate organisation? It was never controlled and influenced by the entirely different connections and principles which animate the Church of England as she is to-day, and, therefore, when she was Disestablished, she had that foundation to go upon which existed previously to the Disestablishment Bill being passed. But you have nothing of the kind in Wales. Let me put one point to the Home Secretary as regards a particular parish. Do you think it is an easy thing, first and foremost, to find who are the people to vote in the parish; and, secondly, if a vacancy occurs in a living, who is to appoint? If there is a difference of opinion as regards the appointment, what kind of appeal do you give? Those are questions which, when the Irish Church was Disestablished, took endless time for consideration. Why in the name of patience do you deny to the Church in Wales ample time for the consideration of such questions as these? They are not hurting you. You are not going to lose one penny by it. You are proceeding with a spirit of poli-
      2554
      tical persecution against your political opponents and against Churchmen in Wales. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to allow one of his colleagues to see what he can do to meet us on this point, and do not start by the rejection of this Amendment, but deal with it fairly and squarely, and show that it is not your intention to persecute and chivvy the Church at every point.
      Mr. KING: I desire, if I can, to bring the Committee back to a spirit of reasonable and moderate discussion on this Amendment. I understand the proposal is that after the Act is passed two years shall be allowed to elapse before the Statute really comes into operation. The Home Secretary has already made a concession by the Amendment on the Paper, which I suppose will be moved, to extend the period before the Act comes into force to twelve months. [HON. MEMBERS: "Six months."] Well, it extends it six months beyond the original six months. The words in the Amendment are "twelve months." It will therefore be quite possible to have twelve months before the Act comes into operation. I would like to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that that concession has not received a word of thanks.
      Lord R. CECIL: No.
      Mr. KING: Well, if we are to get no thanks for offering six months more, why do you expect us to think you are sincere when you ask for two years more? The fact is that any concessions from this side are not met in a spirit which I can understand. We have frequently been told this Bill is going to dismember the Church. I should like to understand what hon. Members mean by that. I do not see anything about disemberment in the Bill at all. What is disemberment? We know, if a criminal is dismembered, he is hanged, drawn, and quartered, but when you talk in a metaphorical way of dismembering the Church, it can only be correct if you forcibly prevent a certain section of that Church being in communication, or having common life with another part of it, and that is just what we do not do by this Bill.
      The CHAIRMAN: We are not on the merits of that question now. I think it will arise later. Hon Members who have made reference to it have only done so on the point of the amount of time required for constructing and putting into effect the new constitution.
      Mr. KING: I quite understand, but surely it is in order to point out there is, as far as we understand it, no real dismemberment in the strict sense of the word? A great deal has been made of the point that a brand-new constitution from top to bottom is being imposed on the Church. I do not see that it is a brand-new constitution. The four bishops remain as they were before.
      Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Read Clause 13.
      Mr. KING: I have read Clause 13, but we are on Clause 1 at the present time. A brand new constitution is not being imposed upon the Church. It is a mere adaptation of the present constitution and order of the Church to very slightly altered spiritual conditions, and I believe the Committee is firmly convinced the point of view we take is reasonable. The Church of England in Wales has been warned this was coming for at least twenty-five years. This Bill has now been introduced for the third time into the House of Commons. There has been ample warning for the Church to set its house in order, and, in view of this fact, which no one can deny, I trust the Government will not give way any further.
      Mr. CAMPION: The hon. Member who has just spoken said the Government were proposing to extend the period to twelve months. I do not think he can have read the Government Amendment very carefully, because, if he had done so, he would have seen the six months could only be extended to twelve months by an Order in Council. I am very much astounded at the fact the Government give no indication whatever of accepting this Amendment. There is an immense amount of work the Church will have to do between the passing of the Act and the time it comes into force, and I think a strong case has been made out for further time, whilst no real reason has been produced for refusing our suggestion. It could not in any way injure the Bill or the Government. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have referred frequently to precedent. They referred to the Irish precedent which, in my opinion, is in no way an analogous case. There is one precedent to which no reference has been made, and it is the precedent of the Bill of 1909, and. I think I am correct in saying, the Bill also of 1885. According to the Bill of 1909, when circumstances were quite different and when we had a constitution, longer time was allowed than in the present Bill.
      2556
      The Bill of 1909 entered the Committee stage in May, and, presumably, if it had been proceeded with, it would have passed during that year. The Act was to come into force in January, 1911, so that it was then proposed to give at least eighteen months for the Church to organise its affairs and to set its house in order. It is certainly pertinent to ask why the Government have changed their minds and have now adopted a still more drastic proposal. I would add my voice, as a Churchman, to that of others who feel strongly on this question, and beg the Government even now to allow us further time. Let them show us they are bonâ fide in their contention, that they do not wish ill to the Church, that they are in earnest, and that they really wish well to the Church. Surely, they might agree to this Amendment. It could do them no harm, and it would at any rate prevent chaos in the Church and be better for the religious life of the country generally.
      Mr. HOARE: The hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. King) seems to think, when the Government come forward with an Amendment likely to make the Bill less unjust than it is already, we ought to fall down on our knees and thank the Home Secretary. Let me at once tell hon. Members opposite we intend to do no such thing. We know perfectly well these Amendments are not put down on the Paper because hon. Members opposite wish to meet us, but because they feel the pressure of Liberal Churchmen outside is so strong and that their seats would not I be safe if they did not do so. The reception which my hon. Friend's Amendment has had seems to me to be most significant. We have heard over and over again that the Government are prepared to consider any reasonable Amendment. Here is an Amendment so reasonable that no substantial argument has been urged against it at all. The Home Secretary pointed to two arguments to justify his refusal. He said first of all no great delay was necessary, because the Royal Commission on the statistics and condition of the Welsh Church had done a large quantity of work which it would not be necessary to do over again. I cannot see the relevance in that argument. I have read both the evidence and the Report of that Commission in some detail, and the lesson it seems to me to teach is not that the work has been done, and that therefore no hardship will be imposed upon the Church if Disestablishment comes into operation at once, but

      2557
      how extraordinarily complicated are all the questions, financial and administrative, involved in the separation you propose of an organic whole.
      It seems to me hon. Members opposite quote the Irish precedent when it suits their purpose, and refuse to acknowledge it applies when it does not suit their purpose. That takes away all justification whatever for their arguments from that precedent. My hon. Friend only this afternoon pointed to the fact that the Instruction which was moved was in exact accordance with the Irish precedent, but it was refused by hon. Members opposite, and now we are told by the Home Secretary that it was in accordance with the Irish precedent the transaction should be carried through in all haste, and no argument we could urge would have any applicability or make the Government alter their decision. If the Irish precedent proves anything at all, it immensely strengthens the case for the Amendment and for our demand for more time. It does not matter whether you take the question of dismemberment, the question of Disestablishment, or the question of Disendowment. In each of those three respects the Irish case was much simpler than the present case. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Laurence Hardy) has already drawn attention to one point in which delay is of the utmost importance to the Church you are Disestablishing and Disendowing. He pointed out that under Clause 3 and Clause 13 a new body is to be set up, into whose hands the Home Secretary desires the management and government of the Disestablished Church should pass. It is of the utmost importance that full time should be allowed to the Church to decide of whom that representative body is to consist. During the Debates we have already had, we have had impressed upon us the extraordinary difficulties that will arise in defining what are the rights of the Commissioners and in what manner they will be able to deal with general questions such as the Marriage Laws and many other questions of the utmost complication which can only be settled with a reasonable allowance of time. I, therefore, say we have the strongest case in the world for demanding that the operation of the Bill should be put off until a time when the Church has had an opportunity of really putting its house in order, so that it may meet the extraordinary difficulties
      2558
      which are bound to arise. If this Amendment is not accepted by the Government we can only assume that the reason of their refusal is to be found in the fact that an election would intervene between passing the Bill and its operation. I think that that is really at the back of the minds of hon. Members opposite in refusing to accept this Amendment. They do not like the idea of having the Bill referred to the country before it comes into force.
      Mr. WALTER ROCH: I approach this Amendment with a perfectly open mind, and I can assert there is no wish on the part of any single Welsh Member to make this Bill operate harshly on the Church. The Welsh Liberal Members number amongst their ranks twice as many Churchmen as are to be found in the Welsh Unionist party. I am one of those Churchmen, and I am prepared to state that in all the discussions which the Welsh Members have had on this Bill I have never found a single one of my colleagues who has no desire to meet any legitimate point put forward by the Church. I will try and put before the House why I think the arguments which have been adduced in support of this Amendment have no weight at all. The narrow point of this Amendment is that there should be more time given for the Church to set its house in order. There are two arguments advanced in favour of that. The first is in regard to Convocation, where the discussions range over a very wide area. I admit it is a point well deserving of consideration, but I venture to suggest that no single Member who has spoken from the other side of the House has shown that the great of more time could have anything to do with the question of dismemberment. Whether it is two years or five years, there is no shred of difficulty which an extension of time would meet. Apart from what may be said of the merits of Convocation that has nothing whatever to do with the extension of time.
      The second argument, put: forward was this—we must give the Church more time to set its house in order. That is a point of considerable importance. But I venture to suggest that an extension of time is not really necessary. I approach this as a Churchman living in Wales, and as a parishioner taking an interest in the Church as it now is and as it is to be in the future. Why do I say that no great length of time is wanted? My view is that the Church, even when this Bill becomes law, will have a considerable period given it to

      2559
      discover exactly what its position is, and it will be able to keep going all its existing ecclesiastical organisations. In fact, the Church will go along just the same as before. It is said that time is wanted to put its finances in order, but I do not think that much time is wanted, because we must not lose sight of the fact that this Bill preserves the existing life interests of the beneficed clergy. Therefore, for a considerable time, no difficulty can arise. The beneficed clergy will have their life interests preserved under this Bill, and, in consequence, it is an undoubted fact that in a great many parishes the difficulty with regard to finance will not arise for a long time. I do not see how there can be any real difficulty on that ground, and I believe that practical, common-sense Churchmen will agree with me that ample time is allowed.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Member opposite has made a speech with the tone of which none of us will quarrel. It gives a glimpse of the feeling of apprehension among Churchmen which we do not notice on the Treasury Bench. In the first place, let me say a word as to his point about finance. He seems to think that the only financial problem will be how to pay the vicar or rector of the parish. But you have to provide also for the curate, and, in the places which this Bill will most seriously hit, namely, the poorer parts of the big towns, the question of the curate will be a very serious thing. There is another point. It is stated in the great towns that the resources of the Church will be affected badly by this question of Endowment. But the Endowments only represent a part of that which will have to be supplied, and that part which will have to be supplied will have to be obtained from the poorer districts. That is the matter which will require very earnest consideration. You will have to consider whether you are going to form a central fund or a local fund. You will have a vast amount of financial detail to deal with, and anyone who has had experience in the administration of Church funds will not dispute the enormous amount of work which arises in connection with funds of that character. The hon. Member suggests that no great change will be made in the constitution of the Church, and that it will go on as before, subject only to this fact, that it will be a voluntary Church. But you cannot have a voluntary Church in the same position as the Church which now exists. The
      2560
      two things are absolutely distinct, and you will have to provide fresh machinery. That is one of the difficulties you will have to meet.
      Then there is another difficulty. I observe that in Sub-section (4) one of the things that may be done by the Constitution is to alter or modify certain Acts of Parliament. But owing to the operation of the guillotine we shall not be able to discuss what will be the effect of Disestablishment in itself. Personally, I do not understand how that Sub-section (4) is to work. The thing will prove to be very complicated. When a Clause absolutely wipes out Statute Law, surely it is an absurdity to talk of modifying it, and we shall have to carefully consider what is to be done in this matter. The whole code of the law is very complicated and very difficult as it applies to the Church at present, and the point will be how is it to be modified and what changes will be necessary in order to meet the new state of things. No one who really seriously thinks the matter over will deny that these changes must take an immense amount of time. The Home Secretary seems to be of opinion that six months will be sufficient, but I think that that is perfectly ludicrous and ridiculous, and hon. Members must know that quite well. No injury could be done or accrue by further delay, and the only reason for opposing the Amendment is the solitary one that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not care to face a General Election before the Bill comes into operation as an Act of Parliament. But that is a characteristic of the modern Liberal. He always desires to govern without reference to the people. I venture to assert there is not the slightest doubt in the mind of any single Member in this House that if this Bill were submitted to the country it would be rejected, as it deserves to be, by an overwhelming majority.
      The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): I will not follow the Noble Lord in his peroration. No one doubts that the Church must do a certain amount of work after this Bill becomes law, and the real question is whether the time allowed for that should be six months, or, possibly, twelve months on the one side, or two years on the other. I agree with the doctrine laid down by my hon. Friend. But the Noble Lord referred to the large towns. Does he remember that in the

      2561
      three large towns, Cardiff, Swansea, and Newport, the Endowments only represent about £l,000 a year, or less than one halfpenny per head of population. Does he think the Church will have any difficulty in making up that amount under the altered state of affairs? The difficulty can only arise as the Endowments cease.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: The Under-Secretary omits the fact that there is a great deal which these Endowments do besides paying the salary of the local incumbent, and if you take away the Endowments you have to provide money for the other purposes to which they are now applied.
      7.0 P.M.
      Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I do not know whether the Noble Lord means the £14,000 for the Curates Sustentation Fund. Of course, the Church gets that under the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think I am quite right. All this money goes either to the incumbents or to the curates. I really think the Noble Lord's point is not well founded in this particular instance. There are two points to consider, the Disendowment point and the Disestablishment point. With regard to Disendowment certain information is necessary before the Church can know where it stands. It took a considerable time to get that information in the Irish case. I do not know whether the Committee will take it from me, but we believe that all this information is absolutely ready, so far as the Welsh Church is concerned. There were certain facts omitted from the Welsh Church Commission, but we think we are now in a position to supply all the figures. We know how much comes from tithe, how much comes from glebe, we know how much comes from the Welsh portion of Queen Anne's Bounty, and from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. We believe we have all these facts, and that, so far as figures are concerned, no substantial time is necessary to make any preparation, so far as Disendowment is concerned.
      A word upon the Disestablishment point. When we say Disestablishment, an hon. Member says, do not forget dismemberment, but it is no worse, because you repeat the same objection in two forms. They are the two names given to the same thing. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If you look at it from the Welsh point of view it is Disestablishment, and if you look at it from the English point of view it is dismemberment. You cannot Disestablish the Church in Wales without, in a sense,
      2562
      dismembering it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I say it is impossible to Disestablish the Church in Wales without dismembering it, because it is a part of the province of Canterbury, and you cannot set it up as a free Church without dismembering it in order to Disestablish it. Something has been said, and rightly said, about the reconstitution which will require time. The representative body has got to be formed, and something has got to be done for the government—we call it the self-government—of the Church in the altered circumstances. It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) that we first of all Disestablish the Church for a certain number of months, and then re-establish it by Charter. If that is so, I cannot quite understand his objection to the Bill, because the Church will still remain Established, only in one case by Act of Parliament, and in the other case by Charter.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: My point was that unless you give sufficient time, there may be an interval between Disestablishment and re-establishment.
      Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I understand the hon. Member's opinion is that it is Established to-day, that after this Bill is passed it will be Disestablished, and that by Charter it will be re-established again. That is not our view. Let me say explicitly what our view is upon that point. When the Church is Disestablished the connection between the Church in Wales and the State is severed. It will then be for the Church in Wales to form whatever constitution it likes for itself. Hon. Members opposite ask, "Why do not you refer it to Convocation?" We say frankly that that is not our business as a Parliament, and that it is for you to say under what government you wish to live. I am enough of a Welsh Nationalist to believe that the Welsh Church, when it is severed from the State, when it is governed by itself, not merely by the bishops and clergy, but also by the laity, will be a powerful Church in the sense it has never been before.
      The CHAIRMAN: I rather think that is a matter for Second Reading.
      Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I bow to your ruling, Sir. I was led into the subject. Hon. Members say that it will take time to formulate the constitution. It would take less time if we were going to impose a constitution upon it.
      Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Did not the Home Secretary say that under this Bill he was going to leave the constitution to the Synod? You are going to impose upon us something under this Bill which we do not like.
      Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: If we were gong to impose it upon you it would take less time to do it. Although this is an important point, I do not think it is relevant to this particular Amendment, but I think it will be an advantage to both sides if I were to say, and my right hon. Friend agrees, that it will be for the Church to do whatever it thinks right in the circumstances. The point we put to hon. Members opposite is that we think six months with a possible limit of twelve months, is quite sufficient for the purpose. I believe it took a little over six months to frame a constitution in the case of the Irish Church, and I believe six months will be quite ample in this case for the Welsh Church. I agree that in the case of the Irish Church it took longer from start to finish, but after the body which had to be brought into existence met it took from February until November. At any rate, we claim that in these circumstances the limit we propose is a reasonable limit. An hon. Member opposite said he wanted to make it an indefinite time. We do not think it ought to be an indefinite time. We say that six months, or, at the most, twelve months, is quite sufficient time for the Church in Wales to be Disestablished and Disendowed, as it is by this Bill, to take all steps that are necessary to place itself upon a firm footing as a free Church under a constitution adapted to itself, by which it will be able to rule and govern itself, and that it will have time within this period to take all necessary steps with regard to the Endowments left to it and to provide the necessary parochial organisation.
      Viscount WOLMER: If there is any sincerity at all in the profession we have had from the opposite side of the Committee that there is no intention to injure or persecute the Church, the Government would have accepted this Amendment without the slightest hesitation. This Amendment in no way interferes with the Bill or with the object of hon. Members opposite, and the refusal of it can only mean that they desire to impose upon the Church a petty piece of tyranny and to make it as difficult for that Church as they can. The
      2564
      work the Church will have to do after the passing of this Bill will be perfectly colossal. Attempts have been made from the other side to belittle what the Church will have to do. I will give hon. Members opposite a list of the things which will have to be accomplished to make good the damage that will be done by the passing of this Bill. In the first place, the Church will have to hold a Synod to make a new constitution, and to settle on what franchise the laity are to vote in order to have elections, if there are to be elections. That means that they will have to take a sort of religious census all over the country. Then they will have to hold these elections, if elections are decided upon. Then the whole question of parishes will have to be settled. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke) said that under this Bill all parishioners' rights would cease, but I venture to suggest that the point is left in absolute confusion by the Bill. I ask hon. Members opposite to look at Clause 8, Sub-section (2), in which it is said:—
      "Save as otherwise provided by this Act, all property transferred under this Section shall be held subject to all existing public and private rights with respect thereto."
      That means that when the Churches are restored to the Disestablished Church, the property will be held by the Church subject to the existing rights which parishioners have at the present moment. At any rate the matter is one of the very gravest doubt. The clearing up of the ambiguities in this Bill will be one of the most difficult tasks for those who are responsible for the government of a Church in her new Disestablished form. That shows the extraordinary amount of chaos and confusion the Church will have to wade through before she can adapt herself to the new conditions under which she will find herself after this Bill is passed. Then the Church will have to reconstitute, from beginning to end, the Ecclesiastical Courts and all the machinery connected with them. The dioceses of the Church will have to be made afresh, so as to fit in with the geographical limits imposed by the Bill. Hon. Members are well aware that this Bill breaks up the diocesan organisation of the Church. The whole of that will have to be readjusted. Alteration and modification will have to take place in all the parishes, in all the deaneries, and in all the dioceses. The Church will be faced with a great financial problem which will be suddenly forced upon her. She will have

      2565
      to see how this generation is to meet the strain imposed upon it through having the benefactions of a dozen generations suddenly taken away from the Church. There is a question to which attention was drawn by the hon. Member for Denbigh (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) which has not yet been answered by any hon. Member opposite. That is to say, the Church will be forced to buy back her own glebes immediately Disestablishment takes place. I suppose the object of that is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall be able to confiscate that property on some future occasion. At any rate, it will mean a very complicated and difficult financial transaction for the Church to carry through.
      Then there is another point which I do not think has been mentioned yet, and that is that the Welsh Commissioners under this Bill will have to make a whole series of regulations which will have to be approved by Order in Council, and then laid upon the Table of the House; and then the Church will have to adapt herself to these regulations. That is to say, that none of the work of reorganisation and reconstruction can be commenced until those regulations are completed and approved and made public. Therefore, before these regulations—there are several sets of them in the Bill—are completed and published it will be impossible for the Church to start off to adapt herself to the new circumstances. Then there is this point, that the Bill will pass into law so very little discussed that there are certain to be a great many ambiguities and difficulties which will arise under the working of it, and that again will make the work of reorganisation more difficult than it would have been otherwise. That is a summary, I think an inadequate one, of part of the work the Church will have to do between the passage of this Bill into law and the date of the Disestablishment; and to think that the Church can do that in six months or in twelve months is perfectly asburd. What you are asking the Church to do in twelve months is to absolutely re-do what she has taken twelve centuries to do, and you are asking her
      to reorganise and to reinvigorate that bleeding and lacerated mass which you are leaving. There is in this Amendment not a single thing which would in any way hinder or prevent the scheme which we are trying to carry out. It is simply an Amendment to enable the Church to suffer this great injury with a minimum of difficulty attending it. If you were really anxious to carry out this Disestablishment, Disendowment, and dismemberment with a minimum of injury to the Church, you would agree to the Amendment without the slightest hesitation. It is only because you wish to inflict injury and harm upon the Church that you refuse to allow her to have even a decent amount of time.
      Mr. KING: May I call your attention, Sir, to the remarks that Mr. Speaker made on Friday last about provocative language, and may I ask your ruling whether the language of the Noble Lord does not come within that description?
      The CHAIRMAN: I am quite aware of that ruling. I think the hon. Member must trust me. I did not see anything provocative in it.
      Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
      Question proposed, "That the words 'expiration of two years' be there inserted."
      Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "two years," and insert instead thereof the words "six months or such extended period as His Majesty may fix by Order in Council, not being more than twelve months."
      Question put, "That the words 'two years' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 174; Noes, 289.

      Division No. 392.]

      AYES.

      [7.21 p.m.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Bigland, Alfred

      Aitken, Sir William Max

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Blair, Reginald

      Amery, L. C. M. S.

      Barnston, Harry

      Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

      Archer-Shee, Major M.

      Barrie, H. T.

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

      Ashley, W. W.

      Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

      Boyton, James

      Baird, J. L.

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

      Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

      Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Balcarres, Lord

      Bonn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Bull, Sir William James

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Hamersley, Alfred St. George

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

      Butcher, John George

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Campion, W. R.

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Cassell, Felix

      Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

      Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

      Cator, John

      Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

      Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

      Cautley, H. S.

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peet

      Cave, George

      Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Hoare, S. J. G.

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

      Hohler, G. F.

      Royds, Edmund

      Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

      Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Cooper, Richard Ashmole

      Hunt, Rowland

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Craig. Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Hunter, Sir C. R.

      Sanders, Robert Arthur

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Ingleby, Holcombe

      Sanderson, Lancelot

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

      Sassoon, Sir Philip

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Jessel, Captain H. M.

      Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Scott, Sir s. (Marylebone, W.)

      Denniss, E. R. B.

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l., Walton)

      Dixon, C. H.

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Smith, Harold (Warrington)

      Doughty, Sir George

      Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Stanler, Beville

      Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

      Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

      Starkey, John Ralph

      Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

      Lloyd, George Ambrose

      Steel-Maitland, A. D.

      Falle, B. G.

      Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

      Stewart, Gershom

      Fell, Arthur

      Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

      Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

      Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

      Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

      Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

      Talbot, Lord E.

      Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

      Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.)

      Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

      Fletcher, John Samuel

      MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

      Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

      Forster, Henry William

      Macmaster, Donald

      Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

      Foster, Philip Staveley

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

      Gardner, Ernest

      Malcolm, Ian

      Tryon, Captain George Clement

      Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

      Tullibardine, Marquess of

      Gibbs, G. A.

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

      Goldman, C. S.

      Moore, William

      Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Mount, William Arthur

      Winterton, Earl

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Grant, J. A.

      Newdegate, F. A.

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      Greene, W. R.

      Newman, John R. P.

      Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

      Gretton, John

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      Yate, Colonel C. E.

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Nield, Herbert

      Yerburgh, Robert A.

      Haddock, George Bahr

      O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

      Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

      Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

      Hall, Marshall (L'pool, E. Toxteth)

      Parker, sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

      A. Cripps and Mr. Ormsby-Gore.

      Hambro, Angus Valdemar

      NOES.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Brocklehurst, William B.

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Devlin, Joseph

      Adamson, William

      Buckmaster, Stanley O.

      Dickinson, W. H.

      Addison, Dr. C.

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Dillon, John

      Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

      Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Doris, William

      Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Duffy, William J.

      Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

      Cewley, H. T. (Heywood)

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Armitage, Robert

      Chancellor, H. G.

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      Arnold, Sydney

      Chapple, Dr. William Allen

      Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

      Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

      Clough, William

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

      Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

      Clynes, John R.

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Barnes, George N.

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Essex, Richard Walter

      Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Essiemont, George Birnie

      Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

      Cory, Sir Clifford John

      Falconer, James

      Barton, William

      Cotton, William Francis

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Crean, Eugene

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Crooks, William

      French, Peter

      Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

      Crumley, Patrick

      Field, William

      Bentham, George Jackson

      Cullinan, John

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Bethell, Sir John Henry

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Black, Arthur W.

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      France, Gerald Ashburner

      Boland, John Pius

      Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

      George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

      Gilhooly, James

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Dawes, J. A.

      Gill, A. H.

      Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

      De Forest, Baron

      Ginnell, L.

      Brady, P. J.

      Delany, William

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      2568

      2569

      Glanville, H. J.

      MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Goldstone, Frank

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      M'Kean, John

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Griffith, Ellis Jones

      M'Laren, Hon. H. D, (Leics.)

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Guest, Hon. Major c. H. C. (Pembroke)

      M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)

      Robinson, Sidney

      Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

      Manfield, Harry

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      Guiney, Patrick

      Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Hackett, J.

      Mason, David M. (Coventry)

      Rowlands, James

      Hancock, John George

      Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Meagher, Michael

      Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

      Hardie, J. Keir

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

      Menzies, Sir Walter

      Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Marmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Molloy, Michael

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Schwann, Rt. Hon, Sir Charles E.

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds W.)

      Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

      Sheehy, David

      Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

      Mooney, J. J.

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Haslam, James (Deroyshire)

      Morrell, Philip

      Shortt, Edward

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Morison, Hector

      Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Muldoon, John

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Munro, R.

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

      Hazleton, Richard

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Snowden, Philip

      Healy, Maurice (Cork)

      Nellson, Francis

      Soames, Arthur Wellesley

      Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

      Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

      Nolan, Joseph

      Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

      Hemmerde, Edward George

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Sutton, John E.

      Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

      Nuttall, Harry

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Henry, Sir Charles

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

      Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

      O'Connor, T. P. Liverpool)

      Tennant, Harold John

      Higham, John Sharp

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Thomas, James Henry

      Hinds, John

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      O'Grady, James

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Hodge, John

      O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

      Wadsworth, J.

      Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

      O'Malley, William

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

      Walters, Sir John Tudor

      Hudson, Walter

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Hughes, Spencer Leigh

      O'Shee, James John

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Wardle, George J.

      John, Edward Thomas

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Waring, Walter

      Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

      Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Watt, Henry Anderson

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Webb, H.

      Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Wedgwood, Josiah C.

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

      White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

      Joyce, Michael

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

      Keating, Matthew

      Pointer, Joseph

      Wiles, Thomas

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Pollard, Sir George H.

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Williams, John (Glamorgan)

      Kilbride, Denis

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      King, J.

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

      Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

      Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

      Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts. Cricklade)

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Radford, G. H.

      Winfrey, Richard

      Leach, Charles

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

      Lundon, T.

      Reddy, M.

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Lynch, A. A.

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

      McGhee, Richard

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

      Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

      Richards, Thomas

      Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

      Mr. HOARE: I beg to move to leave out the words "so far as it extends to and exists in Wales and Monmouthshire," and to insert instead thereof the words "in the dioceses of St. David's, St. Asaph, Bangor, and Llandaff."
      The object of this Amendment is to take the diocesan boundary instead of the
      2570
      geographical boundary. Its effect will be this. At present there are eleven English parishes now attached to English dioceses situated in Wales. I am anxious that these parishes should not be touched by the Bill. It may seem a small point to move an Amendment which affects only eleven parishes. At the same time, I venture to think that it covers two very big principles. I believe, first of all, that it shows

      2571
      this Bill is not simply a Bill to Disestablish the Church in Wales, but that it is also a Bill which affects English parishes. My Amendment, therefore, brings up at once the question of dismemberment; and, secondly, I believe it brings up another question of very great importance. For the first time, I believe I am right in saying, in our history Parliament is asked to interfere with spiritual jurisdiction and with ecclesiastical boundaries without having obtained the assent, formal or informal, of the Church. First of all, with reference to dismemberment, the Bill as it stands Disestablishes and Disendows eleven English parishes. That shows at once that it is not simply a precedent for English Disestablishment; it is the first instalment; and it further shows that it is impossible to treat this Bill as if you can isolate part of what is really an indivisible organic whole. I know that two objections may be urged to that proposition. In the first place, it may be said that for practical reasons you must take the geographical boundaries. It seems to me that in the matter of boundaries the Government are playing the game, "Heads I win, tails you lose." They take the geographical boundaries in order to bring in the eleven English parishes, and they take the diocesan boundaries in order to include Monmouth as part of the diocese of Llandaff. It may be said that my Amendment is double-edged, and that while there are eleven English parishes in Wales, there are fourteen Welsh parishes in England, and if, therefore, it was carried, you would have these fourteen Welsh parishes in England Disestablished and Disendowed, although the eleven English parishes in Wales would have been saved.
      That brings me to the second point. For here comes up the very important question of the necessity of acting in matters of this kind with the assent of the accredited authorities of the Church. I am told that if my Amendment is carried the Welsh bishops who have parishes in England would be perfectly willing to transfer those parishes to the appropriate English dioceses, and that, therefore, there would be no reason for their inclusion in the scope of the Bill. It is one thing to interfere with ecclesiastical boundaries with the assent of the Church and quite a different thing to interfere with them without the assent of the Church. I believe I am right in saying that on no occasion has interference of this kind taken
      2572
      place without the assent of the Church in some shape or form. There are many precedents for what I say. There are, for instance, a number of Acts of Parliament which deal with the union and disunion of parishes. It has been found at certain periods that parochial boundaries had for one reason or another to be altered. What happened? Parliament passed a series of Acts under which parochial boundaries have been altered, but it has always been expressly declared that no alteration could take place until first of all the bishop concerned had approved of it, and secondly, the Archbishop of the province had given his sanction. More marked still there are the cases in which isolated districts have been for reasons of convenience transferred to different ecclesiastical jurisdiction. There again the same procedure has taken place. In every case it was necessary to obtain, first of all, the approval of the bishop, and, secondly, the sanction of the Metropolitan of the province. When I come to the diocesan boundaries the case is just as strong. As the Committee are aware on several occasions diocesan boundaries have been altered. New bishoprics have been created and changes in ecclesiastical jurisdiction have taken place, but I challenge hon. Gentlemen opposite to point to any case from the sixteenth century to the present time in which the assent of the Church was not first obtained.
      In the sixteenth century, in the reign of Henry VIII., there was a marked instance of a change of diocesan jurisdiction in the case of the Channel Islands. During the sixteenth century the Channel Islands changed their civil allegiance from France to England, and the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Coutances ceased to exist. The Channel Islands were transferred to the diocese of Winchester. You would have thought that so autocratic a monarch as Henry VIII. would have paid attention in a matter of that kind to the desire of the Church. What did he do? He took the precaution to obtain a special Bull from the Pope of the day, Alexander the VII., to allow the Channel Islands to be transferred from the diocese of Coutances to the diocese of Winchester. You can take the case of the six bishoprics created as the result of the abolition of the monasteries. There, again, Henry VIII. had the full approval of the authorities of the Church concerned. If you come to modern times, on each occasion when a new bishopric was created during the

      2573
      nineteenth century, Parliament did not act until it was convinced that it had the approval of the bishops and archbishops of the Church. There was one very marked instance in 1838, when as the result of a report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners a number of changes were made in diocesan boundaries and diocesan jurisdiction. The recommendation of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners which way afterwards carried out was that methods of internal administration should be left as they were left to a Special, Commission consisting of the Archbishop of Canterbury and three other bishops. I therefore claim that there is no instance of interference with spiritual jurisdiction over ecclesiastical boundaries by this House without the approval in some shape or form of the authorities of the Church. This seems to me to raise a most important question. From what some hon. Members opposite have said it would appear that they are under the impression that this House has a perfect right to make what alterations it likes in the government of the Established Church, and I take this opportunity —the first opportunity that has been given to us in these discussions—to protest against such a claim. It seems to me that the Government in proposing to disregard diocesan boundaries and ecclesiastical jurisdiction is giving some countenance to that claim, and I hope that as a protest against that attitude this Committee will accept my Amendment, and by so doing will show in a manner which cannot be disputed that the Church is a voluntary religious body, and that whilst in several directions the civil power may interfere with its external acts, it has no right without the Church's consent to meddle with its internal administration.
      The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Hobhouse): I hope the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hoare) who moved this Amendment will forgive me if I do not follow him into his researches in mediaeval history. I hope I may be able to persuade him that the proposal of the Government is more favourable to the Church than that in the Amendment he has moved. I would point out that there are no English parishes in the geographical sense concerned at all in this matter. All the parishes which are in dispute are either partly in Wales or Monmouthshire or wholly in Wales. There are fourteen parishes partly in Wales and Monmouthshire which are included in English dioceses. Two are in the diocese of Chester,
      2574
      ten in the diocese of Hereford, and two in the diocese of Lichfield. There are, besides, six parishes partly in Wales and Monmouthshire, but included in Welsh dioceses. Four are in the diocese of St. Asaph and two in the diocese of Llandaff. There are fourteen parishes not themselves in Wales or Monmouthshire, but all in the diocese of St. David's. There are ten parishes wholly in Wales and Monmouthshire, but included in English dioceses, one being in the diocese of Chester, one in the diocese of Lichfield, and eight in the diocese of Hereford. What would happen if the Amendment were carried? Supposing the Welsh diocese were substituted in the Bill for Wales and Monmouthshire, these fourteen parishes which belong to the English dioceses which I have enumerated, and would under the Bill, as they lie partly in Wales or Monmouthshire, have the right of option, as the opinion of the people who live in the parishes would have to be ascertained, would under the Amendment automatically remain Established, and from that point of view the Church would gain. But go a step further and take the fourteen parishes in England, which are in the diocese of St. David's. These, under the Bill, remain Established, because they do not belong to Wales or Monmouthshire geographically. Under the Amendment they would be Disestablished, because they are in Welsh dioceses. So the Church would gain fourteen and lose fourteen. But there are besides that six other parishes which under Sub-section (1) of Clause 9 have the right of option, because they are partly in Wales or Monmouthshire, although they belong to Welsh dioceses. Under the Amendment those six parishes would be Disestablished. You would have to add up the total result of what the Amendment would effect and compare it with what the Bill proposes. The hon. Member will thus see that the Church stands to lose far more than it would gain under the Amendment, and I trust therefore that he will be in agreement with the Government on this particular matter.
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have lost sight of the words in lines 14 and 15 of Clause 1, "save as by this Act provided." I understand from his speech that he threatens that if this Amendment should be carried he will then withdraw the definitions under Clause 9, which exclude parishes in England in Welsh dioceses from the

      2575
      provisions of the Bill. Do I understand from him that if the Amendment is carried he will leave out the provisions of Clause 9 altogether?
      Mr. HOBHOUSE:No.
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If that is not so there is no point in his argument as to the Church being much worse off under the Amendment than under the Bill. Surely it is quite possible for a diocese voluntarily to rearrange its boundaries before this Act comes into force. In such cases they would do what is best for themselves, and there would be no forcible dismemberment of the parishes.
      Captain CLIVE: I understand from my hon. Friend that it is suggested that the Welsh bishops might voluntarily transfer the parishes which are in England to English dioceses. If that is so, perhaps this Amendment would be linked with one that stands in my own name, as regards the question of putting under the Bill those parishes in which I am chiefly interested which are near Hereford. I do think it would be very desirable to take ecclesiastical boundaries in that respect rather than geographical boundaries. It would get rid, so far as the dividing parishes are concerned, of the extraordinary complications of procedure under Clause 9, Sub-section (1), where those parishes are allowed to decide by majority whether they will come under the Bill or not. And then there is left the option to any particular parishioner to appeal against such order to His Majesty in Council. I suppose in every one of those parishes a parishioner will be found ready to appeal, and so a very complicated legal procedure would ensue. That might be avoided by accepting either this Amendment or some similar Amendment embodying the principle which my hon. Friend announces. I cannot speak from personal knowledge for the parishes of Montgomery, which are in the diocese of Hereford in Wales, but as regards the parishes of Radnor I can speak from personal knowledge. There the parishes are geographically much more attached to Herefordshire than they are to Wales, because they are divided by a considerable mountainous district and Radnor forest from the rest of Wales. As regards railway communication they are closely connected with Hereford, and they have no railway connection with the other part of Radnor, which is on the other side of the Radnor forest. For these reasons I
      2576
      hope, if the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the Amendment on the Paper, he will favourably consider the possibilities of retaining, at any rate, those parishes which are in this diocese.
      Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do protest against the way in which the Chancellor of the Duchy approaches the question. He seems to treat it as a sort of profit and loss account, that the Church will gain so much and lose so much, and that the loss, on the whole, is greater than the gain. What you are doing in opposing this Amendment is: You are disrupting and disarranging diocesan boundaries against the will of the parishioners. I know one of those parishes very well in the diocese of St. Asaph, and there is a very strong feeling indeed among the people. I had a letter from one person, who says: "Here are all my ancestors buried in this parish. They are Welsh people. That parish has been in the diocese of St. Asaph for many centuries. Now you are going to take it out of that diocese and put it into Heaven knows what diocese, with which you have no connection and no historical link." I know you say that this is a question of Endowment, but the destroying of diocesan boundaries against the wishes of the parishioners is a very weighty matter. The Government regard this matter merely as one of dealing with a profit and loss account and seeing how much we can get for the Church. That is not what we want. I trust that this Bill will never be on the Statute-book, but this Amendment serves to show how utterly false is the pretence of the Government that they are caring for the interests of the Church. Here is an organisation going back to the Middle Ages. Here are diocesan boundaries fixed in this way, and you are disregarding them altogether, in favour of mere geographical secular boundaries, and you are utterly disregarding the wishes of the Church.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the real point of this Amendment is not what we are going to gain or lose. To tell us that we should lose more parishes than we should gain is entirely to misunderstand the feelings of the Church people. That is not the way we are looking at this question at all The importance of the Amendment is as showing that this is a Bill completely disrupting our Church. The proposals made in the Bill are more extraordinary still when we remember the main con-

      2577
      sideration used by advocates of Disestablishment, namely, that the Church as at present constituted is an Erastian body set up by the State at the time of the Reformation. I do not hold that view myself, I need hardly say, but that is the argument constantly used by the other side. You will find it written large over all the books published on this question by the Liberation Society and various bodies advocating this Bill. The Government object to us because they say we have an Erastian constitution. Then they proceed by State Act, without consulting the Church, to rearrange the dioceses. What can be more Erastian than that? You take the dioceses as you find them. You say, "Some of these parishes happen to be in England. Therefore they ought not to be Disestablished or Disendowed. Other parishes which are in Wales happen to be in English dioceses. Therefore they ought to be Disestablished and Disendowed." My point is that the State has no right "whatever to take that action. We talk about the Church being free, and able to manage its own affairs. What nonsense it is when by your own action you are deciding what are to be the dioceses of the Church in the future! That, therefore, is the reason that this Amendment is raised. We claim, and claim very strongly, that the State have no right whatever to do this thing. We are constantly hearing about the Irish precedent, but it breaks down at every turn. Look at the difference. In the case of the Irish precedent you had an undoubtedly separate Church, a Church which had been united about seventy years before by an Act of Parliament. You had a broad geographical distinction which anybody could see. You had St. George's Channel flowing between the Church of Ireland and this country. As regards the Church in Wales, the fact is that it is bound so closely with the Church of England, owing to the lapse of centuries, that when you seek to Disestablish and Disendow her, not only is it necessary to dismember her, but you have actually got by Act of Parliament to rearrange the boundaries. This shows how entirely different the case is from that of the Irish Church. Shortly before the Irish Church Bill was discussed on the Resolution which the late Mr. Gladstone moved leading up to the Irish Disestablishment Bill, he used these words:—
      "The operation of Disestablishing the Church of Ireland will not be an easy one. It will be found that it is tied, knitted and tangled in such a mass of legal bonds and meshes with the general body of the Church, that it will be a very formidable matter to accomplish the untieing process."
      2578
      How much more formidable is it to accomplish the untieing process in the case of the Church in Wales? The case is very much stronger, and it is because we want to point out the absurdity of the Government proposals and their inconsistency in talking about our being an Erastian Church and then by Act of Parliament altering our boundaries and reconstituting us that this Amendment has been moved. I do not know whether my hon. Friend will go to a Division upon it, but at any rate it will have served its purpose by exposing the futility of the Government's proposals.
      8.0 P.M.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: The real difficulty which we experience in this Debate is that the Home Secretary and others on the opposite side are not able to realise the point of view of those who oppose this Bill. The Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Masterman) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Lloyd George) are exactly the two Members of the House of all others to whom I wish to make a few observations in regard to this Amendment. Both right hon. Gentlemen have made very eloquent speeches in this House, dealing with the feeling of nationality. I must say some of the observations made by the Secretary to the Treasury were grotesquely exaggerated. The absorption of the individual into a corporate whole is really the principle upon which the feeling of nationality ultimately rests, and it is, of course, one of the strongest and most powerful feelings which actuate human nature. But you must not imagine the feeling of nationality stands by itself. It is one example of the phenomenon found in all relations of human life that the ordinary man has a feeling in favour of every corporate institution to which he belongs, even to the House of Commons, and it is exactly the same in the case of his nationality. If he is a Welshman he will have the feeling of Welsh nationality, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has often assured us that it does not interfere with the strong feeling of patriotism for the United Kingdom or the British Empire. I quite agree that all these things are examples of the same feeling, but right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not appear to understand that the feeling of Churchmanship is just as strong as the feeling of nationality.
      The Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to understand it, but he does not act upon it; he never allows for it. As for the Chancellor of the Duchy, he does not have

      2579
      a glimmering of it, nor does the Home Secretary—they simply have not the slightest idea. They do their best indeed, but the result is extraordinarily unsuccessful in promoting conviction, at any rate on this side of the House. My hon. Friend has moved his Amendment as a protest against mutilation and dismemberment of the Church, and the right hon. Gentleman says, "Oh, you are quite wrong; it is quite true we are going to cut off this bit and that bit of the diocese, that we are going to rearrange it—we, the House of Commons, are going to interfere with the internal management of the Church and the internal existence and life of the Church; we are going to do it entirely on our own authority, without consulting the members of the Church inside or outside Wales; we are going to do the most Erastian thing ever done in this country, without any attempt to obtain the consent of the Ecclesiastical Corporation with which we are going to interfere." The right hon. Gentleman makes no reply to that. He says, "I need not bother about it, if I can show that if you add up the parishes of the Church, the Church would gain this and the Church would lose that under this Bill." At any rate, that is a frank admission that it will be an injury to the Church. But, apart from that, the right lion. Gentleman made this elaborate subtraction first on this side and then on that side, and he said that we will lose a little less, or we will lose more by this Amendment than if we left the Bill as it is. But that really misses the whole point of my hon. Friend's argument, and shows complete misunderstanding of what we are really driving at when we protest against the dismemberment of the Church and the interference of Parliament in the internal management and internal life of the Church.
      Sir J. D. REES: On this Amendment a discussion has been allowed on the question of nationality, and I shall not be out of order if I suggest that though there may be a very strong feeling of nationality in Wales, at any rate, that feeling is not common to North and South Wales.
      The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I think the question of nationality should not be discussed in reference to any particular part of the country. The reference to nationality should be purely of a general kind. If the hon. Gentleman makes any reference to nationality, he
      2580
      must keep his observations within the limit I have indicated.
      Sir J. D. REES: I will make it as brief as possible, at least as brief as the references by the Noble Lord whose observations were passed without objection. The nationality of Wales as an entity has no immediate relevance to the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales and Monmouth, because the whole case is that the Principality and the county make a nation, and that therefore it is because of the national feeling which exists that this proposal is laid before the House of Commons. I submit that upon the argument which has been advanced and which is allowed to be strictly relevant, that Wales has a separate nationality. I take the test of nationality to be an existence apart from any other existence which is recognised as a separate existence; that, to my mind, is a nationality. But accepting the other definition, which seems to obtain in the House, that a separate nationality is marked by something of an ethnic or linguistic character—and I gather that is the test for the moment—then I submit there is no solidarity or community of interests whatsoever, whether linguistic, commercial, sentimental or other, between North Wales and South Wales. They are absolutely separate, and even the Welsh which is spoken is perhaps hardly the same in North and South Wales. If that criterion, which seems to be allowed to pass without comment in the House, is once admitted, then I do submit that South Wales—
      Mr. HEMMERDE: On a point of Order, Sir. Is the hon. Member in order in discussing South Wales and North Wales?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I call the hon. Member's attention to the observations I have already made to him.
      Sir J. D. REES: I submit that it is a relevant point which I make; at any rate, it is a novel point. I am not speaking from a brief; I am speaking what I honestly believe, and from no brief at all, as the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) the other evening described it. Whether it is a good point or not, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen can refute it, or confound me if I am wrong. I submit that if Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in Wales is in any way to depend upon a national, individual, and separate corporate existence in North and South Wales, it is founded upon a quicksand, because there is no community of interests,

      2581
      from any point of view, between North and South Wales; nay, more than that, there is none between parts of South Wales, and the argument of the other side must fall to the ground.
      Mr. CAMPION: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "be" ["cease to be"], to insert the words "as now."
      With this Amendment the Clause would read, "Shall cease to be as now established by law." The Home Secretary in answer to this side said that the only difference in the Church in future would be that instead of being Established by Act of Parliament she would be Established by the Lord Chancellor. I think this Amendment raises the whole question of Establishment and what is meant by Establishment. We on this side of the House and the country generally desire to know what is meant by Establishment, because there is a good deal of indefinite-ness at the present time as to exactly what the position of the Church in Wales will be when it is Disestablished—what will be its legal position, whether the law dealing with the Church, the Statute Law and Common Law, will cease to apply, and whether, if that is the case and from what has transpired this afternoon I am inclined to think that it is the case—we ought not to have scheduled a list of the Statutes that will necessarily have to be repealed. But there is another feature, to my mind a more important feature, with regard to Establishment, namely, when the Church is Disestablished will it necessitate that the obligation of the Church to service and duty in the parishes cease to be imposed upon it? Amongst many other important features of the Establishment— which I may say perfectly straightforwardly is to me far more important than Endowment—is the service which it renders in the parishes. I regard it as one of the most valuable assets of the principle of Establishment that it is a duty laid upon the Church to provide ministration throughout the length and breadth of the country for every man and woman in the country. The Church is comprehensive, and is neither the Church of high or low, rich or poor. It has to organise the whole country into parishes from one end of the land to the other, and in those parishes
      2582
      it is the duty of the clergyman to minister in times of sickness, trouble, and death, to rich or poor, and even if they do not belong to the Church at all, every man and woman has the right to ministration and to attend divine service in the Church. I should like to know whether in future, if this Bill passes into law, that same duty is to remain with the Church. I think when I find the suggestion that the Church has been established by law, it is pertinent for us to ask, what is the difference between the Establishment of the National Church and the establishment of Nonconformist bodies, because to use the words "established by law" to my mind, and I think to the minds of most people on this side, will apply quite as closely and even more closely to many cases of the establishment of Nonconformist denominations. Hon. Members opposite are very found of appealing to the idea that all religious denominations should be equal under the law. If that is so, I do think we ought to know how exactly we should stand, and I want to be assured of what I an in considerable fear about, that when this Bill is passed that the Church of England will not be inferior in legal position to other religious denominations in this country. I maintain that as regards establishment, many Nonconformist denominations are established legally quite as strictly, and more strictly, than the Church of England. In order to bear that out I should like to refer to one or two questions. I have here a quotation from Lord Mansfield in 1767, in giving a legal judgment in the House of Lords, in which he said:—
      "The Dissenters way of worship is permitted and allowed by this Act. It is not only exempted from punishment, but rendered innocent and lawful. It is established, it is put under protection. It is not merely under the connivance of the law."
      I might refer also to recent Acts such as the United Methodist Act of 1907, where it was desired by the United Methodist Church and the Bible Christian and the Methodist New Connection, to unite into one Church, a perfectly desirable object, and an object with which we, on this side, would be always ready to assist. But in order to do so, it was necessary to pass an Act of Parliament. I might refer again to the notable case of 1844, when it was necessary to pass the Dissenting Chapels Act in order to allow property to be owned by a body, although there had been a change in doctrine. One could refer also, of course, to the well-known case of the Scottish Church

      2583
      and only last year there was the Humber-stone Act authorising officials to hold Church office even though there had been a change of doctrine. I would refer particularly to a quotation from the Archbishop of Canterbury in regard to an Act that was passed in the year 1907, I refer to the Longton Caroline Street Chapel Charity Bill and the Kingswood Whitfield Tabernacle Charity Bill, and with regard to which the Archbishop of Canterbury said:—
      "You will find that in each of those Bills arrangements are made by Act of Parliament as to the conditions upon which alone the Pastor and other officials of those different chapels may hold office, and you will find in the Schedule of the Bill, every word of which is capable of amendment, a setting forth of the whole doctrines and creeds which are there to be held. The doctrines are set forth in words so profound and so solemn that they are really practically the teaching of the Apostle's Creed, though they are put in other terms. Now I will say, without fear of contradiction, that yon may search the Acts of Parliament for 300 years before you will find a single Act dealing with the affairs of the Established Church of England with such an amount of doctrinal detail as the affairs of those non-established people were dealt with in Parliament last year."
      Having established, I think, that Nonconformist bodies have to come to Parliament for the protection of the law, and have come to Parliament in order to secure their positions under the law, and that they are, certainly to a great extent, established by law, then I think we have some right to ask the Government what exactly is meant and what they mean by Establishment. I think we have also some justification in our desire to feel satisfied, though I confess I do not feel satisfied now, that after Disestablishment there may be at any rate equality under the law, and not, as I am afraid, for the Church of England, inferiority under the law.
      Mr. McKENNA: I am utterly at a loss to understand how the hon. Member can read into the Bill any proposal that it is intended when the Church of England is Disestablished that it should be inferior to the other Free Churches in Wales. I have listened with great attention to his argument upon the point, and I confess I am quite at a loss to understand what he means. We have here introduced into the Clause words which have got the sanction of the Irish Act. Does he contend that the Church of England in Ireland is in a less happy position or in a less free position than any other Church in Ireland I Yet the Church of Ireland lives under words precisely the same as those in the present Bill. On the face of them the
      2584
      words of the hon. Member seem to be perfectly innocent, and after his speech I really do not know if they do not convey some hidden meaning or some hidden purpose which is not apparent in the words themselves. There is no need to accept them since, so far as I can understand, they do not do anything. The Church by law established is the Church as now by law established. I do not know if the words contain some subtle meaning, but we have the example of forty-three years of the Irish Church, and does anybody opposite contend that the English Church in Ireland is inferior to any other Church? The proposition cannot be sustained for a single instant. If the hon. Member can really show that there is any danger or probability or possibility of the Church of England hereafter being placed in an inferior position to any other Church in Wales, then I will accept any words which are necessary to secure the Church of England there, as we have no desire to injure the Church. We desire to put the Church on precisely the same footing, legally and socially, as every other denomination; we have no other object. The words of the hon. Member, if they have any meaning at all, have not the meaning he contends, and ought not to be accepted.
      Sir J. D. REES: The right hon. Gentleman has covered this Amendment with scorn. I should like to know whether it is not the Government case that upon the appointed day the Church of England in Wales, so far as it exists in Wales, shall cease to be as now by law established.
      Mr. McKENNA: It is the same as the Amendment. I do not see any difference.
      Sir J. D. REES: Then why does the right hon. Gentleman pour scorn upon an Amendment which merely emphasises what he admits to be his own position? Although I agree with every word my hon. Friend said, I am not quite certain that I understand what alteration the acceptance of this Amendment would entail. But, so far as I can understand its effect, it does not entail any alteration in the intentions of the Government. Therefore I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman, instead of accepting the Amendment, poured scorn upon it, and suggested that my hon. Friend was making an unreasonable proposal.
      Mr. EVELYN CECIL: The object of this Amendment is to ascertain from the Government what is the difference that will be

      2585
      introduced by this Bill. The Government clearly desire to alter, and we wish to retain, the present state of things; we wish to say that the Establishment shall remain as it is now. If the Government are really altering the Establishment, we want to know precisely in what respect they are doing so. It would be very desirable from that point of view to have a list of the Statutes which it is proposed to abrogate. There is no Schedule stating what are the Statutes which Establish by law the Church, and until we know what those Statutes are it is extremely difficult to appreciate what is the difference between the position the Government desire to bring about by this Bill and the position which exists to-day. The suggestion of this Clause seems to be that all Statute Law with regard to the Church is to be abrogated, but in Clause 3 the Government apparently contemplate that the existing Ecclesiastical Law is to be modified. If the existing law is to be "abrogated" by this Clause and "modified" by another, the position of the Government appears to be inconsistent. Therefore, we want a clear explanation as to what exactly Establishment is and what Statutes the Government propose to abrogate. I believe that such a Schedule was forthcoming in connection with the Irish Chuch Bill, and I do not understand why the Government have not followed that course in the present case. My hon. Friend, by moving this Amendment, wishes to obtain from the Government a statement showing what good they suppose will result from Disestablishment. I cannot see that any good will result to anybody. It certainly will not result to the Church; the Chancellor of the Duchy admitted as much in a speech a little while ago. It seems equally clear that no good will result to any other religious body. We believe the object of the Bill to be to divorce the State from all recognition of religion. If that is the position, well and good; we know where we are. But at present it is a matter of the greatest difficulty to understand what is really the position of the Government, and it would be only right that they should make it clear on this Amendment.
      Viscount WOLMER: The reason we support this Amendment is that we want to make it perfectly clear, not only to hon. Members in this House, but, what is more important, to the country also, that this Bill is not going to do away with the Establishment of the Church at all. It is going 'to Disestablish the Church and
      2586
      afterwards to re-establish it in a new form. We submit that Establishment of the Church as such constitutes no grievance or disadvantage to our Nonconformist fellow countrymen. In fact, all Nonconformist bodies are Established by law at the present moment. They are established by law in their property. They are Established by law in the community from rates which their chapels enjoy. They are recognised by law as corporations. When the Government by this Bill sever the connection of the Church with the State they are not merely Disestablishing the Church, they are simply altering the form of the present Disestablishment; they are re-establishing the Church. It is our object that this Bill should set forth in plain English what it: really does. The Government have a great habit of saying they are doing a certain thing in an Act of Parliament, when the real effect of the Act is something wholly different. We have seen that in several measures before now, and it is especially the case in the present Bill. This measure pretends to Disestablish and free the Church. Our submission is that it does nothing of the sort. It simply alters the form of Establishment—that is to say, it terminates the present Establishment and sets up a brand-new one. In fact, this Bill does exactly the opposite of what it pretends to do. It really does Establish the Church by an Act of Parliament. We are told by hon. Members opposite that the Church is by law Established. We have asked them again and again, but have never got an answer, by what law the Church is Established.
      Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord has been answered again and again.
      Viscount WOLMER: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will kindly tell me What law has Established the Church. We shall be very much obliged if he will. But he cannot. No one can, because there is no such law. The Church was Established long before there were any laws in this country at all. The effect of this Bill will be to Establish the Church by law, and by a very bad law, too. Therefore we want this Bill, if it ever becomes an Act of Parliament, to set forth in its first Clause what its real effect is. That is a very important consideration, because, after all, this Bill, whether it passes into law or not, must be referred to the electorate of the country; and if the electors declare against it at the next election, it will, of

      2587
      Course, be repealed. Therefore you cannot, even by rushing the Bill through in this Parliament, as you are trying to do, dodge the opinion of the electors of the country. Therefore, when the Bill comes before the electors and the country for their approval it should be plainly set forth in the Bill what its effect is, in order that there should be no misunderstanding or misconception as to what the effect is. We desire that it should be realised not only in this House but also in the country at large that the effect of the Bill is to reestablish the Church, not in a constitution of her own seeking, but in a new constitution and upon a new legislative plan, dictated not by the free opinion of the Church, but by the terms of an Act of Parliament prompted by the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I submit that it is a matter of real importance that this should be set forth in the first Clause, of the Bill; that the idea of getting rid of the Establishment and of freeing the Church is pure humbug and hypocrisy, and that what you are doing is to set up a new Establishment, to put new fetters upon the Church, and that you are merely altering the Establishment instead of terminating it.
      Mr. KING: I am really very much indebted to the Noble Lord, and I think the Committee ought to be, for his contribution to this interesting Debate. Personally, I thank him for having at last delivered a speech which has not provoked my ire and indignation. If he will only continue on those lines, lines which he has shown us he is so capable a master of, I shall enjoy the Debates more and more. I also thank him for what he stated at least three times, that this Bill was not going to Disestablish the Church in Wales.
      Viscount WOLMER: I did not say anything of the sort. I said it was going to Disestablish, and then re-establish.
      Mr. KING: That is what I mean, of course. If a man takes six pennies out of one of my pockets and puts the sixpenny piece into the other, what is the difference? [HON. MEMBEBS: "He might put a bad sixpence."]
      Viscount WOLMER: It is a bad sixpence!
      Mr. KING: I do not want to quibble about words, but I appeal to hon. Members whether the Noble Lord did not repeatedly say that this Bill was going to re-establish the Church of England in Wales. Very
      2588
      well, if that is to be so, where are you worse off than before?
      Viscount WOLMER: You lose your money.
      Mr. KING: The Church then exists for money and not for spiritual purposes! The real fact of the matter is, what we have often thought in this Committee and in this House before, that those few keen hon. Members on the opposite side, a small band, a devoted band, and I will say a very energetic band, who oppose this Bill do not represent the rank and file of their party. [An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know?"]
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Up to the present I have not heard a single word from the hon. Gentleman relevant to the Amendment before the House. I must ask him to keep to it.
      Mr. KING: The Amendment before the House is "as now." I suppose that the words "as now" embrace all the present conditions of this large and complex question. I cannot deal with them all at once, but I, at any rate, will go as near as possible to dealing with the present position. I want to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that we have been told again and again, as we were when we were discussing last week the Closure Resolution, that we were not allowing adequate time for the discussion of these very large and important issues. I hope I am not misinterpreting or misstating the views of hon. Members opposite.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: What has this to do with the Amendment?
      Mr. KING: I shall endeavour to show its bearing on the Amendment in relation to the general course of the Debate on the Bill.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must really confine his comments to the Amendment before the Committee.
      Mr. KING: I have a great many comments to make, so that if these are not in order, I will go on to those that are. I do not complain at all. I wish to point out that the contention repeatedly made, certainly by two hon. Members on the opposite side, is that it has not been stated either in this House or in any Schedule of the Bill what the Statutes or laws are by which the Church of England was Established in Wales. Therefore, they apparently think either that the Church in

      2589
      Wales is not Established by law in the ordinary sense of the term or that, if it is Established by law, it is by some peculiar custom or Common Law different from Statute Law. The Noble Lord certainly said more than once that it was impossible for us to point to a single Statute by which the Church of England was Established in Wales. Quite a large number of Statutes have been quoted and have been published. The difficulty is that if you proceed to put all of these Statutes into a Schedule you may omit one or two which have a distinct bearing upon the case, and which may be obsolete, except in one or two Clauses. The fact of the matter is that the Church of England is now Established by law by a great number of Statutes, and I hope the Home Secretary will resist the invitation which has been kindly pressed upon him to put a Schedule into this Bill. It is quite unnecessary.
      It would only at the best satisfy the curiosity of a few Noble Lords and hon. Members. I maintain that the obvious and palpable fact that the Church of England is Established by law does not want any further proof. Certainly it does not want the citation of Acts of Parliament to prove it. With these few observations, I want to back up the Home Secretary, if I may. I know he does not need it. His case is quite strong enough, but I want to urge him not to accept this Amendment, which is really perfectly useless and unnecessary. The discussion to which it has given rise has had no real advantage to the opposite side. It has brought out nothing further of a new or important character. The only advantage that I can see that the Mover of the Amendment found in bringing it forward was that he was able to quote the larger part of a speech of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Personally, I like to read the speeches of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the paper the next morning, and not have them hashed up in the House of Commons several weeks late. For these reasons I strongly hope that the Government will not give way again. They have given way far too often. I hope that, with my support, they will resist this Amendment.
      Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: We have just heard one of those speeches that we are rather too apt to get from the hon. Member in reference to these matters. I should be very sorry to follow him through it, because I should probably be subject to the same interruptions from you, Mr.
      2590
      Maclean, that he almost inevitably receives whenever he is on his legs. I really must protest against the manner in which the hon. Member approaches this question. He always says that he backs up the Home Secretary. That is the only thing in which he is absolutely consistent. Apart from that, he endeavours to raise trivial issues, issues entirely irrelevant to the particular question of the Bill, and which I think are best left to the hon. Member's own imagination. I only rose to ask the Home Secretary whether he considers his answer was in any way a reply to my hon. Friend's contention when he introduced his Amendment? The right hon. Gentleman thinks that on every Amendment it is merely sufficient to say it is in the Irish Church Bill and therefore we need not consider the matter any further. How can you bring the Irish Church Bill into the argument at all? We know that the Irish Church was Established by law within a comparatively few years of the time it was Disestablished, and, therefore, it is not the least remarkable that these words in the Clause should have been used in connection with the Irish Church. The Clause was a different Clause; it was one for the dissolution of the Church of Ireland from the Church of England and that the Church of Ireland should cease to be Established by law. It was pretty clear in that case; we say it is not the least-clear in this case. We never had an argument from the right hon. Gentleman to show what the meaning is. We desire by two simple words to make the meaning clear to the House and to the country. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke just now said "it does not matter about putting in Schedules; we might forget to put in some Acts that are important." But it is for the Government to discover what Acts should be put into the Schedule, and to see that the Schedule is a comprehensive Schedule, especially in, a matter of this kind, where you are going absolutely against the wishes of the people concerned by breaking up the arrangements which have existed for all these hundreds of years.
      We are justified in saying, if you are going to do this entirely against our will, you must tell us what exactly it is you are doing and what you mean by this expression; what was our position in the past in your opinion: how you can prove it from the Statutes of the Common Law of this realm; and what our position, if we are to start afresh, is to be in order that we may

      2591
      know exactly where we stand. We demand that at the hands of the Government; and the Government's answer is that "it is in the Irish Church Act of forty or fifty years ago, and it is quite unnecessary to argue the point now." The matter cannot be turned off in that way; we are justified in asking for some more efficient answer. We have always contended and it was laid down very clearly by my hon. and learned Friend that there is a different meaning given to the word "Established" in different sides of the House. We may regard it from different points of view. It is quite evident from the discussion that there are those different points of view. We are now putting words into an Act of Parliament, and as there are these different points of view it is eminently desirable that it should be disposed of once and finally before this Clause is passed. We make that demand upon the Government, and I think we are justified in asking for a reply. It would be very much simpler if you could deal with the matter in the way other denominations are treated. I have only to take a Bill which is before this House at the present time; it would be very easy to apply it in the case of the "Wibsey (Bradford) Independent Chapel." That is a chapel I knew very well when I lived in Yorkshire. If the words were applied to that, the right hon. Gentleman's argument would be quite to the point, because there it definitely says:—
      "the trustees shall permit to officiate in the said buildings as stated minister or pastor of the church such persons only as are of the denomination aforesaid being Pædobaptists, and shall hold, preach, and maintain the doctrine set out in the schedule."
      And in the schedule you find the most solemn terms, such as—
      "the Creed, the United of the Godhead, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the indwelling of the Spirit and the Revelation of God's grace."
      Of course, if it was a question of a chapel or body of that sort, it is at once secured that this is established by Act of Parliament, the doctrines and everything else, and that that is the only commission by which a minister can hold his office; but we say there is nothing of that sort in connection with the Church of England, and the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends have never been able to give any
      2592
      information opposite to that. We have challenged it again and again, both in the country and in this House, and we have never been told what these Acts are, and it is in consequence of that we feel bound to raise it at this point. The hon. Gentleman opposite desired to show that we were wasting the time of the House in raising questions of this sort. This is one of the greatest and most important questions that can be raised in connection with this Bill. Hon. Members have little appreciation of what it all means to us when they try to turn it all into a question of pounds, shillings, and pence. The hon. Gentleman opposite said if you take sixpence out of one pocket and put it into another it is all the same. In this case you take sixpence out of the pocket of the Church of England, but there is no intention of putting another sixpence in. Disendowment is very important, but it is not so material to the long history of the Church and the future of the Church as the question we are discussing in this Amendment, and it is upon that ground that we must press for a more sufficient answer than we have received, and I do hope we may receive it from the Government Benches.
      Mr. McKENNA: I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman was in the House when this Amendment was moved.
      Mr. L. HARDY: I was.
      McKENNA: Then I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. But the point put by the Mover of the Amendment was to insert words that appeared to add nothing to the Bill, and to take nothing from the Bill. The argument he used, as I understood him was that, unless these words were introduced, the Church of England, if Disestablished in Wales, would be placed upon an inferior footing to other Free Churches. I understood that to be his argument, and if I am wrong, I beg his pardon, but believing that to be his argument, I pointed out that the same words existed in the Irish Church Act for forty-three years, and that we had experience of the Church of England in Ireland, and that nobody could allege for a single instant that the English Church in Ireland was on any footing of inferiority with other Churches. That was the sole argument I adduced. I felt it was a respectful argument and, in reply to the speech made, that it was a complete argument. Now the right hon. Gentleman brings forward an entirely

      2593
      different case. He says that these words are intended to call from the Government an elucidation of their views on Establishment. [HON. MEMBEBS: "Why not?"] I answer by saying it would be hardly relevant to this part of the Debate.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: On a point of Order. I wish to ask you, Mr. Maclean, whether the Home Secretary would, or would not, be in order in giving to the Committee now the views of the Government as to the meaning of Establishment, and whether it was not understood between the occupant of the Chair and those who moved this Amendment, that the Amendment should be moved for that purpose?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understood when this Amendment was moved, that it would open up the question of the present condition of the Church in Wales, and what would be the position of the Church in Wales after Disestablishment.
      Mr. CAMPION: When introducing my Amendment, I suggested that it raised the whole question of Establishment, and that an answer could be given on that subject.
      Mr. McKENNA: I am very sorry if I did the lion. Member any injustice. I gathered that his argument was that the Church would hereafterwards be in a position of inferiority. I understand the decision of the Chair to be that this Amendment is to be construed as an occasion for a comparison of the present position of the Church of England in Wales with its future position. I am asked to give an exposition of the meaning of the Establishment. I am perfectly sure that the various representatives of Church policy on the opposite benches, like the hon. Member for Liverpool and the hon. Member for South Bucks, would take an entirely different view as to the meaning of Establishment. What the meaning of Establishment may be, or what precise meaning you give to the relationship between the members of this Church of the origin of that relationship, has nothing to do with the question as to whether that relationship which existed should cease to exist, and, whatever the Establishment may be, this Bill proposes to put an end to it. [An HON. MEMBER: "You do not know what it means."] I will tell the Committee what I understand it means. In the first place, I understand that the Church of England in Wales is an Episcopal
      2594
      Church, the bishops being appointed by the Crown, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. I understand that is one of the principal marks of Establishment. The highest officers of the Church are appointed on the recommendation of a gentleman who may or may not be a member of that Church. Secondly, I understand that by virtue of the Establishment the Church in Wales enjoys the possession of a considerable amount of national property. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Well, I understand that, and hon. Members asked me for an explanation. I conceive that a considerable amount of national property was devoted to the service of the nation in its religious aspect, the religion at that time providing that the property devoted to this purpose having a far wider meaning, and being generally interpreted as something quite beyond the meaning and interpretation now given to it. I believe that the incident of the Establishment of the Church of England in Wales is subject to the jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Courts, which are recognised by the State, their judgments having a coercive force, and necessarily being exacted by the power of the State. All those are incidents of Establishment. There are many others, but I think those are the principal incidents of Establishment.
      9.0 P.M.
      In the organisation and government of the Church in the last resort the appointment of officers is in the hands of the State. In the enforcement of the discipline of the Church the Ecclesiastical Courts are recognised by the secular State, and in the possession and enjoyment of their Endowments they are placed in possession of funds which were national in their object. I do not lay so much stress as I might do upon the fact that the Prayer Book, doctrines, and ritual of the Church of England are, technically at any rate, subject to the control of Parliament. I do not lay stress upon that because, personally, I think no modern Parliament at any rate would ever interfere. If questions relating to the Prayer Book were brought up in this House, I should not vote for any alteration of the Prayer Book which was not approved by the majority of the Church itself, the opinion of the Church being expressed in Convocation. I do not lay stress upon the right of Parliament to alter the Prayer Book, because I do not think any Parliament would do it except upon the recommendation of Convocation. What

      2595
      I have referred to are incidents of Establishment, and when we seek to Disestablish the Church in Wales we wish to put an end to all the incidents I have named in the Church of England in Wales. We wish to abolish the power of appointments on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, or the power of any other officer of State to nominate the priests and bishops of the Church, and we wish to leave to the Church the power to decide for itself by whom its preferments shall be filled and who shall be its bishops. We wish to withdraw from the Ecclesiastical Courts any coercive jurisdiction they may now enjoy, and we wish to take from the Church and restore to the nation such property as we believe in its origin to be national. We also wish to take away from Parliament the power or duty of prescribing what shall be the doctrines, rights, or rituals of any Church. In other words, we wish to disconnect the Church and State in Wales.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am sure we are very much obliged to the right lion. Gentleman, for we have got at last a definition, although it is a very confused one, in which he was coached by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ellis Griffith).
      Mr. McKENNA: That is quite untrue.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The right hon. Gentleman has given us a very confused meaning of what is meant by the Establishment. If my hon. Friend wanted to get some arguments in favour of his Amendment he could not have done better than ask the Home Secretary to make the speech he has just made. We want to know what this Disestablishment is that you are going to accomplish. Is it to be some special incidence of the present Establishment or a complete Disestablishment, which means cutting off the Church from all law altogether. It is perfectly clear from the Home Secretary's explanation that it is intended to get rid of certain incidents he has mentioned. I do not know whether they were all the incidents, and I am not quite sure whether he has got to the end of his list. Let us look at them. He says, for example, that the Prayer Book is technically subject to Parliament, by which, I suppose, he means that no alteration could be made in the Prayer Book without the confirmation of this House. Can any alteration be made
      2596
      in the doctrines or liturgy, if there be any. of the Wesleyan body without the intervention of Parliament?
      Mr. McKENNA: Why, of course it can.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: All I can say is the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, if that is so, the trust is no longer fulfilled, and the ministers will either be deprived of their cures, or whatever they are called, by the Courts, or else they will have to come to this House as the United Presbyterian Church did in order to confirm them in the enjoyment of those Endowments and property which otherwise they would lose. I venture to say, if that is the incident of Establishment which is to be abolished, it is perfectly clear you have got to define Disestablishment rather more than it is defined in this Bill, and that is an argument for inserting the words moved by my hon. Friend. Another incident the Home Secretary mentioned was that the Church because it was Established, enjoyed a certain amount of national property. I should like to ask him at what date he thinks the Church was Established. Does he agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who quoted Professor Maitland as saying the Church was first Established by law at the Reformation? If he does, then most of the property you are taking away, on the ground that it was national property, was given long before the Reformation, and you are therefore taking away from the Church property she enjoys, because you say she is Established, which was given to her before she was Established. If the Home Secretary does not agree with that proposition, and I take it he does not, we only have another remarkable instance of the very lax views held by different Members of the Cabinet and the fact that every Cabinet Minister in this Government differs from his colleagues on nearly every subject. When we ask the Prime Minister if he has noticed a speech of some colleague, he nearly always says, "He was only speaking for himself and not for the Cabinet." I suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he said the Church was Established at the time of the Reformation and not before, was only speaking for himself, and now, when the Home Secretary says the Church enjoys national property because she is Established, he is only speaking for himself. We want to know what the Government really mean when they talk about Establishment and Disestablishment.

      2597
      I will not go through all the other incidents. We did have some other examples of Establishment given by the Under-Secretary, and, as far as I remember, one of them was that the King had to be crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury and by no other religious personage. After all, that is very immaterial, but this Bill will not even alter that. There is the other case of the Ecclesiastical Courts, which is really a small matter, and there is the point that so long as the Church is Established its clergy are the only people who can call themselves "Clerks in Holy Orders." We do not particularly mind about that, and, if all you want is to enable ministers of other religious bodies to call themselves "Clerks in Holy Orders," why do you not bring in a simple Bill with this object? It would be very much simpler than bringing in this Bill and asking the House, without any definition, to Disestablish the Church. What do you really mean by Disestablishment? Do you mean to take away from the Church those special privileges, if you like to put it so, which she enjoys now and which other religious bodies do not? If that is your object, then I say you must put in certain limiting words whether "as now Established" or "Established in the sense which other religious bodies are not Established." It is perfectly clear you must have some limiting words or you Disestablish the Church altogether and leave her, as far as I can understand, with no legal status whatever. It has been laid down that other religious bodies are Established now, and have been ever since the Toleration Act. There was a very interesting Debate upon this question in 1895, and the late Mr. Stanley Leighton quoted some remarkable examples of how other religious bodies are Established. The matter, therefore, must be dealt with in this limited way, or you put the Church in a worse position than other religious bodies. He quoted, for example, the case of a Lord Mayor of London who did certain things because, he said, being, I think, a Wesleyan, he belonged to the Established Church. He was Lord Mayor in the reign of William and Mary.
      Mr. KING: There were no Wesleyans in those days.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I fully admit the error.
      Mr. KING: It shows you do not know much about Nonconformity.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I do not know why the hon. Member should interfere. I know the matter quite as well as he does. It is perfectly easy for anyone to make a slip. This gentleman not only worshipped quite publicly with Dissenters, according to his usual custom, but he carried the regalia with him to the Meeting House, which very much disgusted many of the Church of England. The practice was defended by one of his party by the argument that by the Act of Parliament by which Dissenters had their liberty their religion was as much Established as that of the Church. There is the well-known case quoted by my hon. and learned Friend, in which Lord Mansfield laid it down:—
      "The Toleration Act renders that which was illegal before now legal. The simplest way of worshipping is permitted and allowed by this Act. It is not only exempted from punishment, but rendered innocent and lawful. It is Established."
      That is the judgment of Lord Mansfield. If, therefore, the Nonconformist way of worshipping is established and has been established since the Toleration Act, what you want to do by this Bill is not to Disestablish the Church altogether, but only to Disestablish it in those incidents in which the Establishment of the Church of England differs from the Establishment of other religious bodies. Some limiting words like "as now" are therefore absolutely necessary. It cannot be doubted that Nonconformist bodies are Established. Take the Act regulating them. The doors of any chapel have to be kept open during service so that anybody can enter for public worship, and they are guaranteed against disturbance. They have a privilege, a very big privilege, in exemption from rates, saving them probably some £40,000 a year. They are in a great many ways distinctly recognised by the State and Established. Therefore, I say, unless you are going to put the Church in a worse position than other religious bodies stand at the present time, you are bound to limit the word "Disestablished" by introducing some such words as my hon. Friend has moved. The matter therefore is really one of very great importance. It is not a mere verbal triviality. We want to get some kind of idea, some definition, of what the Government mean by Establishment. We want to safeguard our Church so that it shall not be put in a worse position than other bodies. We are told that in the case of the Irish Bill no such words were introduced, But I must repeat that the two

      2599
      cases are entirely different. The Establishment of the Church of Ireland was defined by Statute, but we do not know what we are doing in this connection, because the Establishment of the Church of England in Wales has grown up through centuries, and there are no Acts of Parliament to define exactly what it is. Therefore we are entitled to have a rather more full discussion on this point than we have yet received from the Treasury Bench.
      Mr. CAVE: I think the Debate is interesting, because we have got for the first time in this House an attempt to define the effect of the proposed enactment that the Church shall cease to be established by law. I have followed closely the definition given by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary but I think he will admit that the terms "Establishment" and "Disendowment" are two different things. You can have Establishment without Endowment, and you can have Endowment without Establishment. Under the present system the bishops of the Church of England are nominated by the Crown, but that is not a privilege of the Church. It is a privilege of the State, and therefore the first thing you want to do is not to take something from the Church, but to take something from the State. And, incidentally, the effect is that you take one step towards severing the connection between the State and religion. The next point the right hon. Gentleman made was this, that by virtue of the Establishment the Ecclesiastical Courts have coercive jurisdiction, but he forgot to mention that the decisions of those Courts are only binding on Churchmen. The only other matter I wish to mention is that the Church is under the control of Parliament. That is not a privilege of the Church. It is rather a shackle on the Church, and so long as the Church is the Church of the whole nation, in this sense, that every man in this country, has certain rights he can claim from the Church in relation, for instance, to marriage or burial, so long is it right that the Church should be under national control. Every Church is under the same control, although it is exercised more frequently in some cases than others. According to the right hon. Gentleman, Establishment is a burden upon the Church, and there the effect of the Bill now before the House is to take away that burden. Is that the object of the Bill. If it is the object, why
      2600
      is it defended by attacks on the Church? You know in your hearts that is not the object. There is no fair-minded man opposite who will say that it is the object. But I do want, if possible, to find out what Establishment means. I believe that the real meaning of established by law is nothing more than "recognised by law," and I am certain that that is the original meaning of the phrase. Let us go a little further, and see what is meant by it. I believe the main effect of these words on the subsequent Clauses of the Bill will be to put an end to very many of the obligations of the Church. I may mention some of them. The Church has a duty in every parish towards every parishioner. That duty you are going to destroy. You may think it is a good thing for the Church. I am not at all sure of it. Indeed, I am certain it is a bad thing for the country, and I cannot believe, if that is the object, hon. Members will support this Bill. I suppose what is at the back of it is the idea that the Church has certain privileges. But what are the privileges of the Church of England? What are the privileges which you seek to destroy? There is not a member of the Church of England who would, not willingly give up that privilege, if it is merely of a social kind.
      Is there some other privilege? Is it that you think the Church is too much recognised or exclusively recognised in public functions? It may have been so; it was so at one time, but I believe it to be so no longer. In all local functions, municipal, and other public functions it is more and more the custom, and I believe a very wise one, that we should all of us recognise not one Church, not the Church of some, but the Churches of all. The more that is done, the better good Churchmen should like it, because nobody who cares about his Church, whatever the Church may be, fails to recognise that the more the nation as a whole gives recognition to the Churches the better it is for the nation. Therefore, if it is a question of privilege, deal with it, specially if you please, by your Bill; put it in words, and we will deal with it. If that is your object, I do not believe you attain it by general words such as these, destroying the establishment. My object in saying that is to beg the Committee to be quite clear about what they are doing. The effect of these words may be, and perhaps is, to destroy the connection between the State and religion. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Is that what you want? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]

      2601
      I am glad to hear some hon. Gentleman opposite say "No." Will not he and others join us, not in weakening the links between religion and the State, but in strengthening them; not in cutting oil the connection between one Church and the State, but in making the connection between the State and other Churches as strong as the link which now binds the Church of England to the State. I have said these few words with regard to what is called concurrent establishment, although I would rather say concurrent recognition of the religious bodies in this country. Why is it that Christian bodies spend their time and their energies in flying at each other's throats? Why are you here trying to destroy the Church of England—[HON. MKMBERS: "We are not."]—by impoverishing it and by destroying its connection with the State? Is that work of which you are proud to-day, or of which you will be proud hereafter? I ask hon. Members to believe that in resisting this proposal for Disestablishment we are mainly influenced not by the desire to retain for our Church any special privileges, but by the earnest desire to maintain, if we can, the historic connection between religion and the State in our country.
      Mr. SILVESTER HORNE: Nobody in this House ever listens to the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Cave) with more sincere pleasure than I do, but I am bound to say that this evening he has discussed this question from a point of view which shows, if he will allow me to say so without any offence, that if there is misunderstanding on this side in regard to the position of the Church of England there is certainly just as much misunderstanding on the other side with regard to the arguments by which this policy is being supported. I think I may say that the hon. and learned Member has assumed all through his speech that those of us who have been consistently advocating the policy of Disestablishment have been influenced by the desire to weaken the Episcopal Church in Wales, and he has assumed all through that we should be weakening that Church and its influence if we succeed in the policy of Disestablishment. I am quite certain of this, that the hon. and learned Member knows, probably from his own personal recollection, men who have stood in this House as advocates and representatives of the policy of Disestablishment whom he dare not charge on the floor of this House with trying to
      2602
      weaken the cause of religion. Nothing astonishes me more in this House than the different views hon. Members opposite take of a great representative man, like Mr. John Bright, if they are regarding him from the point of view of a person who disagrees with Home Rule or regarding him from the point of view of a person who was in favour of Disestablishment. When he was opposing Home Rule he was a superior form of patriot, but when he was agitating Disestablishment he was an inferior form of pirate. That is the line of argument which has been pursued upon that side of the Committee. I do not want to add any recriminations to this Debate, but I do want to ask the hon. and learned Member to believe that there are, sitting in the Welsh party at the present time, at least half a dozen members of the Church of England advocating the policy of Disestablishment, and who are here advocating that policy, not because they want to weaken their Church, but because they believe that the policy of freedom and the concession to the other religious bodies of absolute religious equality will be good for their Church. Surely the hon. and learned Member can appreciate that point of view.
      Let me add another thing. I know the people of Wales pretty well, and I know my fellow Nonconformists exceedingly well, and I should like to say to the hon. and learned Member this, which I think he also understands, because I know of many kindly and sympathetic things he personally has done to Nonconformist Churches. Every true Nonconformist is a High Churchman, in the sense that he resents the connection of the State in regard to the creeds he holds, and the forms of worship he follows. He is taught in his schools and in his Churches that a Church ought to be free. He is taught that the highest prerogative of the Church is that it should be free—free to frame its own dogmas and its own forms of worship, and to determine its own forms of government. If he believes that that is the highest conception of the Church, surely the hon. and learned Member might assume in this House that there are those who advocate this policy from motives that are at least as fair and as sincere as those of any High Churchman. We have been asked from the other side whether we resent certain privileges that are held by State Churchmen at the present time. Let me discuss, for instance—perhaps I have the greatest right in this House to discuss it—the question

      2603
      of the ministry. What would the hon. and learned Member think if there were an artificial line drawn clean across the profession which he represents, drawn by the State, dividing the orthodox from the heterodox, separating the sheep from the goats? I wonder what he would think? Let me suppose for a moment that there was a party in the legal profession which stood by the unchangeable character of the Law as it stands, and that the State established and endowed that particular profession and set the mark of its sanction and patronage upon them, while those who advocated some reform and change in connection with the law were regarded by the State as standing in a totally different position. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that he would introduce a cleavage which would run through his own profession, which would be mischievous and injurious to his profession, and which would inevitably create a feeling of friction and division.
      Just in the same way there is at present a ministry in the Church which is sanctioned by the State under the Act of Uniformity which is treated as being worthy of the sanction and the patronage of the State, and. on the other hand, there is a great body of ministers of the Free Churches in Wales, men well educated, men who have increasingly been taking the highest positions in their Welsh universities, men, many of whom have made great contributions to theological literature, men who absolutely have the esteem and regard of all Churchmen whose esteem and regard is worth having, and yet these men, by these artificial arrangements, are regarded as outside the fold which could receive any sort of recognition by the State—these men whom the Welsh people trust and love. Disestablishment means to us religious equality in this sense, that henceforth they will all stand on an absolute equality in the eye of the State, as they ought to do, and surely they are tendencies which we all glady recognise—tendencies of our time—which reinforce our argument. There is going on at the present time a practical process of Disestablishment of the universities in which we all rejoice. Up to the present time there has been that line of cleavage and demarcation there, and Nonconformists could not obtain their Divinity degree. Now even the University of Oxford, with which I am
      2604
      proud to be associated, is willing to throw open even its examination in theology to men of all ecclesiastical opinions. Surely if that tendency is going on in the universities, which cling as we know obstinately to their privileges, surely the time has come when in the great, broad area of the Church of Christ in this land and in Wales, these old barriers should be abolished, and all should be treated as being absolutely entitled to the same measure of State regard. There was a phrase used by the late Earl Selborne, which has been quoted already, but not in its entirety, in that pamphlet of 1886, and it was quoted by the Prime Minister in the Debates of 1895:—
      "Disestablishment without Disendowment was a renunciation by the State of such powers of control as are involved in Establishment without total or large secularisation of the Endowments of the Church."
      We are challenged on this side of the House to say what we think Establishment really means. What did Earl Selborne think of it? "Such powers of control as are involved in the Establishment." We all know perfectly well that there are these great powers of control resting with Parliament in the management of a Parliamentary Church. We all know quite well that under the Act of Uniformity the State undertook that the revenues of the Church should only be applied in support of men who held a certain creed, who were strictly observant of certain forms, and who submitted to a certain order of government. That was control of the ecclesiastical revenues entrusted to these purposes in order that there might be established in this country one definite, uniform typo of religion. That still holds. That was an Act of Parliament, and if Parliament could interfere in an Act of Uniformity like that, and impose that Act upon the whole population, quite clearly the Church of England as by law established is a Parliamentary Church, and we have a right to come here in Parliament to see that still its ministers, as far as we can, hold by those creeds; as far as we can observe those forms of worship, and as far as we can support that order of government. Only the other day the Bishop of Manchester made what seemed to me an exceedingly interesting speech. He proposed that Parliament should be obliged to pass a new ordinance, or rubric, in order to settle questions regarding what costumes might be worn and what ceremonies might be observed. He proposed that they should come to Parliament for a Bill for that purpose. That

      2605
      shows that it is a Parliamentary Church. They would not come to Parliament if they were not obliged to come to Parliament. We quite believe that the Church would prefer to get its alterations and reforms without coming here. I quite believe that it would prefer not to come here. We are not at all a fit and proper assembly to decide these questions. The Church of the Establishment goes back to a time when every Member of this House was a member of the Church of England, and, I quite agree, in those days, when you were legislating for the Church of England, you, at any rate, knew that everyone who took part in the Debates and in the votes of this House was a member of that Church in the strict sense. Consequently there was no particular impropriety in making Parliament the chief ruling spirit of that Church.
      But everything is different now. Roman Catholics, Protestants, Nonconformists, and Churchmen, we all sit here alike, and this House is the last assembly in this country that ought to be entrusted with authority over the Church. That is Disestablishment. As far as the Church in Wales is concerned, that Church is going to resume the ancient prerogative of the Christian Church. It is going to have freedom. I should like to appeal to hon. Members opposite to believe that there are Members here who have taken a part, and perhaps a foremost part, in this controversy who have no interest and no feeling whatever of animus against the spiritual communion in which most hon. Members opposite are interested. I was once accused, I think by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen), of having used upon the platform an adjective which, if it had ever occurred to me would have caused a single moment's sorrow or anxiety to people on that side of the House, I would never have used. But I was arguing this very point. I was arguing that the reason why certain canons are still included and published in the Book of Canons and Constitutions, is just because under the Parliamentary system you can never hope to bring your Church, by reform, really into line and up to date in the matter of all that is necessary of change and of reform, and you cannot do it because it is a Parliamentary Church and subject to Parliament. Therefore, when I spoke of one of the ancient canons as a pagan regulation and said it still was degrading that book, it was simply that I might force home the
      2606
      argument that you cannot get rid of an old canon like that simply because it is a Parliamentary Church. It is quite time the Church resumed her freedom. There are big questions coming before us, questions raised, for instance, in the Divorce Report, which raise the whole question of the relations of Church and State. If the Church is to be free to speak her mind and to have her real influence over the people of this country, she must not be in toils to the State when she comes to discuss a question like this. I believe the Noble Lord the Member for the Hitchin Division (Lord Robert Cecil) and the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) have spoken in that strain. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University has written these sentiments in a book, where he says that, in the face of the Gospel, Parliament has no right to interfere in spiritual things. I do appeal to them, if they will take occasion by the hand, and if they will at this time achieve freedom for the Church, which is really the only dignified position for the Church, and say that they would find there will be beyond Disestablishment, which is bound to come, a growing unity among the Christian forces of Wales that will be ominous of the highest conceivable advantage to the people of the Principality.
      Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: I am the last man to underrate the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Home), or indeed of many of those who advocate the Disestablishment of the Church, but I think the hon. Member has forgotten that this Bill embraces proposals not merely to disorganise and impoverish the Church, but also to secularise the State. That is in plain English the function of this Bill. I freely admit that there are certain aspects of the relation between Parliament and the Church, as there are certain aspects of the relation between the State and Nonconformity, which T think might well be redressed, but it seems to me to be quite idle argumentatively to talk of the control of Parliament by the Church and to ignore the control of Nonconformity by the State. It does not forward the argument in the least to do so. Directly you get property in a Church, whether Nonconformist Church, or Free Church, or State Church—I admit, and all serious Nonconformists admit, that you should have ample Endowments, as ample as you can get—the moment these are organised, as they must be in trusts for the promotion of certain doctrines, of course from

      2607
      that moment you must have the control of the State to which people can apply when trusts are broken. It is absolutely necessary, and it seems to me that the true remedy for the grievances of which the hon. Member spoke with so much vehemence and eloquence is that there should be Church reform and not Church Disestablishment. What was the great point which, in making his speech, he obviously felt very much. He obviously felt very much what he called the line drawn between Nonconformist ministers and ministers of the Church of England. I do not recognise any such line. Where is such a line drawn? Test it in this way. How would you get rid of that line by the passage of this Bill? It is impossible. I hope there always will be a very great number of people who would be deeply attached to the old Established Church of England, and, of course, all those who were attached to that Church would always feel in a different way, though I hope not an uncharitable way, towards the ministers of that Church and the ministers of other Churches.
      But what other difference in substance exists? I tried to understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. I suppose he meant that there was a certain prestige attached to the recognition of the Church of England by reason of its being called the Established Church. But really that is a very small matter. The substance of the matter is that attachment, prestige, and honour are given to ministers of the Church of England by those who believe they are doing their duty well, and who love the Church to which they belong. I submit to the hon. Member opposite that whatever you do by the Bill, whether you Disestablish the Church or Disendow the Church, you will never obliterate that line between Church of England ministers and others, so far as that difference arises from honest difference of opinion. Every tolerant man respects the Church at the present moment, and I hope that respect will continue. I protest against the idea that there is a line drawn by any honest Churchman between Church of England ministers and ministers of other Churches. Just think what it means. I submit to the Committee that the hon. Member's views are really out of date. I remember the Liberationist views perfectly as held by Bright, Miall, and Dr. Dale, for whom I entertain great respect. We never hear anything of these views now. Those views were largely founded upon this position,
      2608
      that you have got a body in the Established Church which was made powerful by great Endowments, that Endowments were wrong in an apostolic Church which exists on the voluntary contributions given by their congregations, and that to have Endowments was to stereotype views which might not be honestly entertained by those who were deriving advantage from the Endowments. That is the old position. But it is absolutely changed now. Every Nonconformist body of importance realises the impossibility of ministering to the poor without Endowments. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, that is the opinion of Nonconformist bodies. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury there. He is a very active, not to say acrimonious, advocate of this Bill. I am not quoting his exact words, but the substance of what he inserted in a book was that no Church or Christian body could reach the very poor unless its ministers had some sustenance from Endowments.
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): Never in any circumstances did I give vent to such a sentiment as that. I have said something on the subject, and I am prepared to defend it. I think at the present moment the very poor are being reached by Churches which have no Endowments.
      Mr. A. LYTTELTON: I have a very distinct recollection of the passage, and I believe it is what I have stated it to be.
      Mr. MASTERMAN: In the very book to which the right hon. Gentleman has made allusion I said that in my own experience the two parties most reaching the very poor in the poor district in which I live were the Roman Catholics and the Salvation Army, neither of whom had Endowments.
      Mr. A. LYTTELTON: The right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten at the time he was writing that passage a certain qualification he was inserting elsewhere. It is quite sufficient for my purpose to accept the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. I am perfectly clear that of late appeals have been made by leading-members of the Baptist Church and the Congregational Church in the strongest terms for Endowments. It is quite possible to prove those facts. The old Liberationist position has not been maintained that the Church cannot be deemed apostolic which has an Endowment. The

      2609
      hon. Gentleman further went on to mention, I think quite rightly, that the tendency of the times was against what he called Parliamentary control. Again I say there is no Parliamentary control of the doctrine of the Church of England. No man for a hundred years past has brought forward a single measure in this House which has been passed which dealt with a doctrine of the Church of England, and no member of that Church would submit for a single moment to any control over his doctrines by this Parliament. Cambridge and Oxford Universities have opened their examinations to Nonconformists, and I believe that that takes away the very last grievance which Nonconformists have. If you look not to this country only and not to Wales only, but if you look to Scotland you will see that the Scotch people are taking now what is a true and right course with regard to Establishment. The two great bodies—the Established Church in Scotland and the United Free Church—have by consent ruled out from their discussions all violations of the Endowments of either. They commenced their great negotiations by ruling out that subject altogether as inadmissible. Then they go on to discuss, and discuss in the most friendly and definite way, how they can unite again in one Established Church— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
      Mr. A. F. WHYTE: I must dispute that. There are negotiations going on, but certainly they do not contemplate that the United Church, which is the outcome of it. will be in the presently understood sense an Established Church.
      Mr. A. LYTTELTON: I cannot agree with the hon. Member. The unity between those Churches is being attempted. The Endowments are respected on both sides. Nobody for a moment in Scotland expects or desires to touch the Endowment of the other Church. Those are sacred and respected on both sides. I have studied the subject carefully, and my distinct impression is that both sides are striving to enter together into one body, and that that body so existing shall be recognised by the Church as the Christian exponent of the State. I was studying the matter, and that is my most distinct opinion as to the object of those who are engaged in this discussion. My last words shall be, I beg the House that that spirit, which prevailing all through Scotland, which was commencing in Wales before this Bill, and which is now, I think happily
      2610
      progressing in England also, should not be interrupted by an attack made on a Church poor in itself with the idea of making it more poor still, and that both parties embarking on this discussion should be at any rate friendly and respect one another, instead of indulging in bitter and exasperating discussions about funds.
      10.0 P.M.
      Mr. A. F. WHYTE: I should not have intervened in this Debate had not the right hon. Gentleman drawn into the discussion what I think, from his point of view was perfectly legitimate, namely, the action taken in Scotland by what I suppose I may call without offence to others, the two leading exponents of the Presbyterian form of religion in that country. I regret very much that the question was introduced into this Debate, and for the reason which the right hon. Gentleman himself propounded to the House, namely, that the question is undoubtedly being discussed in a spirit very different from that which animates discussion between the Established Church in England and the Non-established Churches. But I should enter a caveat in this House, seeing that the question is being publicly brought forward, against the assumption that one of the bodies to that discussion necessarily divests itself of the important doctrine as regards Church government for which it has stood in the past in Scotland. I wish to say most emphatically that I divest myself entirely of any shred of right to speak for that Church, and I would most earnestly suggest to the right hon. Gentleman and to anyone else in this House who desires to" use that illustration to be somewhat cautious in using it if he desires to see that those admirable negotiations which are going forward in Scotland carried to a fruitful conclusion. They are negotiations of a most delicate character, and they have been carried on to a length which is astonishing to everyone who has watched them. I believe there is a very great hope indeed for them, but only if they are kept on as far apart as possible from the ordinary conflict which gathers around Establishment. As I am on my feet I may refer to one further remark made by the right hon. Gentleman. He spoke of this Bill as a Bill to secularise the State. I must borrow a remark of my hon. Friend (Mr. Horne) behind me, whose splendid speech the whole House was glad to hear, and say that again illustrates the chasm that lies between the two sides

      2611
      of the House. Certainly, if there is misunderstanding on one side, it is on both sides. For, after all, a State can only be secular if there is no religion in the heart of its people. There is the broad ground on which we stand, and if you describe this Bill as a Bill to secularise the State, then you mistake both the nature of the State and the nature of religion.
      Sir A. CRIPPS: I wish to say one word in reference to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and the speech of the hon. Member for Ipswich. As I understand the Scottish question, and I have studied it most carefully, there is a tendency there towards reunion. I am a very strong advocate of reunion in this country, and the moral I draw from the Scotch precedent is that if religious communions in this country set to work and join together, instead of attacking one another, they might carry out in this country the work which is being done in Scotland at the present time. The hon. Member for Ipswich talked about unity, and used very eloquent language as regards unity between Christian bodies in this country. Does he really think that Christian unity is promoted when a particular religious community in this country is practically robbed? I give the hon. Member full credit for sincerity in. what he said. Let him look at the position of affairs; if he is sincere in desiring reunion between Nonconformity and Churchmen, surely the very worst step to take is to attack Churchmen in a way they feel most bitterly, and which they cannot but resent for a very long period of time. When a man puts his hand into your pocket, he does not bring about a very friendly feeling; and I would put to the lion. Gentleman, if he is sincere in what he says, if he wants Christian unity, that he must withdraw from this attempt to attack Churchmen, which is the real basis of the present Bill. Then with regard to privilege and duties, I agree with Bishop Magee, who said:—
      Show me a single privilege and I am willing to abrogate it, because I do not want to be a member of a Church of which it can be urged we have privileges which do not belong to any other religions bodies in this country."
      Let me put the other side of the case. If the hon. Member for Ipswich had been a clergyman of the Church of England, instead of minister of a Nonconformist body, he could not have had a seat in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because there
      2612
      is a Statutory disability. Does not that carry out what I say? I think it does. Whether it is right or wrong I am not discussing, but I understood the hon. Member for Ipswich to say that there was some line drawn which put a minister who was not a minister of the Church in England in an inferior position. I deny that altogether; but the very moment I take a test which we all know, namely, where there is a privilege or obligation as regards this House, the privilege is for the Nonconformist minister, and the duty and disability is on the clergymen of the Church of England. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the bishops?"] I am coming to that by and by. I am dealing with the speech of the hon. Member for Ipswich, who, among other points, referred to the question of Divinity degrees. What has that got to do with this Bill at all? I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman who spoke just now. I am a member of the Oxford University, and I think he is a member of the Cambridge University; I rejoice that in both universities anything in the nature of intolerance as regards the conferring of divinity degree has been done away with. But that is not a privilege of the Church; it has nothing to do with the question of Church Disestablishment. That is a reform carried out in the two universities quite independently of this Bill, and over which this Bill has no influence one way or the other. The hon. Member referred to the name of John Bright. Let me quote Mr. Bright's view, which he put in a striking manner, when speaking on the question of Disestablishment in Ireland. He said in this House that lie supported it on one ground, and that was that the Church in Ireland was not doing its religious duty as it ought to do. I quite agree that if you could make an allegation of that kind against the Church in Wales, you might quote John Bright in your favour, but as you cannot, and as the Royal Commission found the distinct opposite, so far from the opinion of John Bright being in your favour, it is opposed to the very proposals which the Government are now bringing forward.
      If you referred to what was said by Wycliffe, you will find that he said, when religious Endowments were not properly used, it was for the State to interfere. We are all agreed with the view that if religious Endowments are not properly used, there is a case for interference, but that leads to the opposite conclusion when

      2613
      they are properly used, as they are at the present moment for religious purposes. The argument of Mr. Bright, therefore, supports the opposite view to that of the Government, and he would never have supported the proposals made from the Front Bench opposite. The hon. Member for Ipswich seemed to forget, when he was talking of privilege, the question of duty. Let me ask him, in the cause of religion, whether it is right from the national standpoint to bring Christian ministration and service within the reach of every citizen. I assume he would think that right, because no doubt he spoke from the religious standpoint; but I want to know how we can guarantee that if we have no Established Church with that duty thrown upon it. Without you have the assistance of Endowments you cannot do it. The very object of Endowments in the first instance was to bring Christian ministration within the range of every citizen, and that is what I mean by Establishment— I mean having a Church which has this duty thrown upon it of bringing Christian ministration and Christian service within the range of every criticism, in the very poorest parts of our country and in the crowded slums of our industrial centres. That is the great duty thrown upon the Church by its Established position. Upon that point may I quote what was said by the Secretary to the Treasury, which I think will bear repetition. He said:—
      "Nonconformists are strongest amongst the middle classes; as one penetrates from the border regions to the actual depth they are found to become less and less an operative force in the life of the people. This seems due to two main causes. In the first place they do not possess the necessary machinery to maintain Endowed Churches—"
      What is that but Establishment?
      "Throughout the vast district few of its scattered missions are in a position to support themselves."
      I claim that quotation carries out to the full what I said. The hon. Member for Ipswich has taken great part in Nonconformist work in the poorest districts, and may I ask him whether the great obstacle in the way of Nonconformist work and Nonconformist religious development is that they have not got Endowments, that they cannot get sufficient stipends to assure the position of their ministers, and at the present moment they are seeking to put themselves into a better position in regard to Endowments and securing the position of the various resident ministers. Even Nonconformist ministers, as well as Church of England clergymen, must have some living wage. And I think it is absolutely quixotic to
      2614
      say, as I think the hon. Member said, and I join issue with him in this, that by putting your hands in the pocket of the Church and by depriving our poor clergymen of the poor stipends they now have, you cannot possibly have a real influence on religious life. He said Nonconformists sympathised with the High Churchmen. I see the Home Secretary is not present. He thought I was a High Churchman. I am afraid High Churchmen would not agree with him, and that is all I need say upon that point. But what does that mean? It does not mean Disestablishment; it means reform. If the hon. Member for Ipswich is as sincere as I give him credit for, will he join with Churchmen in order to get that reform, which would give them what he considers proper control over their own religious life and services? I may remind him—and I will ask him to take the testimony of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. A. F. Whyte)— this control, this Erastian control, is not an element of Establishment. In the Scottish Church, on all spiritual matters the Scottish Established Church is wholly independent. When William tried to attack the independence in spiritual control of the Scottish Church he very soon had to draw back.
      There is no greater mistake for anyone who understands this question of Establishment than to suppose that this measure of Parliamentary control, which I agree is too severe and goes too far, and I agree we want greater freedom as regards the Church of England—but there is no greater mistake than to suppose that Establishment has anything to do with it. You may have an Established Church as in Scotland, which on spiritual matters has absolute freedom and discretion amongst its own members, and if the hon. Member would come and help us, and if he will say we ought to be completely free from this control, and ought to have this reform, he will have no stauncher assistant than myself, and I believe the great mass of other Churchmen. I have dealt, I think, with what was said by the hon. Member for Ipswich, whose speech well deserves recognition, and I am sure he will give me credit in the same way as I give him credit. I will tell him this: if he wants to work with us he must realise our feelings and our ideas, he must cease to attack us, and, more than anything else, abstain from robbing us of the funds which, in my view and conscience, are absolutely vital to enable us to carry out the great duties thrown upon us. Every Churchman knows

      2615
      that a great deal of our best work is crippled by want of funds, and the same thing in Nonconformity. I wish this work and all religious work was properly provided for under a voluntary system. It is not true, and it is quixotic to take an attitude of that kind, and every Churchman and every Nonconformist knows that one of the great difficulties in their work is to get sufficient funds to carry out the great duties which are cast upon religion at the present time.
      I have answered, I think, as well as I can what was said by the hon. Member for Ipswich, and let me say a word or two in answer to the Home Secretary. What we asked the Home Secretary was this: We asked him for a definition in order that we may appreciate what was meant by the first Clause; and we asked him for this reason: We wanted to know whether he took the view that the Church established by law started from the Reformation Statutes or whether it started at some earlier date. We wanted him to tell us for this reason: It is very important as regards nearly all the subsequent Clauses. We wanted to ask him this: What is your test of continuity as regards the Church? You are telling us that whether Established or not, the Church is going to continue in the future much in the same way as at present, and I think such an argument has been used by more than one speaker on the other side. The Home Secretary is not present, but perhaps the Under-Secretary will take this question to him: What is his case as to continuity? What is it which, he says, enables a Church to go on as it did before, whether Established or Disestablished? I want to know what it means. Did he mean continuity of doctrine? Did he mean continuity of ritual? Did he mean continuity of service? Or what does he mean when he says, "You may Disestablish the Church and yet leave it to go on in the same way as it was working before"? That is the great question, because here we have something quite distinct from the Irish case. It is a question not only of Disestablishment, but of dismemberment. We want to know what, according to the view of the Government, the position of the dismembered portion of the Church in Wales will be if we pass this first Clause. I may give one important illustration of what I mean. Every serious Nonconformist opposite will realise what it is. According to Clause 3, the Church in Wales after Disestablishment is to have
      2616
      power to alter the articles, doctrines, rites, rules, discipline, and ordinances as they exist in the Church of England now. What becomes of continuity? What becomes of the argument that the whole Church is not going to be dismembered when one branch of it may in every respect upset every doctrine, ritual, and rite which we value from every religious standpoint, and which we believe to be vital to our Christian faith?
      What is there on the other side? If there was not going to be dismemberment in a case of this kind, if the Church, as a whole, in both England and Wales, dealt under proper authority with its rites and rules, it would be in the same position as the Disestablished Church in Ireland. As regards a matter of that kind I, for one, would not find any fault. But the fact is the exact contrary. After this Bill is passed, you may have the two dismembered portions of the same Church under different ritual, different rites, different services—in every respect different if you take any religious test as regards continuity in the life of a religious community. I will put this to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Silvester Horne). I forget for the moment to which denomination he belongs, whether the Wesleyan or the Congregational. [HON. MEMBERS: "Congregational."] I do not speak in disparagement of either one or the other. What would he say if by coercion you separated the Congregationalists in Wales from the Congregationalists in England, and gave them power to adopt ritual, rites, and services wholly inconsistent with those in England? [HON. MEMBERS: "They have the power."] I differ from that. But put it this way. Suppose you have one Nonconformist community in England and Wales with one government, one ritual, and one service. That being their desire, aim, and object, what would any hon. Member opposite say if by coercion you prevented that continuity of religious life from going on and put it in the power of one portion of the community to separate itself, as regards ritual and so on, from the other portion? [HON. MEMBERS: "They have the power now."] I entirely deny that. So far as the Church is concerned, at present we are one religious community, with one ritual, and one government, and we desire to remain so. There has never been a precedent where, under those circumstances,. Parliament has intervened, by a compulsory process dividing a Church forming one

      2617
      community, and given to one portion as against the rest complete independence so that it might alter its ritual and service in any way it pleased. I strongly support the Amendment which has been moved.
      Mr. HEMMERDE: The hon. and learned Gentleman who last spoke, began by appealing to us in the name of Christian charity. He then, on two occasions, proceeded to call us robbers. But I only rise at this late hour because I have sat through the Debate to-day, and listened to all the speeches, and I have not heard one speech from the Opposition side that has allowed any decent motives at all to the people in this House, or the country who are supporting this Bill. They talk upon the assumption that they speak for the entire Church of England. That is absolutely erroneous. I do not myself know of a single member of the Church of England who usually supports the Liberal party, who has in any way ceased in his alliegance to the Liberal party—
      Mr. GOULDING: What about the Dean of Lincoln?
      Mr. HEMMERDE: I will take the Dean of Lincoln. Unfortunately I do not know him. [Interruption.]
      The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman who last spoke had a patient hearing, and I would ask hon. Members to hear the other side.
      Mr. HEMMERDE: I hope my remarks did not irritate the Opposition, for as I said, I do not, as a matter of fact, know of any gentleman who has supported the Liberal party and who has left them upon this question. The Dean of Lincoln did not intervene in a recent by-election, at which I was speaking, but some of the members of his flock showed me letters which he wrote. As a matter of fact, two bishops, at least, of the English Church are in strong support of this measure. [An HON. MEMBER: "Three."] Three, and certainly not the least notable. I can, however, say for myself that I do not in my own short political experience know of a single case of a well-known Liberal who is not strongly in favour of the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church of England. [An HON. MEMBER:
      "Wales?"] It was merely a slip that I said "England," but my remark would be equally true. I do not know of any prominent Liberal or Labour politician—[An HON. MEMBER: "A Churchman?"]—Yes, Churchman or otherwise—who has not always been in favour of the Disestablishment and Disendowment, not only the Church in Wales, but also in England! I do think that we ought to be credited with the fact that some of the most distinguished members of the Church of England, some of the most distinguished bishops, are in favour of this Bill, and have been for years. I think, at any rate, we might be credited with decent sentiments about the Church. I represented at one time a Welsh constituency, and I never heard there this measure supported by attacks upon the Church. The arguments I heard almost invariably were those that I have heard expressed to-night put forward by hon. Members that it would be far better for the members of the Church and for the State if the Church was Disestablished. There is only another point which came rather as a surprise from the last speaker, and that was that there was a statutory disability against the clergy sitting in this House. I was under the impression that the clergy were one of the estates of the realm, and were in the same position as the estate of the realm that sits a little way off. The hon. Member who spoke last said he could see no likeness at all between the clergy and the ministers of Nonconformity. All I can say is, if it is the case, and if the clergy cannot sit here simply because they are an estate of the realm and Nonconformists can, you can hardly have a clearer line of how the State differentiates between one order and another by putting one into a position of superiority over the other!
      It being half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 28th November, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, "That the words 'as now' be there inserted."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 182; Noes, 297.

      Division No. 393]

      AYES.

      [10.30 p.m.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Ashley, W. W.

      Balcarres, Lord

      Aitken, Sir William Max

      Baird, J. L.

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Amery, L. C. M. S.

      Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

      Greene, W. R.

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Gretton, John

      Norton-Griffiths, J.

      Barnston, H.

      Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

      O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

      Barrie, H. T.

      Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

      Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

      Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

      Haddock, George Bahr

      Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

      Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

      Hall, Marshall (L'pool, E. Toxteth)

      Perkins, Walter Frank

      Bigland, Alfred

      Hambro, Angus Valdemar

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Blair, Reginald

      Hamersley, Alfred St. George

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

      Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.)

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Boyton, James

      Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

      Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Bull, Sir William James

      Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

      Royds, Edmund

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Hoare, S. J. G.

      Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

      Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

      Hohler, G. F.

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Cassel, Felix

      Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

      Sanders, Robert A.

      Cator, John

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Sanderson, Lancelot

      Cautley, H. S.

      Hume-Williams, William Ellis

      Sassoon, Sir Philip

      Cave, George

      Hunt, Rowland

      Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Hunter, Sir C. R.

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

      Smith, Harold (Warrington)

      Chambers, James

      Jessel, Capt. H. M.

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Stanier, Beville

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Kerry, Earl of

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Starkey, John R.

      Cooper, Richard Ashmole

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

      Steel-Maitland, A. D.

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Stewart, Gershom

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

      Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

      Cripps, Sir C. A.

      Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

      Talbot, Lord E.

      Denniss, E. R. B.

      Lloyd, George Ambrose

      Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

      Dixon, C. H.

      Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

      Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

      Doughty, Sir George

      Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

      Thynne, Lord Alexander

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

      Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

      Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

      Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

      Touche, George Alexander

      Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

      Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)

      Tryon, Capt. George Clement

      Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

      MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

      Tullibardine, Marquess of

      Falle, B. G.

      Mackinder, Halford J.

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      Fell, Arthur

      Macmaster, Donald

      White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

      Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

      M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

      Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

      Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Fletcher, John Samuel

      Malcolm, Ian

      Wills, Sir Gilbert

      Forster, Henry William

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

      Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

      Foster, Philip Staveley

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

      Winterton, Earl

      Gardner, Ernest

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Gibbs, G. A.

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

      Moore, William

      Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

      Goldman, C. S.

      Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

      Yate, Col. Charles Edward

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Mount, William Arthur

      Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Newdegate, F. A.

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Newman, John R. P.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

      Grant, J. A.

      Campion and Mr. Pollock.

      NOES.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Black, Arthur W.

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Boland, John Plus

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Adamson, William

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Cotton, William Francis

      Addison, Dr. Christopher

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

      Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

      Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

      Brady, P. J.

      Crean, Eugene

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Brocklehurst, William B.

      Crooks, William

      Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Crumley, Patrick

      Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

      Buckmaster, Stanley O.

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Arnold, Sydney

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

      Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

      Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

      Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

      Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Dawes, J. A.

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

      De Forest, Baron

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Chancellor, H. G.

      Delany, William

      Barnes, George N.

      Chapple, Dr. William Allen

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Devlin, Joseph

      Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

      Clough, William

      Dillon, John

      Barton, William

      Clynes, John R.

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

      Doris, William

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Duffy, William J.

      Bentham, George Jackson

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      2620

      2621

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

      Kilbride, Denis

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      King, J.

      Reddy, M

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

      Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S.Molton)

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)>

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Essex, Richard Walter

      Leach, Charles

      Richards, Thomas

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Falconer, James

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Lundon, T.

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Ffrench, Peter

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Field, William

      Lynch, A. A.

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

      Robertson, John M (Tyneside)

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      McGhee, Richard

      Robinson, Sidney

      France, Gerald Ashburner

      Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

      MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Gilhooly, James

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Gill, A. H.

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Rowlands, James

      Ginnell, L.

      M'Kean, John

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

      Glanville, H. J.

      M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

      Samuel, Rt. Hon, H. L. (Cleveland)

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)

      Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Goldstone, Frank

      Manfield, Harry

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      Martin, J.

      Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

      Griffith, Ellis Jones

      Mason, David M. (Coventry)

      Sheehy, David

      Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

      Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

      Meagher, Michael

      Shortt, Edward

      Guiney, Patrick

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

      Gulland, John William

      Menzies, Sir Waiter

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Millar, James Duncan

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Hackett, J.

      Molloy, Michael

      Snowden, Philip

      Hancock, John George

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Soames, Arthur Wellesley

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

      Hardie, J. Keir

      Morrell, Philip

      Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

      Morison, Hector

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Muldoon, John

      Sutton, John E.

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Munro, R.

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

      Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

      Needham, Christopher Thomas

      Tennant, Harold John

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Neilson, Francis

      Thomas, J. H.

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Nolan, Joseph

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Hayward, Evan

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

      Hazleton, Richard

      Nuttall, Harry

      Wadsworth, J.

      Healy, Maurice (Cork)

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

      O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

      Walters, Sir John Tudor

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Walton, Sir Joseph

      Hemmerde, Edward George

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent)

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

      Henry, Sir Charles

      O'Grady, James

      Wardle, George J.

      Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

      O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

      Waring, Walter

      Higham, John Sharp

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

      Hinds, John

      O'Malley, William

      Watt, Henry A.

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

      Webb, H.

      Hodge, John

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Wedgwood, Josiah C.

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      O'Shee, James John

      White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

      Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      White, Patrick (Heath, North)

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

      Hudson, Walter

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

      Hughes, Spencer Leigh

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Wiles, Thomas

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

      Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

      Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      John, Edward Thomas

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

      Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

      Pirie, Duncan Vernon

      Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

      Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Pointer, Joseph

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Pollard, Sir George H.

      Winfrey, Richard

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

      Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

      Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Young, William (Perth, East)

      Joyce, Michael

      Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Keating, Matthew

      Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Radford, G. H

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

      The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the Clock at this day's sitting.
      Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 298; Noes, 179.

      Division No. 394.]

      AYES.

      [10.40 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      France, Gerald Ashburner

      M'Kean, John

      Adamson, William

      George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Addison, Dr. Christopher

      Gilhooly, James

      M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

      Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

      Gill, A. H.

      M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)

      Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

      Ginnell, L.

      Manfield, Harry

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

      Glanville, H. J.

      Martin, J.

      Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Mason, David M. (Coventry)

      Arnold, Sydney

      Goldstone, Frank

      Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

      Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      Meagher, Michael

      Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      Median, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

      Griffith, Ellis Jones

      Menzies, Sir Waiter

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

      Millar, James Duncan

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

      Molloy, Michael

      Barnes, George N.

      Guiney, Patrick

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

      Gulland, John William

      Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

      Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Morrell, Philip

      Barton, William

      Hackett, J.

      Morison, Hector

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Hancock, John George

      Muldoon, John

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Munro, R.

      Bentham, George Jackson

      Hardie, J. Keir

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Black, Arthur W.

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

      Needham, Christopher Thomas

      Boland, John Pius

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Neilson, Francis

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

      Nolan, Joseph

      Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

      Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

      Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

      Brady, P. J.

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Brocklehurst, William B.

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Nuttall, Harry

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny

      Buckmaster, Stanley O.

      Hayden, John Patrick

      O'Connor, John, (Kildare, N.)

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Hayward, Evan

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

      Hazleton, Richard

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Healy, Maurice (Cork)

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

      O'Grady, James

      Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

      O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

      Chancellor, H. G.

      Hemmerde, Edward George

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

      Chapple, Dr. William Allen

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      O'Malley William

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Henry, Sir Charles

      O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

      Clough, William

      Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Clynes, John R.

      Higham, John Sharp

      O'Shee, James John

      Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

      Hinds, John

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

      Hodge, John

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Cotton, William Francis

      Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

      Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

      Hudson, Walter

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Crean, Eugene

      Hughes, Spencer Leigh

      Pirie, Duncan Vernon

      Crooks, William

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      Pointer, Joseph

      Crumley, Patrick

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Pollard, Sir George H.

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      John, Edward Thomas

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

      Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

      Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

      Dawes, J. A.

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

      De Forest, Baron

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Radford, G. H.

      Delany, William

      Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Denman, Hon. R. D,

      Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Devlin, Joseph

      Joyce, Michael

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Dillon, John

      Keating, Matthew

      Reddy, M.

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Doris, William

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Duffy, William J.

      Kilbride, Denis

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      King, J.

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Richards, Thomas

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S.Molton)

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

      Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Leach, Charles

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Robertson, sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

      Robinson, Sidney

      Essex, Richard Walter

      Lundon, T.

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Falconer, James

      Lynch, A. A.

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

      Rowlands, James

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      McGhee, Richard

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Ffrench, Peter

      Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

      Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

      Field, William

      MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

      Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

      2624

      2625

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

      Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

      Sheehy, David

      Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

      Wiles, Thomas

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Wadsworth, J.

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Shortt, Edward

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

      Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

      Walters, Sir John Tudor

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Walton, Sir Joseph

      Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

      Snowden, Philip

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Soames, Arthur Wellesley

      Wardle, George J.

      Winfrey, Richard

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

      Waring, Walter

      Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

      Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtsnay

      Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Watt, Henry A.

      Young, William (Perth, East)

      Sutton, John E.

      Webb, H.

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Wedgwood, Josiah C.

      Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

      White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

      Tennant, Harold John

      White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

      Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

      Thomas, J. H.

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Gibbs, G. A.

      Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

      Aitken, Sir William Max

      Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

      Mount, William Arthur

      Amery, L. C. M. S.

      Goldman, C. S.

      Newdegate, F. A.

      Ashley, W. W.

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Newman, John R. P.

      Baird, J. L.

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Norton-Griffiths, J.

      Balcarres, Lord

      Grant, J. A.

      O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Greene, W. R.

      Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Gretton, John

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

      Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

      Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

      Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

      Barnston, H,

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Perkins, Walter Frank

      Barrie, H. T.

      Haddock, George Bahr

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

      Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

      Hall, Marshall (L'pool, E. Toxteth)

      Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.)

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Hambro, Angus Valdemar

      Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

      Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

      Hamersley, Alfred St. George

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Bigland, Alfred

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Blair, Reginald

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

      Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

      Royds, Edmund

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

      Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

      Boyton, James

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

      Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

      Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Bull, Sir William James

      Hoare, S. J. G.

      Sanders, Robert A.

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Hohler, G. F.

      Sanderson, Lancelot

      Burn, Colonel, C. R.

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Sasson, Sir Philip

      Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

      Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Cassel, Felix

      Hume-Williams, William Ellis

      Stanier, Beville

      Cator, John

      Hunt, Rowland

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Cautley, H. S.

      Hunter, Sir C. R.

      Starkey, John R.

      Cave, George

      Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

      Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Jessel, Capt. H. M.

      Steel-Maitland, A. D.

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Stewart, Gershom

      Chambers, James

      Kerry, Earl of

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

      Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Talbot, Lord E.

      Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

      Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

      Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

      Cooper, Richard Ashmole

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Thynne, Lord Alexander

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

      Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

      Touche, George Alexander

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Lloyd, George Ambrose

      Tryon, Capt. George Clement

      Cripps, Sir C. A.

      Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

      Tullibardine, Marquess of

      Denniss, E. R. B.

      Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      Dixon, C. H.

      Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

      White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

      Doughty, Sir George

      Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

      Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

      Duke, Henry Edward

      MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

      Mackinder, Halford J.

      Wills, Sir Gilbert

      Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

      Macmaster, Donald

      Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

      Faber, Capt, W. V. (Hants, W.)

      M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

      Winterton, Earl

      Falle, B. G.

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Fell, Arthur

      Malcolm, Ian

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

      Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

      Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

      Yate, Col. Charles Edward

      Fletcher, John Samuel

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

      Forster, Henry William

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      Foster, Philip Staveley

      Moore, William

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

      Gardner, Ernest

      Campion and Mr. Pollock.

      CLAUSE 2.—(Ecclesiastical Corporations and Bishops.)
      (1) On the date of Disestablishment every cathedral and ecclesiastical corporation in the Church in Wales, whether sole or aggregate, shall be dissolved.
      (2) On and after the date of Disestablishment no bishop of the Church in Wales shall as such be summoned to or be qualified to sit or vote as a Lord of Parliament; but save as aforesaid every person who is at the passing of this Act a bishop, dean, canon, or archdeacon of or the holder of any ecclesiastical office in the Church in
      Wales, shall during his life enjoy the same title and precedence as if this Act had not passed.
      (3) On and after the date of Disestablishment no person shall, by reason only of being a bishop, priest, or deacon of the Church in Wales, be disqualified or liable to any penalty for sitting or voting in the House of Commons.
      Question put, "The Clause stand part of the Bill."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 297; Noes, 183.

      Division No. 395.]

      AYES.

      [10.52 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Henry, Sir Charles

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Devlin, Joseph

      Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.)

      Adamson, William

      Dillon, John

      Higham, John Sharp

      Addison, Dr. Christopher

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Hinds, John

      Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

      Doris, William

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

      Duffy, William J.

      Hodge, John

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

      Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

      Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

      Arnold, Sydney

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

      Hudson, Walter

      Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Hughes, Spencer Leigh

      Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Essex, Richard Walter

      Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

      Barnes, George N.

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      John, Edward Thomas

      Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

      Falconer, James

      Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

      Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Jones, Edgar (Mertliyr Tydvil)

      Barton, William

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Ffrench, Peter

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Field, William

      Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

      Bentham, George Jackson

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

      Black, Arthur W.

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Joyce, Michael

      Boland, John Pius

      France, Gerald Ashburner

      Keating, Matthew

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Gilhooly, James

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

      Gill, A. H.

      Kilbride, Denis

      Brady, P. J.

      Ginnell, L.

      King, J.

      Brocklehurst, William B.

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S.Molton)

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Glanville, H. J.

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Buckmaster, Stanley O.

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Goldstone, Frank

      Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

      Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      Leach, Charles

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Griffith, Ellis Jones

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

      Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

      Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

      Chancellor, H. G.

      Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

      Lundon, T.

      Chapple, Dr. William Allen

      Guiney, Patrick

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Gulland, John William

      Lynch, A. A.

      Clough, William

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

      Clynes, John R.

      Hackett, J.

      McGhee, Richard

      Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

      Hancock, John George

      Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

      Hardie, J. Keir

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Condon, Thomas Joseph

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      M'Kean, John

      Cory, Sir Clifford John

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Cotton, William Francis

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

      M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

      M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

      Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

      Manfield, Harry

      Crean, Eugene

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Crooks, William

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Martin, J.

      Crumley, Patrick

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Mason, David M. (Coventry)

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Hayward, Evan

      Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Hazleton, Richard

      Meagher, Michael

      Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

      Healy, Maurice (Cork)

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Davies M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

      Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

      Menzies, Sir Waiter

      Dawes, J. A.

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

      Millar, James Duncan

      De Forest, Baron

      Hemmerde, Edward George

      Molloy, Michael

      Delany, William

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

      Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

      Sutton, John E.

      Morrell, Philip

      Radford, G. H.

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Morison, Hector

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

      Muldoon, John

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Tennant, Harold John

      Munro, R.

      Rea, Waiter Russell (Scarborough)

      Thomas, J. H.

      Nannetti, Joseph P.

      Reddy, M.

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Needham, Christopher, Thomas

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Nellson, Francis

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

      Nolan, Joseph

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Wadsworth, J.

      Norton, Cant. Cecil W.

      Richards, Thomas

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Walton, Sir Joseph

      Nuttall, Harry

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent)

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

      O'Connor, John, (Kildare, N.)

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Wardle, George J.

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Waring, Walter

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

      O'Donnell, Thomas

      Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

      Watt, Henry A.

      O'Grady, James

      Robinson, Sidney

      Webb, H.

      O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      Wedgwood, Josiah C.

      O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

      O'Malley, William

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

      O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

      Rowlands, James

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

      O'Shee, James John

      Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

      Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

      Wiles, Thomas

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

      Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

      Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

      Sheehy, David

      Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

      Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Shortt, Edward

      Winfrey, Richard

      Pirie, Duncan Vernon

      Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

      Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

      Pointer, Joseph

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

      Pollard, Sir George H.

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Young, William (Perth, East)

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Snowden, Philip

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Power, Patrick Joseph

      Soames, Arthur Wellesley

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

      Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Cooper, Richard Ashmole

      Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

      Aitken, Sir William Max

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

      Amery, L. C. M. S.

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Ashley, W. W.

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

      Baird, J. L.

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

      Cripps, Sir C. A.

      Hoare, S. J. G.

      Balcarres, Lord

      Denniss, E. R. B.

      Hohler, G. F.

      Baldwin, Stanley

      Dixon, C. H.

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Doughty, Sir George

      Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

      Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

      Hume-Williams, William Ellis

      Barnston, H.

      Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

      Hunt, Rowland

      Barrie, H. T.

      Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

      Hunter, Sir C. R.

      Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton)

      Falle, B. G.

      Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

      Fell, Arthur

      Jessel, Capt. H. M.

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

      Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

      Kerry, Earl of

      Bigland, Alfred

      Fletcher, John Samuel

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Blair, Reginald

      Forster, Henry William

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

      Foster, Philip Staveley

      Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Gardner, Ernest

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Boyton, James

      Gibbs, G. A.

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

      Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

      Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Goldman, C. S.

      Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

      Bull, Sir William James

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Lloyd, George Ambrose

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

      Burn, Colonel, C. R.

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

      Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

      Grant, J. A.

      Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

      Campion, W. R.

      Greene, W. R.

      Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Gretton, John

      Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)

      Cassel, Felix

      Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

      MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

      Cator, John

      Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

      Mackinder, Halford J.

      Cautley, H. S.

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Macmaster, Donald

      Cave, George

      Haddock, George Bahr

      M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Hall, Marshall (L'pool, E. Toxteth)

      Malcolm, Ian

      Chambers, James

      Hambro, Angus Valdemar

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

      Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

      Hamersley, Alfred St. George

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      2630

      2631

      Moore, William

      Royds, Edmund

      Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

      Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

      Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

      Thynne, Lord Alexander

      Mount, William Arthur

      Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

      Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

      Newdegate, F. A.

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Touche, George Alexander

      Newman, John R. P.

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Tryon, Capt. George Clement

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      Sanders, Robert A.

      Tullibardine, Marquess of

      Nield, Herbert

      Sanderson, Lancelot

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      Norton-Griffiths, J.

      Sassoon, Sir Philip

      White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

      O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

      Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

      Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

      Smith, Harold (Warrington)

      Wills, Sir Gilbert

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

      Perkins, Walter Frank

      Stanier, Beville

      Winterton, Earl

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Starkey, John R.

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

      Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

      Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.)

      Steel-Maitland, A. D.

      Yate, Col. Charles Edward

      Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

      Stewart, Gershom

      Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A.

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Talbot, Lord E.

      Griffith-Boscawen and Mr. Ormsby-Gore.

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

      Committee report Progress, to sit again To-morrow (Friday).
      The Orders for the remaining Government business were read, and postponed.
      Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

  LAND VALUATION.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Two nights ago there was a short debate upon the question of the suggested inquiry into the valuations under Part I. of the Finance Act, 1909–10. That Debate was interrupted at an unfortunate moment, and I desire now to resume the subject and very shortly to ask the House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether we cannot arrive at some agreement so that this very desirable inquiry may be held, I think in any case it is not desirable to leave the matter where it is, I do not propose, nor do I think it necessary—because both sides of the House are agreed that if a satisfactory reference can be found an inquiry should be held—to go into any of the matters in dispute as to why an inquiry should be held, to make any complaint, or to refer to any of the complaints made against the Valuation Department, I desire merely to recite what has passed in regard to the inquiry and the suggestions and offers made from the Front Bench opposite. The first suggestion of this inquiry was made by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), who is unfortunately obliged to be absent now. But what I am going to say has his full consent and approval. He first
  2632
  referred to this on 25th July, 1911, when in Debate he used these wordss—
  "I think the Government ought, in the interests of the Department itself, to give an enquiry into the working of the Act, and allow a Committee of this House to examine the men engaged in carrying it out. Let us have an opportunity of finding out what are the methods, and let us cross-examine them upon, them."
  He afterwards added:
  "We certainly ought to have an enquiry into the action of the Department, and into such things as are not only alleged but as are proved to be true."
  Then, at a later date, the matter was again referred to by my right hon. Friend. He then no longer suggested a Committee of this House, but an Expert Committee, to inquire into valuation, and on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill of 1911, on 13th December, the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted the suggestion that an inquiry might be desirable, but was rather of opinion that the time for it had not then actually arrived. Then, on 20th June, the question was again raised, and an important Debate took place upon it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then made a definite suggestion, and used these words:—
  "I am quite willing that there should he an enquiry into the administration of the Act. The House of Commons or a Royal Commission is the only Committee which could enquire into a question of policy, but an inquiry of experts, while not being the best Committee for the purpose of examining a question of policy, would undoubtedly be the best Committee for the purpose of examining into the actual administration of an Act of Parliament. I suggest as the terms of reference, 'To enquire into the working of the valuations under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Finance Act, and to report whether any modifications of the methods of carrying out valuations are necessary and if so, what modifications.'"
  A few sentences later he added:—
  "They can consider all cases such as those raised by the hon. Member for Sleaford, the hon. Member for Chelmsford, and others."
  The next occasion when it was referred to by the Attorney-General in a very

  2633
  important Debate on the subject was on the 19th July. The Attorney-General used these words:—
  "If, on the other hand, what von desire to enquire into is whether the methods of valuation of land are being properly carried out, and whether the methods employed and the instructions given are generally satisfactory: if that is to be the subject matter of this inquiry, you want, in order to get a proper inquiry, a committee composed of experts in valuation, a totally different committee from the one you would appoint if you were going into a political matter."
  Those are two definite suggestions made out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the other by the Attorney-General. After considering the question carefully we have come to the conclusion that a blend of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General would make a very good vintage, and that we may by putting these two references together arrive at a satisfactory reference to the Committee, and I would suggest the following:—
  "To inquire into the working of the land valuations prescribed by Part I. of the Finance Act of 1909–10, and report whether the methods employed and the instructions given to the valuers are generally satisfactory."
  The House will see that the first half of that is composed of the words suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the second half of the actual words used by the Attorney-General, with one exception, and the exception is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's original proposal was limited to Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Act; in other words, to the original valuation only, whereas this proposal covers both valuations under the Act which are not limited. The proposal covers the valuation under Part I. and does not limit it to only a single valuation, prescribed by Section 26, Sub-section (1). The point has never been really debated, but I am under the impression the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather hinted that if both these valuations were inquire into questions of policy would be raised. I do not think he would really wish to press that point, nor do I really think it could be made good. I press the point that an inquiry should be made as to both valuations. I do not wish to press this point unduly, but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not hold that view, I have no more to say. I am rather under the impression, however, that he suggested that an inquiry into both these valuations necessarily involved a discussion of policy. If he thinks that, perhaps he will tell the House why he thinks so. I myself can only suppose the
  2634
  only condition under which that danger could arise would be if it could be shown the Department in carrying out these valuations had been acting ultra vires and had been departing from their plain duty as administrators of the Act, and had been placing their own interpretation on the Section, thereby introducing matters of policy into the valuations. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchellor will not suggest that they have done anything of the kind; and if they have not, then the Committee should inquire into the question of valuations. No question of policy arises, and it is not our desire that the question of policy should be discussed before the Committee. The words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I have already quoted, were that he should consider all cases such as those mentioned by the hon. Member, and I want to point out to him that unless the Committee are enabled to consider the valuations, both under Section 2 and Section 26, it will be absolutely impossible for them to consider those cases which he has promised they should consider, because both valuations are concerned in the cases which the Committee will have to consider. I have merely recited the course of the negotiations which have hitherto taken place, and I think it very desirable that an inquiry should be held. I have only put these points into the Chancellor of the Exchequer's hands, and I quite understand that he may require time to consider them. Perhaps he will tell us his view, and if necessary we can resume this Debate next week.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has stated very fairly the course of the negotiations, and I have nothing to add and nothing to criticise. The point I would make is that the hon. Gentleman in quoting from the OFFICIAL REPORT, quoted—it was the first time there was mention of an inquiry—the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), and it showed clearly that the inquiry was wanted in order to challenge the administration of valuation. A number of cases were brought forward, cases in which systematic under-valuation was charged, in some instances of agricultural land. The hon. Member for Sleaford said that the valuers under-valued one kind of property and over-valued another. Then in other cases against the valuers it was said that the methods adopted in one county were different from those of another county.

  2635
  These were the charges which were constantly made. Then I suggest, if you say that the methods of the valuers are bad, I am perfectly willing that an inquiry should be set on foot for the purpose of investigating those charges, because, after all, such charges tend to depreciate, to a large extent, the value of the valuation, and probably from another point of view—that of the Government—that is not desirable. There is a valuation, and it is better that it should be a valuation that, on the whole, commands general confidence. Therefore, I suggest that there should be an inquiry into all these charges when they bear on questions of administration. Then, after a good deal of negotiation the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire proposed an inquiry which would certainly have involved large questions of policy. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford will admit that. For instance, this is what he proposed. [Here the right hon. Gentleman quoted the proposal of the right hen. Member for East Worcestershire.] I always said I did not object to an inquiry into the principles of the valuation, but I do want the Opposition to make up their minds which of the two they want because the first must necessarily be referred to experts, but the second is not a question for experts at all. If you are going to have an inquiry into the second question that ought to be determined by a Royal Commission or a Committee which is not a Committee of experts, because when a question of policy comes in experts have no better opportunity, or are no better qualified to judge than other persons. I understand from the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Opposition have definitely decided to confine the inquiry at the present moment into the question of administration, I certainly would not object to the other at all. I think there is a great deal to be said for it. As I understand, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has come to the conclusion that he certainly does not want an inquiry of that kind.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I never said anything of the kind.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I put that question repeatedly, and those two propositions to the Opposition, and I have never had a definite answer yet. One thing I would certainly ask the Government to resist, and I would resist, and that is an in-
  2636
  quiry which involves policy being submitted purely to experts and surveyors. These could pronounce undoubtedly the best opinion upon whether the Government valuers are doing their duty in accordance with the instructions, and upon the question of whether the instructions are in accordance with the Schedule; but if anything that involved policy is concerned, I should then have to consider the question of appointing a totally different Committee. If the hon. Gentleman says he prefers the first point, I still say that we are quite willing that should be done. He has given me a form of words only a few moment ago, and I should like time before pronouncing upon them to consider them with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who conducted the whole of the negotiations. I should like to consult him upon them and to see exactly what they mean. I have got the actual words of the Attorney-General which he submitted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain):—
  "To inquire into the working of land valuation prescribed by Clause 26, Sub-section (1), of the Finance Act, 1910, in order to ascertain whether the instructions given and the methods employed to arrive at the valuations prescribed by that Clause are generally satisfactory, and, if not, to recommend what modifications or alterations in such instructions or methods should be adopted."
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire very frankly admitted that that was carrying out completely the pledge which I originally gave, and I do not think anyone can challenge that. The pledge which I gave, and which the, hon. and gallant Gentleman read out, is fully carried out by these words.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: May I say, by leave of the House, that I was quoting the words used by the Attorney-General on 18th July last, when he said:—
  "What you desire to inquire into is whether the methods of the valuation of land are being properly carried out, and whether the methods employed and the instructions given are generally satisfactory."
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We accept those words.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: That is all I want. I do not wish to prolong the Debate, but I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider these words, and I will put down a question for Tuesday asking whether he accepts the reference. If he does not do so, it will be possible on the Motion for Adjournment on Tuesday further to discuss the matter.
  Mr. ROYDS: What we are really anxious to ascertain is whether a true value of the site value, the total value, and the value on the occasion, is being arrived at under the valuations as made by the Valuation Department at the present time. Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that these are questions which can be answered only by a Committee of experts such as he proposes to set up, and that they are not questions of policy at all? I have addressed one or two questions to him on that subject, and we have become involved in regard to questions of policy and administration. If we had a plain answer to the question whether he considers the Committee of surveyors and experts which he proposes to appoint are competent to decide that point it would settle the business at once, and we should know what we are about.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That seems to be a totally different proposition, and that is exactly where the difficulty comes in. That is where the negotiations broke down between the Attorney-General and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire.
  Mr. ROYDS: Will you answer the question?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If that is to be done at all, it must be done by another Committee.
  Mr. ROYDS: Is it not the object of the Government, just as it is our object, to ensure that the valuation at present proceeding at enormous expense shall be a true valuation of the land of the country? Is that the object of the right hon. Gentleman or is it not? If it is not, I can understand that he is not ready to answer my question. I thought we were all desirous that the true value of the land should be ascertained. I merely ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that is his intention, and, if so, who can decide that point except experts?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member (Mr. Pretyman) will thank the hon. Member who has just spoken for what he has said. We were near an agreement, and now the hon. Member has thrown the thing back to exactly where it was before. He wants to know whether it is a true valuation. That is partly a question of policy which would involve an Amendment of the Act. I have already told him and the hon. and gallant Gentleman quite plainly, if that
  2638
  is the object of the Opposition, I am quite willing it should be promoted, but by a totally different Committee. Therefore the hon. Member had better consult his colleagues, so that they may make up their minds what it is they want.
  Mr. ROYDS: I really do not quite understand—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to speak again.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I think the two things are entirely different. One point which the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Mr. Pretyman) has put is simply as to practice and instructions. That, of course, we understand from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is quite willing to allow an inquiry into. That is an entirely different subject from the question as to whether the valuations are right in fact, or as to the policy of the Act, or the benefit of it. Of course that is a very important subject, and interests the Government as well as we on this side. There will have to be an inquiry into that subject a little later on, but it must be perfectly obvious that each of these inquiries is entirely different. The right kind of Committee would be different in both cases. It is a pity that the hon. Member has mixed those two things up. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree to an inquiry into the practice, methods, and instructions, which is what he has been asked for, it would be going as far as we can ask him at present. We can leave the other subject to be dealt with later on.
  Mr. BOOTH: I am sure we are all obliged to the hon. Member (Mr. Watson Rutherford) for putting the matter so explicitly. So far as I understand the request of the hon. Member (Mr. Pretyman), I think he will admit that it has been met in a proper spirit by this side of the House. I do not always agree with my Front Bench, but I think on this occasion there has been a desire to meet the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and to appoint a serviceable Committee. The hon. Member (Mr. Royds) has been very frank about this question. I know quite well what he wants. He wants to prove to the world that the Radical party are a landless party, coveting the domains of his own class and friends.
  The hon. Member said in one of his speeches that about 170, or something like that, of Liberal Members had signed the Land Values Memorial, and only one of

  2639
  them owned land. I wrote to the "Yorkshire Post," and asked the hon. Member, as I had signed the memorial, was I the individual who he said owned some land.
  Mr. ROYDS: Why did not you write to me?
  Mr. BOOTH: I thought that the hon. Member, at any rate, read the papers that reported his speeches best. Most of us do that. The hon. Member perhaps thinks that I made no reply. If he did not see it I beg to repeat it across the floor of the House. The suggestion in his speech shows clearly what his attitude is. That is to say, he wishes to prove that we are the people who are wishful for his or his friend's property. If the hon. Member wants an inquiry of that kind he had better have it and pay for it himself. Why does he want it at the public expense? If the hon. Member wants to know how many of the Liberals who are in favour of the taxation of land values are interested in land, why does he not ask some of us? Why did he make the statement in public that there is only one? I challenge him to name the individual he had in his mind.
  Mr. ROYDS: The statement I made I believe to be perfectly true. I do not understand that the hon. Member questions the statement at all. I do not know that it is necessary to give the name of the only one of the 170 Members of the Radical party in the House who happens to own land.
  Mr. BOOTH: I challenge it.
  Mr. ROYDS: I will send it to you.
  Mr. BOOTH: As I signed the memorial, I am entitled to know from the hon. Member whether he was meaning me. I think the hon. Member should be perfectly straight. If I brought a charge against a number of Conservatives that over a hundred of them signed a memorial and that one was guilty of the crime of owning land I would be prepared to name him.
  Mr. ROYDS: I am prepared to tell the hon. Member straight away what I said, that out of these 170 Members, only one was the owner of land. What I meant by that was—as I think the hon. Member understood—that only about one lived by land. I do not mean to say that the other Members did not own an acre of land. When I said there were 170 Members and
  2640
  only one owned land, what I meant was that there was only one, or about one, who lived by land. I did not mean to say that other Members did not own an acre of land. I believe that only one out of the 170 is dependent on land for his living. Is the hon. Member dependent on the land for his living? Will he answer me that?
  Mr. BOOTH: I suppose the hon. Member knows we live by bread, and that is why he wants to tax our food.
  Mr. ROYDS: Will the hon. Member answer my question?
  Mr. BOOTH: The hon. Member made a speech in public—reported in an organ of great repute—and he said that only one Member who signed the memorial possessed any land. I ask him: Who? And he has not the courage to tell us or to deny the statement. I say that more than one of us owned some land, and therefore we are entitled to ask for a withdrawal of the statement by the hon. Member.
  Mr. ROYDS: If the hon. Member wants an answer, I decline to withdraw my statement because I believe it to be absolutely true. I gave an explanation of what I meant, and my audience understood it. I was addressing them, and not the House of Commons. What I said was that there was only about one Member of the 170 who lived by the land. The hon. Member asks me if I referred to him because he owns an acre or two of land. I say straight away that I did not.
  Mr. BOOTH: I am very much obliged. I wish the hon. Member had the courage to say to whom he referred. I challenge him to bring the report of his speech here and let us see the phrase he used. I congratulate the hon. Member on the fact that he is much more careful of his statements here than when he is addressing a public audience. I think that is an excellent trait in his character, and if he reflects upon that I think he will in due time make speeches before public audiences which he will be prepared to defend here. The phrase is nonsense that a man lives by land. What kind of country yokels was he addressing when he suggested that we were people interested against the landlords, and that only one out of the 170 who signed the memorial could be considered to be interested in land! I say the hon. Member does not know what

  2641
  he is talking about. He has not the slightest idea of the position of the Members who signed the memorial any more than he has of the speech he actually made. I invite the hon. Member to pursue this subject with a little more gravity. This way of talking about people living by land is absurd. There were 170 Members signed a memorial asking that land should be taxed, and the hon. Member insinuated
  2642
  in public that they are not interested in land and the tax will not fall upon them—
  And it being half an hour after the conclusion of Government business, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put.
  Adjourned at Twenty-six minutes before Twelve o'clock.