HC Deb 05 December 1912 vol 44 cc2509-25

[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 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 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 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 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- 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. 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 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. 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 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 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.