Commons Sitting of 16 December 1912

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Sheffield Corporation Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered Tomorrow, at a Quarter-past Eight of the clock.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
Petitions were presented praying the House not to pass into law the Established Church (Wales) Bill by—
Mr. Mildmay, (48 petitions) containing 7,136 signatures from the Totnes Division of Devonshire.
Mr. John Lyttelton, (30 petitions) containing 5,676 signatures from the Droitwich Division of Worcestershire.
Mr. Henry Terrell, (59 petitions) containing over 20,000 signatures from the Southern or Thornbury Division of Gloucester and the City of Gloucester.

MAGISTRATES (IRELAND).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 21st October, Mr. Macveagh]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 396.]
PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 10th December; Mr. M'Kinnon Wood]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.[No. 397.]
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the borough of Darlington, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the day on which certain classes of Shops are to be closed for the weekly half-holiday [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
TRAMWAYS AND LIGHT RAILWAYS (STREET AND ROAD).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 12th April; Mr. Sydney Buxton]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 398.]
SEAMEN'S SAVINGS BANKS (MONEY ORDERS AND TRANSMISSION OF WAGES).
Account presented of all Deposits received and repaid by the Board of Trade on account of Seamen's Savings Banks under The Merchant Shipping Act, 1891, during the year ended 20th November, 1911, and of the interest thereon; Statement showing the number and amount of Seamen's Money Orders issued and paid at Ports in the United Kingdom and at Ports Abroad from 1855 to 31st March, 1912; also Statement showing the Receipts and Payments in connection with the Transmission of Seamen's Wages, Home and Foreign, from 1878 to 31st March, 1912 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.[No. 399.]
INDIA OFFICE (PURCHASES OF SILVER).
Address for "Return of Correspondence with the Bank of England and Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company relating to the Purchases of Silver in 1912."—[Mr. Rupert Gwynne.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Putumayo Rubber District.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has any official information to the effect that Peruvian officials connive, and in some cases actually take part, in the slave traffic between the Putumayo river and Iquitos?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): His Majesty's Minister in Lima has reported that accusations have been brought in a Peruvian journal against the house of Arana of traffic in peons with Brazil with the connivance of the late Peruvian Consul-General at Manaos. These accusations

  1067
  have been denied. His Majesty's Minister has also reported that two Government launches have been posted at strategic points on the river frontier between Peru and Brazil to prevent the traffic in Peruvian labourers.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether His Majesty's Government has any Consular representatives at Manaos; if so, will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether some time in August or September of this year the steamer "Manaos" brought down the Putumayo for sale eight boys and four girls which were re-embarked at the mouth of the Yavari river on the launch "Hamburg" for sale at Iquitos?
  Mr. ACLAND: His Majesty's Government are represented by an unsalaried Vice-Consul at Manaos who is under the superintendence of His Majesty's Consul at Para. The incident referred to by the hon. Member has been mentioned in a letter from the Colombian Consul-General at Manaos to the British and United States Consul at Iquitos. It is, however, there stated that the Indians were shipped on board the "Manaos" at San Antonio at the mouth of the River lea, which is many hundreds of miles distant from Manaos, and were afterwards transhipped to the "Hemburgo" at the mouth of the River Javery for Iquitos. I will inquire whether there is any confirmation of this information.

  Shanghai-Nanking Railway.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the right hon. Gentleman if he will say whether the careful inquiry in 1910 into the complaints of unfair monopoly in all business in China enjoyed by Messrs. Jardine, Matheson, and Company, or that company's explanation, which was considered satisfactory, or any subsequent inquiry or explanation, disclosed the fact that during the construction of the Shanghai-Nanking Railway, the head of Jardine, Matheson, and Company, at Shanghai, for the time being was chairman of the Shanghai-Nanking Railway Board, and in that capacity issued orders for the supply of materials for the same to Jardine, Matheson, and Company; and if he will explain what there was in the circumstances to make that arrangement satisfactory to anyone but Jardine, Matheson, and Company?
  Mr. ACLAND: His Majsety's Government are aware that the Shanghai agent
  1068
  of Messrs. Jardine, Matheson, and Company was also chairman of the Shanghai-Nanking Railway Board at the time in question. The construction of the railway was completed in 1908, and no complaints were received by His Majesty's Government prior to September, 3 910. The complaints subsequently received were against the alleged unfair use by Messrs. Jardine, Matheson, and Company of their position to favour firms for which they were agents. As already stated, in reply to the hon. Member for Thanet on 11th December, the explanations given with regard to these charges were considered satisfactory. It was never alleged, as suggested by the hon. Member, that orders for material were given to Messrs. Jardine, Matheson, and Company themselves.

  Small holders (Leaflets).
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will have the contents of the various leaflets issued for the benefit of smallholders epitomized in simple langauge and sub-divided into subjects and indexed for easy reference, and the result bound in a handy form for reference and circulated to smallholders free of charge or at a nominal charge; and whether he will see that the volume includes information as to the rotation and cultivation adopted by the most up to-date small cultivators in Denmark?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The leaflets issued by the Board are already expressed in the simplest possible language, and may be obtained either separately free of charge or in bound indexed volumes at the price of sixpence a volume. The Board have in view the publication of additional leaflets on subjects of special interest to smallholders, and the suggestions made in the last part of the question will be carefully considered.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. LUNDONasked the right hon. Gentleman if he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the exportation of store cattle as well as fat cattle from Ireland, and especially from the provinces of Munster and Connaught?
  Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he is now in a position to announce further modifications of the restrictions regulating the importation of Irish cattle to England and Scotland?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I had hoped to have been able to-day to announce some further modification of the existing restrictions, but on Thursday last three heads were found at the city abattoirs-at Glasgow by the meat inspectors of the local authority in which the lesions characteristic of foot-and-mouth disease were present. The lesions were healed, and were three or four weeks old. Inquiries were immediately instituted, and it would appear, so far as we can say at present, that the heads were those of animals which had been slaughtered in Londonderry. The Irish Department are endeavouring by every means in their power to ascertain from whence the animals came, and as a precautionary and temporary measure a new area will be defined by the Irish Department, out of which the movement of animals will not be permitted until the inquiries are complete. But no suspicion now attaches to large districts in Ireland, and I propose to allow the imports of store cattle from those districts to be resumed on Wednesday next, subject, of course, to the detention of the cattle at the place of landing for a period of four days and their isolation and supervision at the farms to which they are moved for a further period of twenty-one days. Some curtailment of the existing scheduled area in Ireland will at the same time be made. The landing of animals for slaughter which are brought from the non-scheduled districts will continue as at present.
  Mr. FIELD: Have any steps been taken to confirm, or otherwise, the report he has received in respect to these heads?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir; we have been very careful to have the heads carefully examined. We are not prepared to depend purely on local opinion in that matter. I am afraid the statement I issued this morning is the result of a scientific inquiry.
  Mr. CRUMLEY: Has the inspector seen the carcases of these animals to which these heads belonged, and, if so, does the disease appear in the carcases, for these heads may probably come from France?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir; I am afraid the information we have at present leads us to believe that they came from Londonderry. As I said, I can only give the information we have at present with reserve. The heads came over separated from the carcases as meat; they did not come over on live animals.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Has any Irish Cattle Trade Association intimated to the right hon. Gentleman that there would be the smallest use in the so-called concessions he has made to-day as to store cattle?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: They have had no chance of communicating with me, as I have only made a communication to the House a few moments ago. I have no doubt that they will certainly value highly the advantage which will come to their trade through being allowed to import store cattle in this country.
  Mr. HORNER: Has the right hon. Gentleman traced any single case of disease to county Tyrone?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: That question should be addressed to the Vice-President.
  Mr. BARRIE: What is the new area?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): I think it is accurate to say that after the Birkenhead inquiry, diseased cattle were traced to two places, one in Mid-Armagh and the other in South Tyrone. I wish to say, after conference with my right hon. Friend, I propose to go over the whole of the area scheduled afresh, to examine it critically and see whether I can give relief with safety. It will be done immediately.
  Mr. HORNER: What I want to know is whether any definite case has been traced to county Tyrone or not. Is it a fact that it was reported on Thursday evening to the Department in Dublin that there was a suspected case of foot-and-mouth disease at Greystones in the Castle Caul-field police district, that two inspectors for the Department arrived by motor-car and examined the suspected animal?
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member wishes an answer to a question full of details like that, he must give notice.
  Mr. LARDNER: Am I to understand that the standstill orders which are at present in force in part of county Monaghan will be reduced at least to movement out. wards?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I have already made up my mind, so far as regards most of the area that has been scheduled, that the standstill orders may be relaxed, and that movement into and within the area may be permitted, but hon. Members must give me a few hours, at all events, to look over it critically, and see what can safely be done.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that peculiar hardship is inflicted upon the Jewish community in London by the prohibition against Irish cattle at Deptford and Birkenhead; and what modifications in the Order of his Department will be made before Christmas?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: An Order was issued on Wednesday last which permits of the landing of Irish cattle for slaughter both at Deptford and Birkenhead, if they are not brought from the district out of which movement is for the time being prohibited by the Irish Department. This Order will, I hope, remove any possibility of the occurrence of the special hardship to which the hon. Member refers.
  Major HOPEasked if arrangements have been completed for landing Irish store cattle at Ayr and Greenock under quarantine restrictions, so that they may be, landed at those ports directly it is possible to again permit them to be landed at Dundee and authorised English ports?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Arrangements have been made which will enable Irish store cattle to be landed at Ayr, but it will be some little time before the necessary works are completed. The possibility of providing accommodation at Greenock is still under discussion with the Glasgow and South-Western Railway Company.
  Major HOPE: Will the arrangements be completed at Ayr before Christmas?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot give a definite date, but I am afraid it will not be before Christmas. It is being pushed on as rapidly as possible by the Ayr Shipping Company and the other authorities concerned.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to an opinion from Mr. R. Ebbit, M.R.C.V.S., Oldcastle, county Meath, in which he refers to a form of non-contagious foot-and-mouth disease called my-coticstomatitis; and whether he has any official information as to its existence in Great Britain and Ireland?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: My attention had not previously been called to the opinion expressed by Mr. Ebbit. It is well known that the disease known as stomatitis (inflammation of the mouth) occurs among
  1072
  cattle in Great Britain, and a number of cases have been found recently among cattle imported from Ireland. I must refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the vice-President for information as to its prevalence in that country. The disease is quite distinct from foot-and-mouth disease.
  Mr. HUGH BARRIEasked whether, once conditions return to normal, the importation of Irish cattle to England and Scotland will be permitted without restriction at landing ports as formerly?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid that I cannot, in any case, contemplate a return to the conditions existing prior to the discovery of foot-and-mouth disease in the animals brought from Swords in June last, and I am satisfied that it will be in the interests of all concerned that for the future animals brought from Ireland shall be landed at properly equipped landing places, where they can be rested, fed, watered, and closely inspected before they are moved inland. This will take some few hours. The arrangement will be of a permanent character, and such an arrangement will not only afford the officers of the Board a good opportunity of detecting any cases of disease, either amongst cattle, sheep, or swine, but will also lead to a substantial improvement in the condition in which they arrive at their destination, of which serious complaint has been made for many years past.
  Mr. BARRIE: Does this not imply a direct vote of censure on the Irish Department?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Oh, no, not the very least. It is necessary that we should take care, when animals are landed in this country, that they should be carefully inspected, and rested and watered before being sent on by train.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Will it not be possible to establish in Ireland stations where the cattle might rest for some time and be examined, instead of having the examination done on this side?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Arrangements, which will be made by the Irish Department, provide for the animals to be rested before they go on board ship for a short time.
  Mr. LOUGH: The right hon. Gentleman said a few hours' delay. Can he tell us how many hours?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope it will be done quite safely in twelve hours. At all events, we are fitting it in conveniently with the conditions of the trade.
  Mr. BARRIE: Has the right hon. Gentleman the concurrence of the Irish Department?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Certainly. The Irish Department and my Department are working together in complete harmony.
  Captain MURRAY: Have the authorities been informed that these arrangements will be of a permanent character?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Those who have control of the trade know that these arrangements will be of a permanent character, and I have told many of them, personally, myself.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture when he proposes to open British ports to cattle from county Meath?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot as yet make any announcement as to the date when shipments of animals from Meath can be allowed to be resumed. Everything depends upon the result of the efforts which are being made to locate any unreported cases of disease in the scheduled area, as to the existence of which there us been cause for suspicion. But I hope that the suspension of the trade, at any rate in fat stock for slaughter, may not be of long duration.
  Mr. MULDOONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has read and considered the opinion of Sir John McFadyean on foot-and-mouth disease to which his attention has been called?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The passage to which the hon. Member called my attention occurs in a report which was published in the "Journal of Comparative Pathology" in the year 1901. The question at issue cannot very conveniently be discussed in the course of a reply to a Parliamentary question, but I may point out that the immediate context to the passage to which the hon. Member has referred me contains a warning that even in doubtful cases it is wise to diagnose the affection provisionally as foot-and-mouth disease, and to take the usual precautions against the spread of infection. The decision of the veterinary officers of the Board in the particular cases presented to them for
  1074
  diagnosis has been arrived at after the closest scrutiny of the lesions present, and I see no reason to doubt the correctness of their conclusions.
  Mr. GINNELL: Is it not in connection with the two unconfirmed cases, in which no other animals contracted the disease, that he has scheduled Meath and West Meath?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, I cannot call them unconfirmed cases. They are confirmed as fully as they can be by the scientific men who act as my expert advisers.
  Mr. GINNELL: Is it not a fact that no other beast has contracted the disease?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Of this herd I think up to the present none have shown signs of the disease, but that is by no means conclusive proof that precautions must not be taken.
  Mr. MULDOON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Sir John McFadyean has expressed the opinion that although the symptoms presented by a single animal may resemble those of the disease in question, the case may be set down as not foot-and-mouth disease when, in spite of abundant opportunities for infection, it does not spread to other cattle or to sheep?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is in the nature of a speech. The hon. Member should give notice of the question.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether there have been any more outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease during the last four days either in Great Britain or Ireland; and whether lie has made or proposes to make any further alterations in the restrictions in operation last week?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease have been reported to the Board, either in Great Britain or in Ireland, during the last few days. The restrictions in Kent are being gradually withdrawn in accordance with the Board's usual practice in such cases. As regards those in force with regard to the trade between the two countries, perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to refer him to the answer which I have just given to the hon. Member for East Limerick.
  Mr. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland, a question of which I have

  1075
  given him private notice — namely, Whether he is in a position to announce a reduction of the scheduled area in Westmeath so as to allow free movement of animals in the parishes of Streete, Coole, Castlepollard, Finea, and Castletown, most of which lie seventeen miles from Mullin-gar, where the latest case of disease occurred thirty-nine days ago?
  Mr. RUSSELL: If the hon. Gentleman will raise the question to-night on the Adjournment or to-morrow, I will give an -answer.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Are we to understand the whole question of these scheduled areas is receiving consideration from the Department at the present moment?
  Mr. RUSSELL: Yes.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: With a view to revision?

  Petrol Substitutes.
  Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if his attention has "been drawn to the expenditure of the French Government in encouraging experiments for the production of alcohol and other cheap spirits as a substitute for petrol; if the Development Board has funds available for a similar object; and, if so, why a sum cannot be set aside for the purpose?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board have no information with regard to the experiments to which the hon. Member refers in the first part of the question. The remaining parts of the question should be addressed to the Treasury.

  Regent's Park.
  Mr. CASSELasked the President of the Board of Agriculture, as representing the First Commissioner of Woods, whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the Marylebone Borough Council protesting against the erection of any additional buildings in Regent's Park, and desiring that its value as an open space may be preserved for the use of the public; and whether the Government are prepared to give effect to this resolution by refusing to allow any buildings to be erected or any lands to be enclosed in the park, and throwing open to the public any lands now enclosed whenever leases fall in and a suitable opportunity arises?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The attention of the Commissioner of Woods, who has charge of the Crown estates in London, has been called to the resolution referred to. It is intended to retain, but not to increase, the number of residences at present in the park, and before the surrender or falling in of the lease of such a residence careful consideration is given by the Commissioner, in communication with the Office of Works, as to whether any and, if any, what land held with the house can, with advantage, be added to the area open to the public without unduly affecting the letting value of the residence, and wherever that can be done, land is added to the open area before granting a renewed lease.

  Market Reports (Board of Agriculture).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that Scottish buyers have been in the habit of attending Gloucester and other west country markets, and have been induced to do so by reading the Board's Market Reports, hitherto applicable to the whole country; and whether, in view of the inconvenience and interference with trade likely to result from the publication of separate Reports by the English and Scottish Boards, respectively, he will consider, in conjunction with the Secretary for Scotland, the desirability of continuing the existing practice?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Board are in communication with the Scottish Board of Agriculture, and it is hoped that the inconvenience to which the hon. Member refers will be minimised by an arrangement under which persons desiring copies of both sets of Returns will be able to obtain them without difficulty.

  Tuberculous Animals (Compensation).
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked what is the estimated amount which will be available from the Treasury to pay compensation for animals slaughtered as tuberculous under the Milk and Dairies Bill; and whether and, if so, to what extent local authorities will be required to contribute to the cost of this process?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The compensation to which, I think, the hon. Member refers will be payable, not under the Milk and Dairies Bill, but in connection with the

  1077
  administration of the Board under the Diseases of Animals Acts. The Board propose to make an Order providing for the compulsory slaughter of bovine animals in certain cases suffering from tuberculosis, and for the payment of compensation by the local authorities. The Treasury have agreed to refund to the local authorities one-half of the net cost, and it is estimated that the amount so refunded by the Treasury will be £60,000 in the first year.

  Contagious Diseases of Animals.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he proposes to allocate further moneys derived from the Development Fund or otherwise to the purposes of research in connection with the contagious diseases of animals, and, if so, of what amount; and whether, in promoting such research, he will take into account the expressed willingness of the agricultural departments of several Continental countries to co-operate in such work?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board hope shortly to submit to the Development Commissioners proposals for the establishment of a Be search Institution for the investigation of diseases of animals. It would be premature for me to make any statement as to the details of the proposals until the Development Commissioners have had an opportunity of considering them.

  Marlborough Post Office (Wilts).
  Mr. PETOasked the Postmaster-General whether the parish council of Collingbourne Ducis, Wilts, were asked through the Marlborough post office if they had any objection to the proposal to close the post office on Thursdays from 1 o'clock; whether he received a copy of the resolutions of the parish council strongly protesting against the proposal, on the ground that it would cause inconvenience to the public, and suggesting that, if a weekly half-holiday was required, it should be arranged for by sending a relief clerk from Marlborough; and whether, in spite of this resolution, he has decided to close the post office on Thursdays from 1 o'clock on and after Thursday next, the 5th December?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The parish council were consulted, and I received a copy of the resolution in which the hon. Member
  1078
  refers. The suspension of post and telegraph business for a weekly half-holiday is now common at the smaller post offices-While the observations of the local authorities are invited on proposals such as this, they are not considered to have a right of veto on the extension of half-holidays. The business formerly done at Collingbourne Ducis Post Office on Thursday afternoons was small, and I do not think any more inconvenience can result from the weekly early closing than at the many other post offices where such arrangements have been introduced in similar circumstances without complaint. As, however, one of the sub-postmaster's staff has to be in attendance for another purpose I am arranging for telegrams to be accepted throughout the afternoon, and also for the office to be opened for half an hour before the despatch of the night mail for the sale of stamps and acceptance of parcels and registered letters.

  Telegraph Service.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Postmaster-General whether he has received memorials from the cities of Dundee, Arbroath, and Aberdeen urging the extension of the underground telegraph from Edinburgh to those cities; and whether, having in view the periodical overthrow of the overhead telegraph and the consequent disorganisation of business, as was recently exemplified by the storm of 26th and 27th November last, he can hold out any hope of getting this work carried out in the near future?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have received memorials from these three cities, and I have agreed to receive a deputation soon after the Christmas Recess.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive a representative from the Arbroath Chamber of Commerce?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am most anxious that the deputation should be as representative as possible. I shall be very happy if the Arbroath Chamber of Commerce will send a representative.
  Mr. AINSWORTHasked the Post master-General whether he is aware that the telegraphic cable between the islands of Mull, Coll, and Tiree has been broken since the 22nd November, and that during this period the difficulty of communication has been seriously increased in consequence of the regular steamer having been

  1079
  withdrawn by the contractors, Messrs. D. MacBrayne and Co., Limited, of Glasgow, and an inferior boat substituted; whether he is aware that the inhabitants of the island of Mull are also complaining of the inefficiency of the boat at present supplied by the same contractors for the mail and passenger service of that island; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Unless bad weather intervenes, I hope that, the cable will be repaired in the course of the next few days. I am aware of the circumstances as regards both the steamer services to which the hon. Member refers, and I am having inquiry made whether some improvement can be effected.
  Mr. AINSWORTH: With regard to communication with the island of Tiree will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to bear in mind the fact that the existing telegraph service has broken down three times in the last twelve months, and that it always breaks down whenever there is a severe storm, and will he also bear in mind the fact that the inefficiency of the mail service is notorious, and will he consider the advisability of establishing a system of wireless telegraphy?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I will certainly make careful inquiry into the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman has called attention.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Postmaster-General if he has received a petition from Papa Westray praying that telegraphic communication be established with the island of Westray, and if he will inquire into the circumstances of the case; and if the Post Office would bear the same proportion of the cost as they have done in other cases?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I received the petition on the 12th instant and am enquiring into the circumstances.

  Telephone Service.
  Mr. GRANTasked the Postmaster General, if he will direct that in future the telephone directory may be rid of advertisements; that no distinction with regard to type or space may be given in the directory to individual subscribers; and that a somewhat larger or clearer printing of figures, in the interests of short-sighted people, may be undertaken?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not think that the large financial sacrifice which would result from adopting the first two suggestions of the hon. Member would be justified. The question of the clearer printing of figures in the Directory is already under consideration.
  Mr. GRANT: May I ask if the telephone books of other nations have been brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I must ask for notice of any question relating to telephone books. I have seen them, but I cannot give any information about them at present.

  Malicious Attempts upon Pillar Letter Boxes.
  Mr. PETOasked the Postmaster-General whether he can make arrangements for firms, companies, and individuals who require to post large numbers of letters at the same time to have facilities for handing them in direct at the Post Office instead of putting them in the ordinary pillar and other letter boxes, and thus save the time both of the public and the postmen, particularly in view of the risk of damage to correspondence deposited in the pillar-boxes which at present exists?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Any batch of letters for the post can, under the ordinary regulations, be collected from the sender's premises, if the postage amounts to £10, and if reasonable notice is given beforehand. Generally special arrangements are made where any considerable quantity of letters is being regularly sent by any one person. In view of the fact that, according to the reports that have at present reached me, not a single letter has been destroyed in the recent malicious attempts upon pillar-boxes, I do not consider that the circumstances require the imposition upon the counter staff of the additional work which would be involved by the adoption of the hon. Member's suggestion.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    PIECE-WORKERS.
    Mr. PETOasked the Secretary to the Treasury what means his Department have of ensuring, in the case of pieceworkers whose earnings do not exceed 2s. per day, that not more than the deduction authorised by the National Insurance Act as contribution for sickness benefit,

    1081
    namely, 1d. per week, is made; and, in the case of piece-workers whose remuneration does not exceed this sum and where no record of the time worked is kept by the employer, what means the National Insurance Commissioners have of proving that the remuneration is in respect of a full week's work?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Master-man): The inspectors are empowered by Section 112 of the National Insurance Act to make such inquiry and to call for such registers and other documents as are necessary in order that they may satisfy themselves that the provisions of the Act are being complied with; and, so far as I am aware, no difficulty has arisen in practice in ascertaining, in any particular case, both the rate of remuneration per working day and the amount deducted from wages.
    Mr. PETO: If the right hon. Gentleman's attention is called to a specific case, will he inquire into it?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will do so very gladly.

    PROSECUTION BY SCOTTISH INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to a prosecution against William Sutherland, The Peel, Tibbermore, Perthshire, at the instance of the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, in which the accused is charged with various alleged offences against the Act ever since the 15th July, 1912; and will he say why a prosecution was not entered into at an earlier date instead of lulling the accused into a position of false security and thus actually conniving at the aforesaid alleged offences?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have obtained full particulars of the prosecution referred to in the question. The actual facts lead to deductions exactly contrary to those in the latter part of the question. The employer mentioned pays his workpeople half-yearly in May and November and no prosecution could be undertaken until after the end of the first quarter. So far from being "lulled into a position of false security" he was clearly informed of his duties under the Act by a special letter from the Commissioners in August, and he has been repeatedly warned since that persistent refusal to fulfil them would entail prosecution. His action was not a casual but a deliberate defiance of the law.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has yet been able to arrange for treatment in a sanatorium for Mr. Went, who was recommended for treatment by the tuberculosis officer in October last?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes, Sir. The patient was offered institutional treatment last week, but preferred to remain at home till to-day, and I am informed that he has now gone.

    IRISH MIGRATORY LABOURERS.
    Major HOPEasked if exemption certificates granted to Irish migratory labourers employed in harvesting or other agricultural work under Section 81 (3) of the National Insurance Act become void when they are employed in other industries in Scotland or England?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Exemption certificates, issued to Irish migratory labourers under Section 81 (3) of the National Insurance Act, become void if the holders are employed within the meaning of the Act otherwise than in harvesting or other agricultural work.

    WORKERS' UNION (WOLVERHAMPTON).
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the attention of the Insurance Commissioners has been drawn to the action of the manager of Messrs. Pinson and Evans, of Wolverhampton, in making it a condition of employment that their workpeople must transfer from the Workers' Union, which they have made their approved society, to some other approved society; and whether he will take steps to prevent such proceedings by this firm in the future?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am making inquiries into this ease, and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

    FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (MEDICAL PEES).
    Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the fear which exists in the minds of those responsible for the management of friendly societies that the medical fees paid in respect of their old uninsured members are likely to be increased considerably as a direct result of the administration of the Insurance Act; and whether, in the event of such fees being so increased by members of the medical profession, he will consider the possibility of making an equivalent Grant to friendly

    1083
    societies to balance the additional expenditure in which they may be involved as a result of increased fees?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, Sir, I know of no reason to suppose that medical practitioners will raise their present fees for attending their old patients who are uninsured members of friendly societies simply because, owing to the Insurance Act, they will receive higher fees than they have hitherto received for attending other members of those societies.

    INSURANCE STAMPS.
    Mr. ALLEN BAKERasked when insurance stamps in rolls will be on sale at the leading post offices?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Rolls of insurance stamps of the denominations most in use will be issued for sale at post offices in the course of a few days. They will be kept in stock only at post offices where there is a regular demand for them. At other post offices they will be obtainable on a few days' notice.
    Mr. A. BAKER: Does this also apply to unemployment stamps?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Certainly.

    ABSENCE FROM EMPLOYMENT.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINSasked how the Insurance Council are treating the case of an employed person whose employer and himself have duly paid their contributions under the National Insurance Act if he is ordered by the medical officer of health of the district to abstain from pursuing his employment or has a certificate from his medical attendant that it is dangerous for him to pursue his employment, in consequence of his being subject to communicating and disseminating infection owing to a member or members of his family suffering from an infectious disease?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: In the circumstances stated in the question of the hon. Member, the insured person would not himself be suffering from illness, and he would not be entitled to benefit.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Would not he be entitled to unemployed pay if he was in an insured trade?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Answering without preparation, I think he would.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked what amount is now available for the granting of medical benefit under the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer that was given to the hon. Member for London University on 23rd October and to the Cd. Paper 6520, laid on the Table on the 5th inst., which contains full information on the subject.
    Mr. HALL: Have final arrangements been made with the doctors? If not, how can the right hon. Gentleman say what amount "will be available for medical benefit?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That has nothing to do with the question.
    Mr. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me a direct reply? Is there sufficient money available for the purpose?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The question was what amount was now available for medical benefit, and I referred the hon. Member to documents from which he can obtain all the figures?
    Mr. HALL: Have arrangements been finally made with the doctors?

    LABOUR EXCHANGES.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked whether the officials of Labour Exchanges all over the United Kingdom worked for a considerable number of hours overtime during the months of July and August last in bringing Part II. of the National Insurance Act into operation, and that no payment has yet been made, though promised, for the work so performed; and, if so, whether he will take steps to have these officials paid the amounts due to them for the overtime so worked before Christmas?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the answer which I gave in reply to a similar question on 11th December. Arrangements have been made for the immediate payment of the gratuities in question.
    Mr. BARNES: Does the word "immediate" mean that the amount will be paid before Christmas?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The money is already in course of payment, and I gave an answer to the same effect one or two days ago.

  Government Printing.
  Mr. NANNETTIasked the Secretary to the Treasury what was the amount of all printed matter produced outside Ireland and sent into that country during the past three years from the Stationery Office, London, or from any other Government Department for use in Ireland?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: All Government printing for use in Ireland is done in that country whenever practicable. I am unable to give exact particulars of such exceptions as may have occurred, but they are very small and infrequent.

  Customs and Excise Officers.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the superior duties performed by second officers of Customs ceased on the 1st April, 1909, when the £ 10 allowances were withdrawn; whether he can state why a £10 allowance was paid to Customs officers transferred to the Excise while the allowance was discontinued in the case of second officers, although serving under practically identical conditions in regard to irregular attendance?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The duties performed by second officers of Customs did not cease on the 1st April, 1909, but from the date on which the £10 allowance was discontinued the improved scale of salary was granted. As regards the remaining part of the question, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on the 7th August last, except that the £10 allowance recommended by the Amalgamation Committee as compensation for diminuition of overtime earnings, to which the hon. Member appears to refer, has since been assigned to all officers, including second officers, who were entitled to receive it. This latter allowance has no connection whatever with the abolished £10 allowance to second officers.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether there is any precedent for reducing the rate of pay to which a group of Civil servants are at any given time actually entitled; whether he is aware that the Committee for the Amalgamation of the Customs and Excise de-
  1086
  clared the principle of reduction to be inequitable even where reforms might have-been cited by "way of compensation, and that, in spite of this, the Board of Customs and Excise have reduced the rates of certain officers from 2s. to 1s. 6d. per hour; and will he say whether this departure from the ruling as to reduction laid down by the Hobhouse Commission will be put right by restoring to such officers the rates which they were receiving prior to 1st December?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The new scale of overtime pay gives certain officers a lower rate than the old scale at one stage of their service, but it gives them a higher rate at another. I am not aware that the Amalgamation Committee imposed any such limitation with regard to the rate of overtime pay as the hon. Member suggests. I cannot admit the principle that one point in the new scale should be considered entirely apart from the rest of the scale, and from other changes which have been made in connection with overtime. Taking the whole of the circumstances into account, I see no reason, as I informed the hon. Member on the 27th ultimo, for departing from the new scale.
  Mr. TOUCHE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether, in view of the duties of the officers, it is equitable to reduce the rates they have been actually receiving? It seems very unfair to do so.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It is a question of the rates for overtime, and I think, considering the length of the overtime, they will make up for it on the new scale.

  Prison Official (Retiring Allowance).
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if the Lords of the Treasury will give favourable consideration to an application by Mr. J. E. C. Larter to be granted a year's salary, with the usual curtailed superannuation allowance, in terms of Circular 17,219/470 of 12th October, 1910, on his retirement this month from the prison service, notwithstanding his having omitted to avail himself at the proper time of the terms of the minute embodied in the circular; and, in considering the merits of the application as an exceptional case, will they keep in view that Mr. Larter is compelled to retire on the grounds of ill-health, after thirty-three years' service, and take into account the special circumstances set forth in his application?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I regret that I do not see my way to accede to this application. Mr. Larter has been awarded the pension for which he is qualified under the Superannuation Act, 1859.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    EYE TESTS FOR OFFICERS.
    Mr. PETOasked the First Lord of the Admiralty at what period are the tests in colour and form vision applied to executive officers in the Royal Navy; whether these tests must be undergone on entering the service; and whether once an officer has shown proficiency in these tests they are no further applied?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): These tests have to be undergone on first entry into the service. They are further applied to officers who go through courses in the navigation school, and also to officers as to whose colour perception any doubt may arise.

    BATTLESHIPS (CANADA).
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to lay upon the Table of the House the information given to Mr. Borden during his recent visit to this country, and by which he was induced to fall in with the suggestion of the Admiralty to offer to provide the British Navy with the loan of three battleships, the cost of building which is to be borne by the Dominion of Canada?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): Full information of Admiralty policy is contained in the published Memorandum. The decision was left entirely to the unfettered judgment of the Canadian Government and Parliament. It is impossible to disclose the confidential communications which passed between Mr. Borden and the Members of His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Why is the House of Commons to be committed to a policy of which it is ignorant?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The House of Commons is not committed to the policy.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Prime Minister whether the acceptance by the Government of the proposal of the Government of Canada to provide the British Navy with the conditional use of three battleships would entail an addition to the Navy Estimates for their manning and
    1088
    maintenance; whether one of the conditions attaching to the loan of the ships is that Canada shall have a seat on the Committee of Defence; and whether, having regard to these facts, he will give the House of Commons an opportunity of deciding whether it is prepared to assent to the conditions attached to the Canadian offer before the Dominion Parliament comes to any final decision on the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should deprecate a discussion of these matters until the Debates in the Dominion Parliament have been concluded. I may repeat that the offer of representation on the Committee of Imperial Defence was made to the Dominions last year by His Majesty's Government before any question had arisen as to the present proposals of the Canadian Government.

    STRENGTH IN BATTLESHIPS (1915).
    Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state what would be the combined strength in 1915 of battleships and battle cruisers of the "Dreadnought," or improved class, of the fleets of Germany, Austria, and Italy, on the one hand., and of Great Britain, France, and Russia, on the other, if the present shipbuilding programmes of the respective countries were adhered to?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Taking the middle of 1915, the figures asked for are as follows:—

    Germany

    23

    Italy

    6

    Austria-Hungary.

    7

    Total

    36

    Great Britain

    37

    France

    12

    Russia

    4

    Total

    53

    In the figures for Great Britain, the "New Zealand" is included, but not the "Australia," and no account is taken of Canadian and Malayan ships. The "Lord Nelsons" and "Radetskys" are counted as "Dreadnoughts" as well as the "Dantons."

    ROYAL MARINES (LIEUTENANT'S PAY).
    Captain FABERasked whether a lieutenant in the Royal Marines has to serve eleven years before getting £127 a year, whereas a lieutenant in the Navy

    1089
    starts on 10s. a day and works up to 16s.; whether the duties of these two branches are almost similar; and whether lieutenants in the Royal Marines can be placed on the new scale of pay as laid down on page 786A of the Quarterly Navy List?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: A lieutenant in the Royal Marine Artillery receives £135 a year and in the Royal Marine Light Infantry £127 a year after four years from date of entry. After eleven years at latest from date of entry a Royal Marine officer becomes a captain. The minimum and maximum rates of pay of a lieutenant in the Royal Navy are as stated. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. As regards the third part of the question I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth on the 9th instant.

    COASTGUARD (PAY).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether the case of the coastguards was considered in the recent rise of pay to naval ratings; and, if not, will the right hon. Gentleman state the reasons for leaving them out?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: If the hon. Member will refer to the replies given to the hon. Member for South Devon on the 4th of this month, and to the hon. Member for South-Wast Lancashire on Friday last, he will see that his question has already been answered on two occasions within the last fortnight.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question is asked a third time because it is of considerable importance to the coastguard?

    DEFENCE OF EASTERN WATERS.
    Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the provision made for the defence of Eastern waters; and whether the defence of Indian waters from Aden to Singapore is entrusted to five cruisers, only one of which exceeds 5,000 tons?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Admiralty are, of course, fully informed of the disposition and classes of all ships of His Majesty's Navy wherever employed.

    SIR FRANCIS BRIDGEMAN.
    Captain FABERasked whether any private communication was issued by the Admiralty to some of the editors of the
    1090
    leading papers prior to the dismissal of Sir Francis Bridgeman; and, if so, what?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: In order to prevent mischievous and unfounded rumours, the Press Association and Reuter's Agency, after the official notice had been circulated in the ordinary manner, were by my directions informed that reasons of health, and not a difference of policy, had led to the change in the Board of Admiralty. I know of no other communication.

    CRUISER SQUADRON (QUEENSTOWN).
    Mr. MULDOONasked if the First Lord of the Admiralty can give particulars as to the cruiser squadron which is to be sent to Queenstown, and the probable date of its arrival?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The details have not yet been finally settled, but I hope that an announcement may be made shortly.

  Common Jurymen. (Payment).
  Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to introduce, as a Government measure, a measure for the payment of common jurymen?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The question of the constitution of juries is now being inquired into by a Departmental Committee of which Lord Mersey is the chairman. Until their Report is received I cannot say what steps it may be desirable for the Government to take.

  Civil Service.
  Mr. FRED HALLasked if a record has been kept of appointments in the Civil Service without open competition since a Select. Committee was set up early in the year to deal with this question; and if he will give particulars of such appointments?
  The PRIME MINISTER: A record of all appointments made to situations comprised in Schedule A of the Order in Council of 10th January, 1910, is kept by the Civil Service Commissioners. Statistics as to all certificates issued by the Commissioners under Clause 7 of that Order during the years 1901–11 may be found in the first Appendix to the first Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, to which body the hon. Member presumably refers. A Return setting forth the name, age, and date of appointment, salary, address at time of appointment, and occupation for the five years preceding the appointment of each person appointed

  1091
  without competitive examination to any position in the public service, from 27th February, 1912, to 1st November, 1912, with an annual salary of £100 and upwards, is now in preparation, and will be laid before the House in compliance with the Order of 1st November.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    GOVERNMENT AMENDMENTS.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the Amendments foreshadowed by the Government in the provisions of the Government of Ireland Bill with reference to bringing the Act into operation, affecting fundamentally numerous Clauses of the Bill, he will afford to the Opposition an opportunity of discussing all the Clauses affected?
    The PRIME MINISTER: In allocating the time on Report our efforts will be to secure to the Opposition the opportunity of discussing these portions of the Bill for which time was not found in Committee, and I will, in particular, bear in mind the importance of giving time to discuss the whole subject referred to in the question.
    Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the Government Amendments are put down before the allocation of time on the Report stage?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Of course.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of his promise that at an early date, after the conclusion of the Committee stage, we shall see what the Government Amendments are, and can he say whether they will be put on the Paper in the next day or two?
    The PRIME MINISTER: In the course of this week.

    TRANSFERRED SUM.
    Mr. CASSELasked as from what date the Transferred Sum will become payable under the provisions of the Government of Ireland Bill?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The date will be fixed under Clauses 47 and 45.
    Mr. CASSEL: What date is that?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is dependent upon the date fixed for the transfer of the services to the Irish Government.
    Mr. CASSELasked the Prime Minister whether he has taken into consideration the question whether the Transferred Sum under the provisions of the Government of Ireland Bill ought to be determined as at the date when the Irish services are actually taken over rather than as at the date of the passing of the Act?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The answer is in the affirmative, but it is considered that the Bill is right as it stands.

  Clerks of Sessions (Scotland) Bill.
  Mr. BOOTHasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the Clerks of Sessions (Scotland) Bill introduced by the Lord Advocate; and whether, in view of the fact that this is the only Bill introduced into this Parliament which reduces the number of officials and thereby effects a saving to the public Exchequer, he will grant facilities for its speedy passage throught his House?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I can give no pledge on the subject, but I understand the Bill is uncontroversial.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: As the number of officials has been increased since 1908 by over 4,000, will this Bill reduce them by one?
  Mr. BOOTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is only one Member on the Opposition side who is enthusiastically in favour of this Bill—the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is a very important fact.

  Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
  Captain FABERasked whether it is obligatory for every member of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to belong to the Church of England?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Act requires that every Commissioner, before acting under the Commission, shall make a declaration that he is a member of the Church of England.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is it sufficient to have a declaration by a gentleman who has habitually taken advantage of the Toleration Act and says in this House that he is not a member of the Church?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know-to what the hon. Member refers.

  Income Tax.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the High Court has declared to be unlawful the levy between 6th April and 7th August of this year by the deduction of the Bum of £980,000 Income Tax, when no Act of Parliament imposing that tax had yet passed, and in view of the further fact that Mr. Gibson Bowles has consequently obtained repayment from the Bank of England, and still retains, the sum of £52 10s. 8d.,a portion of that £980,000, does he propose to order repayment of the rest of that sum thus unlawfully deducted; does he propose to admonish or otherwise punish the officers of Inland Revenue who, in obedience to an unlawful order from the Commissioners of the Treasury, induced various bankers and others to make the unlawful deduction; does he propose to introduce a Bill of Indemnity for those responsible for the unlawful levies in question; and what steps does he propose to take to prevent such unlawful levies in the future?
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question, may I ask whether the illegal practice alleged in. this question was first established seventy years ago under the Tory regime by Sir Robert Peel?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): In reply to the first and last parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given by myself to the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras West on the 6th November, and by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Dulwich on the 14th November. I do not propose to take the action suggested in the question with regard to the officers of the Inland Revenue Department. In reply to the other question which was asked by my hon. Friend (Mr. Swift MacNeill) the statement which he makes is strictly accurate.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question was put down for the Prime Minister in his capacity as First Lord of the Treasury and because it impugned the conduct of the Second Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if the Prime Minister is not pleased to answer is it not the case, first, that the Prime Minister has the responsibility as First Lord of the Treasury, and that the Inland Revenue Commissioners have no responsi-
  1094
  bility as they are bound by Statute to obey the Treasury?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question of which the hon. Member ought to give notice.
  Sir J. D. REES: If I put the question down, may I ask whether the Prime Minister will answer it? I advisedly put this question down to be answered by the Prime Minister as First Lord of the Treasury.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The administrative business of the Treasury is under the control of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask whether, since the days of Sir Robert Walpole, the Prime Minister has not been First Lord of the Treasury in order that the responsibility might be on his part?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That requires some historical research.

  Railways (No. 2) Bill.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked when it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Railways (No. 2) Bill; and whether, in view of the novelty of the principles embodied in this Bill and its varied effect upon different classes and trade interests in the country, the Prime Minister will allow at least one full day for its consideration?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot yet say when the Bill will be taken, nor what time can be devoted to it. The Government must not be held to admit the accuracy of the suggestion that a novel principle is involved.
  Lord N. CRICHTON-STUARTasked whether it is proposed at any time to bring in a Bill which will include those Clauses in the interests of traders which were included in the Railways (No. 1) Bill, but have been left out of the Railways (No. 2) Bill?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: It is a matter of considerable regret to my right hon. Friend that the opposition of traders and others to the Railways (No. 1) Bill made it impossible for him to deal this Session with its main provisions, many of which were in the interests of the traders. He hopes to be able to reintroduce the Bill in an amended form next Session.

  Franchise and Registration Bill.
  Mr. LEIF JONESasked whether the Prime Minister is aware that certain Members of the House of Commons believe that the result of carrying an Amendment to the Franchise and Registration Bill enfranchising women would be the resignation of the Prime Minister and the break up of the Ministry; whether this is contrary to his own declarations upon this subject; and whether he adheres to his statement that the Government as a whole will accept and carry out the decision of the House upon this question, so that Members may cast a free and unfettered vote solely on the merits of Woman Suffrage?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware that any such belief exists among Members of the House of Commons or of any ground upon which it is supposed to rest. My public declarations on the subject are on record, and are perfectly plain and explicit.
  Mr. CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to assent to a policy which he has described as a "national disaster"?
  The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. Member misquotes me he must put the question down.
  Mr. ARNOLD WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman state when the Committee stage of the Franchise Bill will be taken?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It will be taken after Christmas.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the letter written by the hen. Member for West Donegal in which the rumour appears?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to the answer I have given.

  Appointment of Magistrates.
  Captain FABERasked how many Advisory Committees have been appointed to collaborate with the Lord Chancellor with regard to the appointment of magistrates in counties and boroughs, respectively; how many magistrates have been asked to attend to "their fair share of magisterial duties or to resign, and how many have resigned; how many, failing resignation, have been removed; how many have been transferred; how the proportion of magistrates to population is fixed; and what is this proportion?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member's question has been communicated to the Lord Chancellor. It involves much detail, and an answer would require time to prepare. If the hon. Member presses the matter, I would suggest for his consideration whether it would not be more convenient if he were to move for a Return.

  Steamship "Durham."
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can furnish detailed information as to the case of the ss. "Durham," which vessel left the Soroka, in the White Sea, on 20th October last with a heavy deck-load and arrived recently in the United Kingdom, having carried away her deck-load and sustained considerable structural damage as a result, and is now undergoing repairs at Barry Docks; whether he will take steps to have all cases of structural damage to vessels and injury to officers or crew due to deck-loads reported to the Board of Trade in future; and whether he will issue a tabulated Return of the cases reported in 1913?
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: The "Durham" left Soroka, White. Sea, on 21st October, and arrived at London on 2nd November, where she discharged her cargo of deals, battens, and boards. I am informed that the vessel met with heavy weather on the voyage and parts of her deck cargo were carried away. The starboard rigging shroud was broken and the foremast was sprung and buckled. The bridge, deck, and chart-house rails and stanchions were damaged, and also some of the hatches. Two of the hold ventilators were broken and sundry deck fittings damaged. Reports of casualties to ships registered in the United Kingdom are already received by the Board of Trade, and I am arranging for the reports of casualties due to the loss of deck-loads to be specially tabulated for the year 1913.
  Mr. PETO: Will the tables to which the hon. Gentleman refers include a report of vessels whose superstructure has been damaged because of deck cargo, even without loss of life?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I will see whether those figures can be obtained.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Is it not possible to prohibit deck cargoes altogether?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: That matter is under consideration, but I cannot promise.
  Mr. FRED HALL: If deck loads are prohibited on English ships would it not be another handicap in competition with foreign nations?

  Colour Vision Tests.
  Mr. PETOasked whether the President of the Board of Trade can give any information as to why the tests in colour vision applied to those serving in the mercantile marine are different from those serving in the Royal Navy; whether it has been brought to his knowledge that the present wool tests, which are now in vogue at Board of Trade examinations, are wholly discredited in the way of reliability; and whether he will take into consideration the desirability of abolishing both present and proposed Board of Trade tests for colour blindness, with a view to substituting practical tests in colour vision under conditions as they prevail at sea and under the ordinary circumstances of service in the mercantile marine?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The whole question of the colour vision tests applied to candidates for certificates of competency in the mercantile marine has been fully investigated by a strong Departmental Committee, and the tests which they have recommended for adoption will be brought into force at an early date. The reasons which led the Committee to recommend these tests will be found stated in their Report. I would refer the hon. Member to the Admiralty for information as to their reasons for adopting the colour visions tests used for officers in the Royal Navy.
  Mr. PETO: In view of the fact that a very large number at present employed in the merchant service may be required to enter into the Admiralty service, does the hon. Gentleman not think it desirable to have the same colour vision test in both services?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: That is a question for the Admiralty. The Board of Trade is proceeding on the recommendations of the Departmental Committee.

  Port of London (Transport Workers).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked whether the Port of London Authority can now state the total cost of the concessions made to the transport workers of the port, as
  1098
  agreed to in August, 1911, and the actual percentage increase of charges as a result imposed on the goods of traders using the port?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I am informed by the Port of London Authority that they regret that they are not in a position to give the information as to the cost of the concessions.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that I asked a similar question about six months ago, and is not that surely sufficient time in which to get the figures?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: It does not lie with the Board of Trade. The Port of London Authority express regret that they cannot give the information, which is not in the nature of asking for more time, but they apparently object on other grounds to give the information.
  Mr. O'GRADYIs it not the fact that a large number of traders in the Port of London object to the large Import Duties imposed upon them, and do they not result in a far larger sum than the increased wages represent?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: That does not affect the question.

  Pilots (Method of Transferring to Ships).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked whether the Board of Trade has received any reply from the Cardiff Pilotage Board with reference to the methods of transferring pilots from cutter to ship with a view to preventing loss of life due to the pilot being transferred in a boat manned by only one man; and whether the methods prevailing at the ports of London, Liverpool, Glasgow, and Hull, will be ascertained?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I am informed by the Cardiff Pilotage Board that they are fully alive to the risks involved by the existing system of supplying pilots in their district, and that they propose to submit by-laws for the establishment of a new scheme which they think will materially reduce the risks which at present attend the boarding of vessels by pilots. The Pilotage Bill which is now before a Standing Committee will authorise the holding of inquiries into this and other matters at the various ports with a view to the improvement of pilotage organisation generally.

  Railways Conciliation Scheme.
  Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will place upon the Table of the House for the information of Members, a Report on the work of the Railways Conciliation Scheme?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Information is being obtained as to settlements that have been effected during the present year under the Railways Conciliation Scheme, and a statement will be laid before Parliament when complete.
  Sir H. CARLILE: Can the hon. Gentleman say when it is likely to appear?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I cannot say.

  Industrial Unrest.
  Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the recurrence of industrial troubles, he can expedite the Report of the inquiry by the Industrial Council into the remedies for industrial unrest; and when the evidence is expected to be concluded?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I am informed that it is the intention of the Industrial Council to hear evidence from a few further important witnesses early in the New Year, after which it is proposed to proceed with consideration of the Report. I may add that the Industrial Council's inquiry is scarcely so wide in its scope as is suggested in the question. It refers to the fulfilment and enforcement of industrial agreements.

  Steamship "Florence."
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the steamer "Florence" is still sailing under the British flag, manned and officered entirely by Greeks, and was at Torre Annunziata, Spain, on the 12th instant; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent foreign vessels, manned and officered by foreigners, sailing under the British flag at a time when the foreign countries concerned are at war?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The steamship "Florence," to which the hon. Member refers, is still on the British register. I have no information as to the vessel being at Torre Annunziata. The conditions entitling a ship to British registry are laid down in the Merchant Shipping Acts, and I have no power to alter them without legislation.

  Hampton English School.
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTSasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to a resolution adopted at a public meeting of inhabitants of Hampton-on-Thames, protesting against the Board of Education's proposal to vest permanently the building known as the Hampton English School, together with a part of the income of John Jones' Charity, in the vicar and church wardens of Hampton alone, thereby excluding the people of Hampton from any voice in the management of the building, which was erected partly by public subscriptions, and any control over the expenditure referred to such as they have had since 1837 up to the date of the temporary scheme made by the Board in the year 1910; and whether, in view of similar expressions of disapproval unanimously adopted by the local urban district council, he will reconsider this approval?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD Of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): On Friday last the Board received a deputation of the Hampton Urban District Council with reference to the matters mentioned in the question and are carefully considering the representations made respecting the draft scheme recently published under the Charitable Trusts Acts for the administration of the buildings and endowment of the English School Foundation.

  Glamorgan Education Authority.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Glamorgan education authority have agreed to improve the salaries of teachers in several voluntary schools within the county, subject to the condition that the teachers and managers of the schools concerned execute an approved agreement, whereby they shall accept and be bound by the regulations of the local authority affecting teachers in council schools; whether such regulations provide for the transfer of teachers to other schools at the discretion of the authority; whether such an agreement or condition can be enforced, having regard to the fact that under Section 7 (7) of the Education Act of 1902 the managers of a non-provided school have all the powers of management required for the purpose of carrying out that Act, and, subject to certain reservations, have the exclusive power of appointing teachers; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent the

  1101
  local authority enforcing conditions 'which would place managers and teachers in an untenable position?
  Mr. PEASE: The answers to the first and second parts of the question are in the affirmative. Whether such an agreement is legally enforceable is a matter for the Courts to decide. I have no occasion to intervene, unless a question arises under Section 7 of the Education Act, 1902, between the local education authority and the managers and is submitted for the Board's determination.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the President of the Board of Education whether the managers of the Bryncoch Church of England school, Glamorgan, appealed to the Board of Education against the action of the Glamorgan education authority in paying the assistant teachers in the above-mentioned school at lower rates of salary than teachers with similar qualifications and experience in council schools; whether he is aware that on the local authority being made acquainted with this appeal they informed the managers of the Bryncoch school that any improvement that may be made in the salaries of the assistant staff will no doubt be deducted from the excessive salary of the head teacher, at the same time inviting the managers to terminate the existing agreement with the head teacher in order that the reduced salary may be payable to him at the end of three months; whether the salary of the head teacher which is thus described as excessive is less than the salary obtained by assistant teachers in many other parts of the country; and whether the Board of Education propose to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. PEASE: The answers to the first and second parts of the question are in the affirmative. Whilst there may be some assistant teachers whose salary exceeds that of the £193 paid to the head tetcher of the school referred to, the average salary for certificated assistant teachers in England and Wales for the year 1911–12 was £128 and £115, respectively. With reference to the last part of the question, the managers were asked on the 22nd July whether they desired to allege that the Glamorganshire local education authority has failed, having regard to the salaries paid at the school, to observe the obligation imposed upon it under the Act of 1902 to maintain and keep efficient the school referred to. No reply has been received to this letter.

  Flannelette.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that various makes of flannelette are sold under such trade descriptions as "non-flashable," "safety flannelette," "standard will not blaze, "and so forth, and that these productions blaze with the utmost freedom on the application of an ordinary match and, if so, having regard to the danger to the public by these misleading descriptions, whether he will take steps, either by legislation or otherwise, to forbid their sale?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): Yes, Sir, I am aware that various makes of flannelette are sold under misleading descriptions of the kind referred to. As regards the last part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that, as I stated in my reply to him last Monday, I am waiting for suggestions as to the prescription of practicable standards and tests with a view to the introduction of legislation, and I am not without hope of receiving them.

  Jury System.
  Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked whether the Departmental Committee on the jury system, which was appointed on 6th December, 1911, has yet delivered its Report to the Government?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer is in the negative. I would refer the Noble Lord to the full reply which I gave last Tuesday to the hon. and learned Member for South Donegal.

  Lead Poisoning.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will inquire as to what length of time each of the seventy seven workmen reported as suffering from lead poisoning in the Swansea district since 1907 had been employed in the spelter industry?
  Mr. McKENNA: According to the information in the possession of the Home Office, which was in almost all the cases furnished by the workmen themselves at the time the cases occurred—

  13 had been employed from 1 to 5 years.

  13 had been employed from 6 to 10 years.

  10 had been employed from 11 to 15 years.

  1103

  18 had been employed from 16 to 20 years.

  23 had been employed over 20 years.

  Mr. C. DUNCANasked what were the respective ages of the four workmen who died of lead poisoning in the Swan sea district since 1907; and what period of time each workman had followed the employment in which lead poisoning -was contracted?
  Mr. McKENNA: The ages were 52, 49, 40. and 36; the length of employment 30 years, 28 years, 18 years, and between 5 and 6 years. I should add that in the first and last cases the immediate cause of death was consumption.
  Mr. C. DUNCANasked whether any of the workmen constituting the ten severe cases of lead poisoning, or any of the seventeen workmen who suffered from wristdrop arising from lead poisoning whilst following their occupation as spelter men in the Swansea district since 1907, have ever been restarted by the firms which had previously employed them; if so, what were the wages paid; and what was the nature of the employment?
  Mr. McKENNA: This information is not in the possession of the Department, and any inquiry for the purpose of obtaining it would occupy so much time that I should not feel justified in taking away an inspector from his proper work of factory inspection for the purpose. I may add that under the new Regulations which came into force in October, 1911, a register of all persons employed in lead processes is required to be kept, and no person who had been suspended from his employment by the appointed surgeon on account of lead poisoning can be re-employed in a lead process without the sanction of the surgeon entered in the register.
  Mr. C. DUNCANasked what proportion the seventy-seven cases of lead poisoning which have occurred since 1907 bear to the number of workmen actually engaged in the smelting of ore in the spelter works in the Swansea district?
  Mr. McKENNA: The number of persons employed in spelter works in South Wales is approximately 1,000. As the seventy-seven cases of lead poisoning are spread over a period of nearly five years, the incidence of poisoning is between 1 and 2 per cent, per year.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Lord BALCARRES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will make a statement about business to-night and to-morrow night, and also when he will be in a position to give a general announcement to the House about the business to be taken after the Christmas recess?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No Government business will to taken to-night or to-morrow. I will make a statement on Friday about the business after the recess.
  Lord BALCARRES: Can we not have the statement before Friday about business after the recess?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider that suggestion.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the inconvenience caused by the delay in this matter, and I hope will remember how much the plans of hon. Members of all parts of the House do really depend on the statement of the Government's intentions with regard to business, and that he will also remember under what exceptional circumstances by way of date we are departing, and the still more exceptional circumstances in the way of date we meet again. I think he will feel that if possible he will give some information to hon. Gentlemen which will enable them to frame their own schemes for the next few weeks.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I agree, and I will accelerate it; probably on Wednesday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SEATS UNDER GALLERY).
Mr. KING: I beg to ask you, Sir, a question, of which I have given private notice: Whether you will, for the general information of hon. Members, state the practice as to the allocation of seats in the Gallery, and, in particular, whether any seats are regularly reserved there for officials of the Unionist party; and, if so, whether the Irish Nationalist party and the Labour party can also claim any rights to seats in that or any other portion of the Strangers' Gallery?
Mr. SPEAKER: The seats are allocated, as the hon. Member is aware, by the Serjeant-at-Arms. No particular person has any right to a seat in the Gallery; but the hon. Member will also bear in mind that when the right-hand portion of the seats in the Gallery was taken away from strangers and given to Members, and when the official representatives of Departments were placed behind me on the right, an understanding was arrived at that those who generally assist the Opposition, draftsmen, and the like, should not be placed in any worse position by reason of the fact that eight of the places which were formerly open to them were taken away. Therefore, so long as the Opposition desire to have their draftsman present in the House to advise them, he has to make application daily, and he receives daily a ticket of admission. The same practice, of course, will equally apply to the Irish Members when in opposition to the Government if they desire to have their representatives present; and so, too, if the Labour party were in opposition to the Government; and so, too, if the hon. Member himself formed a party.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether the fact that a party like I he Labour party gives a general support to the Government constitutes that party a portion of the Government, and, if not, whether we do not come under your ruling of a party which is not a Government party being entitled to one of those seats?
Mr. SPEAKER: I said "parties in opposition to the Government." If the hon. Member states that his party is in opposition to the Government, and desires the presence of some particular adviser upon some particular Bill, I shall be very glad to consider what can be done, with every desire to meet his wish.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether, apart from being in opposition, the fact that a particular Bill of special interest to the Labour party, such as the Trade Unions Bill, was before the House, would not entitle us to one of those seats?
Mr. SPEAKER: I think it would. If the hon. Member and his party are opposing a Government Bill and desire, to submit Amendments in opposition, I think they would have a very good claim indeed to have a representative present.
Mr. WATT: May I ask whether any arrangements could be made by which the seats under the Gallery could be utilised temporarily by friends of Members when the occupants for the day are out for dinner? Many of those occupants go out to dinner and never come back.
Mr. SPEAKER: I think that the arrangement made by the First Commissioner was that if the Gallery behind me on the right was not required for officials, it would be open to the use of Members but not for strangers. That arrangement still holds good.

BILL PRESENTED.
  TUBERCULOSIS PREVENTION (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To prevent the spread and provide for the treatment of tuberculosis; and for other purposes connected therewith." Presented by Mr. BIRRELL; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 343.]

DEATH OF AMERICAN AMBASSADOR.
The PRIME MINISTER: Before the House proceeds to the Orders for the Day I would ask leave to give brief expression to the sincere grief shared by the whole nation at the death of the American Ambassador, Mr. Whitelaw Reid. The American Ambassador in this country holds a position of his own, which is independent of his status and his functions as the diplomatic representative of an external Power. We regard him as a kinsman, who is also an honoured and a welcomed guest, having sprung from our own race, speaking our own language, sharing with us, by birth and by inheritance, not a few of our most cherished traditions, and participating, when he comes here, by what I may describe as a natural right, in our domestic interests and celebrations. The office has been held and adorned by a long succession of distinguished men, and I am not using the language of exaggeration when I say that none of them has more fully entered into its spirit and more maintained its special authority than Mr. Whitelaw Reid. He brought to the discharge of its manifold and exacting duties the gathered experience of a veteran in public affairs,
1138
the endowment of a man of the highest culture, social gifts of the most genial and generous kind, a keen sympathy with all the many sides of our British life, a mind always open and receptive, and the warmest of hearts. We propose to suggest to the American Government that one of His Majesty's battleships or battle cruisers should convey the remains of the late Ambassador to his native land. I am certain that I interpret the sentiments of the whole House when I venture in their name to offer to his family, and to the President and the people of the United States, our deep and heartfelt sympathy at the loss of one who was a great American, but who none the less had his home amongst us, and in a true and real sense was felt by all of us to be one of ourselves.
4.0 P.M.
Mr. BALFOUR: Unfortunately my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is unavoidably absent from his place in the House. Although I think the Prime Minister was perfectly justified in saying that on this occasion he spoke not merely for the majority, but for the whole House, without any exception whatever, it is only right and in accordance with our usages that one word of public agreement should be said from this side of the House; and perhaps, in the absence of my right hon. Friend, as the Senior Privy Councillor on this side, the duty naturally devolves upon mo. I have nothing to add in substance to the noble tribute which the right hon. Gentleman has paid to Mr. Whitelaw Reid. Of course, I have not the knowledge which the Prime Minister possesses of the assistance which I doubt not in all the years of his office Mr. Whitelaw Reid has given to his own and to our Government in the cause of increasing, if that may be possible, the admirable understanding which now exists and which for many years has existed between the two great branches of the English-speaking race. The right hon. Gentleman did not dwell upon that branch of the subject so much as upon that branch appropriate to the Ambassador of the United States, and appropriate to the Ambassador of no other country, however intimate and friendly our relations with that country may be. The Prime Minister

1139
has dwelt with admirable taste and eloquence upon the position which has for so long been occupied by the distinguished citizens of the United States who have come over to this country and worthily represented that great community in the land from which both have sprung. We in Great Britain have always been anxious to extend and have always extended to those representatives, not merely the consideration due to those who represent a great and friendly Power, but something much more, something much deeper, and something much more intimate. We have welcomed them, as the right hon. Gentleman has truly said, to the very arcana of our social life. The functions which fall upon the representative of the United States, being thus in their nature peculiar, have been most admirably fulfilled by the departed statesman. I had the honour, as doubtless many whom I am addressing had the honour, of his friendship. I shall never forget the kindness which he always extended to me, as he did to others with whom he was brought from time to time into close and intimate converse. The more you knew him, the more any man knew Mr. Whitelaw Reid, the more competent he was to appreciate, not only the ardent and enlightened patriotism which distinguished him, but those broad bonds of generous sympathy which made us feel, when he was talking to us, that he was not less sympathetic to England because he never allowed one to forget that he was the representative of another, though kindred nation. If I may express opinions which I know are universal on this side of the House, let me say that I think the Government have been well advised in the course which the Prime Minister announced. I am glad the Government have seen their way to extend this honour from the British race to one of the most distinguished citizens of the United States. I think what they have alone will not only, as I hope, be received as it is intended by our friends on the other side of the Atlantic, but I am well assured that this policy will be approved by every single citizen of the British Empire.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
FOURTH ALLOTTED DAY.—[Progress, 13th December.]
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Apportionment of Property by Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty.)
  (1) The Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act and before the date of Disestablishment, ascertain and by order declare what property vested in them at the passing of this Act, or under the provisions hereinafter in this Section contained, consists of property of either of the classes or descriptions mentioned in Part I. of the First Schedule to this Act, and property so ascertained and declared shall, subject to the adjustments made in accordance with Part II. of the same Schedule, be Welsh ecclesiastical property within the meaning of this Act.
  (2) Queen Anne's Bounty shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, and before the date of Disestablishment, ascertain and by order declare what property vested in them at the passing of this Act, or under the provisions hereinafter in this Section contained, is property of the class or description mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act, and all property so ascertained and declared shall be Welsh ecclesiastical property within the meaning of this Act.
  (3) There shall as from the passing of this Act become vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty respectively all property (other than ecclesiastical residences) belonging to or appropriated to the use of any ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation in the Church in Wales, or the holder of any such office as such, towards the purchase of which Grants made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty respectively have been applied; but such vesting shall not affect any beneficial interest in any such property.
  (4) Orders of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty under this Section and the Schedules therein referred to shall be made with the concurrence of the Welsh Commissioners, or, in default of such concurrence, with the approval of His Majesty the King in Council given on the advice of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
  Mr. HOARE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "or under the provisions hereinafter in this Section contained."
  I move this Amendment to draw attention to the complexity of the Government's proposals with reference to the Central Fund of the Church. I think in doing so certain lessons will become obvious. First of all, with reference to the complexity of these proposals. I think if Members of the Committee will read Clauses 5 and 6, and their appropriate Schedules, they will agree with me when I say that the Clauses to an ordinary layman like myself are almost unintelligible. To make my Amendment and the proposals I have outlined clear I must make one or two general observations in reference to the position of the Ecclesiastical Commission. The Members of the Committee are no doubt aware that the Ecclesiastical Commission is the central financial body of the Church. It was brought into being as a result of a Royal Commission which inquired into the financial arrangements of episcopal and capitular corporations in 1835, and the result of that was that all their funds have been, speaking generally, pooled in one general sum. Out of that sum the salaries of the bishops and cathedral officials have been paid, and Grants are made to needy parishes in various parts of the country. A difficulty immediately arises there.
  Since 1887 these Grants have been made not as maintenance Grants, but as capital Grants. In other words, if the Ecclesiastical Commission decide to give a Grant of £30 a year to a particular benefice they do so not by a maintenance Grant of £30, but by appropriating a capital sum of £l,000 to that particular benefice in their books, with the understanding that £30 a year will be paid to that benefice from the common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commission. These Grants are made out of the Central Fund of the Church, quite irrespective of the locality in which the particular benefice happens to be. Grants are made to Welsh parishes, and Grants are made to English parishes, and the only tests that are taken are first of all, whether the benefice is a poor benefice, and, secondly, whether the locality, owing to its large population or other needs, happens to require a Grant. Under this Clause, and the Sub-section to which my Amendment refers, all the various funds which the Ecclesiastical Commission have distributed to Welsh benefices are brought
  1142
  into one common body, from which subsequent distributions are to be made under the later Clauses in the Bill. In carrying out this proceeding three questions have to be answered. In the first place, How much does Wales contribute to the common fund to which I have just alluded? Secondly, How much does she got out of it at present? Thirdly, What will the Bill allow her to get out of it in future? The object of this Clause, I imagine, is by bringing all the funds into one common body to enable these questions to be answered. The first thing, as I say, is to get all the endowments in which the Ecclesiastical Commission have or had any interest in Wales into one common fund; then subsequently the various distributions will be made. First of all the Ecclesiastical Commission have got to say what is Welsh ecclesiastical property under the provisions of this Bill. To those who have not studied this question that may seem to be a comparatively easy question. I maintain, if hon. Members of this Committee will look into the transaction^ they will find that this is a question of extraordinary complexity. Much of what is at first sight Welsh property proves on examination to be English property.
  If hon. Members will look at the White Paper which the Government recently published setting out under the various headings the endowments of the Welsh Church, they will see that whilst the Welsh capitular estates, the chief source of Welsh finance in the common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commission, only brings in £26,100, the amount which the Ecclesiastical Commission pay back to bishops and chapters, amounts to £29,760. In other words, even the capitular estates of Wales fail to pay the charge for which the Ecclesiastical Commission is liable for the salaries of bishops and the cathedral chapters of the Welsh dioceses. It conies, then, to this, that every Grant which is made by the Ecclesiastical Commission to needy parochial benefices comes at the present moment, not out of the Welsh funds, but out of English funds. Hon. Members will remember that under the Bill the English funds are to remain intact, whilst it is the Welsh funds which are to be confiscated. This is a matter of very great complexity, and there is great difficulty in tracing the funds which are to be paid into the common account of the Ecclesiastical Commission. Exactly what are Welsh

  1143
  funds at a particular or the present moment, and what, though they may not be Welsh funds at the present moment, may have been Welsh funds at some remote past, is an extremely complicated subject and a matter most difficult of identification.
  Another difficulty arises in making out these accounts. The Ecclesiastical Commission have adopted one of two methods. They may have appropriated Grants, as I said, to particular parishes, and imposed a charge upon their general fund towards those parishes, whilst they still maintained the transaction in their books. Even that is a very difficult transaction, and there immediately comes up the question of distinguishing between Grants which they themselves have made and Grants which have been made conditional on private persons making over similar Grants, or anyhow grants sufficiently substantial to elicit the corresponding Grant from the Ecclesiastical Commission. I will not go into the question of these private Grants upon this particular Amendment. I think it more accurately arises upon a subsequent Clause, but let me say in passing that it raises a question of very great importance—the question as to whether Grants which have been made conditional upon Grants from private people should not remain sacred, and whether you would not by confiscating part of these Grants be virtually guilty of a breach of trust with the private individuals, who have been attracted into giving the sums towards the endowment of a parish, or some other kindred object. There is the second principle on which the Ecclesiastical Commission makes their Grants. In certain cases they have made Grants which they have not put upon their common fund. They have acted upon the principle of annexing certain property which they either hold or have purchased in Wales to a particular benefice.
  Let me give an illustration. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have purchased from lay impropriators sixty acres of glebe and £512 per annum of rent charge, which they have annexed to Welsh benefices and they have also annexed from their own funds property worth £700 a year of glebe and £25,400 of tithe rent-charge. Here is another case of very great complexity, and I own I cannot see how these particular items of property, which have been transferred and alienated from the
  1144
  Ecclesiastical Commission and definitely annexed to a particular benefice, are going to be dealt with under this Clause. I am very much afraid they will be dealt with under Clause 4, Sub-section (1) (b), a large part of which has passed without any discussion at all, and that there is very great reason to think that this property, which has been annexed and alienated from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to particular benefices, will be lost to the Church altogether. To make confusion worse confounded, just as there is English property in Wales, so there is Welsh property in England. The Ecclesiastical Commission possesses, for instance, £9,152 of commuted tithe rent-charge producing £2,500 belonging to English bishoprics and English chapters in Wales while in England they possess £727 a year of commuted tithe rent-charge and £188 of rent belonging to the bishoprics and chapters situate in England. These examples seem to me to be conclusive of the complexity of the accounts. I say, therefore, that the transactions which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are required to carry out at their own expense and within a very short time, are matters of almost unintelligible complexity; and, let me remind the Committee these duties are to be carried out in a period from six to twelve months, and as far as I read the Bill any disputed question between the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Welsh Commissioners is during these few months to be decided eventually by the Privy Council.
  I venture to urge that in view of the inextricable complexity between the English and the Welsh Endowments and the variety of questions which arise as to date and as to what is the private benefaction and a whole number of other difficulties with which the Bill bristles, the apportionment cannot be carried out in that time, and cannot possibly be settled within the few months which will elapse between the passing of the Bill and its final coming into operation as an Act. Why should these minute calculations be necessary at all? First of all, let me ask the Committee why—and this is a most remarkable point—these calculations are possible at all? Because during a number of years the Ecclesiastical Commission have adopted a financial policy which makes it possible for a calculation of this kind to be made and consequently for a large proportion of their Grants to be confiscated. Hon. Members may not be aware that, as a result of the Ecclesiastical Commission

  1145
  making capital Grants instead of maintenance Grants, such confiscation is possible. If they had followed the example of the various Nonconformist bodies which were receiving Grants in the eighteenth century and in the early part of the nineteenth century and merely given maintenance Grants, it would be impossible, first of all, for this calculation to be made, and, secondly, for the property of the Ecclesiastical Commission to be confiscated. It therefore comes to this, that the immediate result of the Ecclesiastical Commission having adopted a sound principle of finance under which Grants are given as capital Grants, and as a result of the saving on their administration, it is possible to do what the Ecclesiastical Commission are asked to do in this Subsection and in the Clause generally. And why are these calculations necessary at all? They are necessary for this very simple reason, that it so happens that Wales gets more out of the Ecclesiastical Commission than it is able to put into it; and why is that sol? It is so because the four Welsh dioceses happen to be the poorest part of the English Church. It therefore comes to this, that because these four dioceses are poor, and because it so happens that those large Grants have been made from the central funds of the Church to sustain it in its poor condition, this Sub-section is necessary, and these four poor Welsh dioceses are to be deprived under the calculation to be made in this Clause of a largo part of the funds upon which they have been dependent. It therefore comes to this, that, first of all, these calculations are of extraordinary complexity owing to the fact that the Church of England and the Church in Wales are one Church and an undivided Church, and that it is quite impossible to draw a distinction in dealing with the common central funds of the Church between any parts of it. The money, as I said, is given out simply as a result of the needs of the locality, and in their policy they have no regard for one moment as to whether a parish happens to be in England or in Wales, and consequently it so happens that because the Welsh Church is so poor a Church it has received and is receiving from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners twice as much as it puts into the Church. I venture to think that the complexity of these transactions is so great that it cannot possibly be carried out in the six or twelve months given for it, and that the whole
  1146
  transaction is a singular illustration of the methods of the Government in depriving the poorest part of the English Church of the funds upon which it is so absolutely dependent.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The hon. Member has shown such a thorough understanding of what everybody has recognised as a most complicated Clause that I am sure he will not quarrel with me when I say the conclusion of his speech would not go in support of his Amendment, and I think the hon. Member would be the first to recognise that what he proposes to leave out are necessary to Sub-clause (3) and the remainder of the Clause. I gathered from his argument that his speech was directed more to getting an explanation from the Government of this complex Clause which he has explained himself, rather than in support of his own particular Amendment. There is no doubt but that the finance of the Welsh Church is very complicated for the reasons that for a great many years it has been mixed up with the finances of the English Church in England, and so far as the hon. Member's argument was directed to the point that the period of time from six to twelve months would not be sufficient in order to disentangle the complications, I think the answer to him is that the bulk of the work which is necessary to disentangle the finances of the English Church in England, or the English Church in Wales has already been done. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I think I can show that is so. It was done for the year 1906; the figures are already completed and the work having once been done for the year 1906 all that requires to be done is to bring these figures up to date. With regard to the particular Clause which deals with the apportionment of the property by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty, the actual Welsh estates which were handed over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, that is to say, the ecclesiastical and capitulary estates amount to £41,500 a year, of that sum £14,800 a year has been since appropriated by the Commissioners to particular benefices. The remaining £26,700 a year is a charge upon the common fund towards the cost of the bishoprics and chapters of Wales. The total cost of that is £29,700 a year, so that there is over and above the charge of £26,700 on the common fund derived from

  1147
  Welsh property a charge upon the common fund of £3,000 in order to make up the incomes of the bishops drawn from English property. Now it follows that inasmuch as the original value of the Welsh estates I think only amounted to £41,500 a year, and we have disposed of the whole of that £41,500 a year in two items, £14,800 a year charge for parish benefices, and £26,700 a year a charge upon the common fund, it follows that all the remaining income derived from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners must have been derived from English sources, and it is so treated under the Bill. The whole of the balance over and above the £41,500 a year is treated as being derived from English sources under the Bill. What is the total amount which we treat as derived from English sources and claimed for the English Church in Wales through the Ecclesiastical Commissioners? As I have already said, first there is the charge of £3,000 for the cost of bishoprics; the next item is £23,200 a year, a charge which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had placed on the common fund before 1887, the income being devoted to particular benefices. The next item is £8,900, which has been granted since 1887, and represents the income of a capital charge, and the last item is an item of £14,700 which is called the Curates' Fund. This is a Grant of £14,700, given by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners out of English money for the benefit of curates in Wales. The total amount from English sources paid by the Ecclesiastical Commisioners to the English Church in Wales amounts altogether to £49.800 a year. Those are the figures for 1906, and the whole of the work of disentanglement has been done for that year. Subsequent years will show that the Grants from English sources are somewhat larger than the figure I have stated. In the Bills of 1895 and 1909, the principle upon which the finance of the Church was settled was quite different from the principle of this Bill. In this Bill we distinguish between the sources from whence the income of the Church of England in Wales is derived. Finding this amount of £49,800 a year paid by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to the Church in Wales is derived from English sources, we do not propose to appropriate this money to any Welsh purposes. In the case of the Bills of 1895 and 1909, this money was handed over to Wales. We have not done that in this
  1148
  case, and we propose that this money should be handed back to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who are authorised, if they so wish, to endow the Disestablished English Church in Wales with this income of £49,800 a year. I understand that the Commissioners are willing to give this sum, which has already been settled, to the Disestablished Church in Wales in perpetuity, and consequently that Church will start in Wales with an income from this source alone of £49,800 a year. A similar calculation has to be made with regard to the income enjoyed by the Church derived from Queen Anne's Bounty. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is dealt with in the next Amendment."] In that case I will reserve what I was going to say upon this point.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: If we are not likely to have the next Amendment discussed, would it not be better for the right hon. Gentleman to give his explanation now?
  Mr. McKENNA: With the leave of the House, I will state the total figure. As the Committee know, ever since the Queen Anne's Bounty was first started the system has been to appropriate capital Grants, I and to give to the benefices interested the income derived from those Grants. In the case of Queen Anne's Bounty, two-thirds of the capital Grants appropriated for the benefit of Welsh benefices have been derived from English sources. It is, therefore, proposed in this case, as in the case of the Grants made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to restore to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty the whole of the capital Grants they have given to the Welsh Church from English sources. Here, again, I understand that the Governors are willing to give to the Disestablished Church in Wales the money previously appropriated to the Established Church in Wales, and accordingly the Disestablished Church in Wales will receive from the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty £18,600 a year, all derived from English sources. In the Bills of 1895 and 1909, this money was not given to the Disestablished Church, but it was handed over to Wales. I say that in both respects this Bill, if it is not more generous, at any rate it has made a more definite distinction between the sources from which the property was derived, and has appropriated to ecclesiastical purposes what was originally devoted to those purposes.

  1149
  The result of the Grants from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty is that the Disestablished Church in Wales will receive a total income from those two bodies of £68,400 a year. Add to that amount the private benefactions, amounting to between £18,000 and £19,000, and the total sum will be £87,000 a year. Why is it that we need the particular words in the Clause which the hon. Member proposes to leave out? In settling property upon benefices in Wales, it has often happened that the property, whether it be glebe or tithe rent-charge, may at the time of settlement have been derived from various sources. I will take a case which is not at all exceptional. Suppose that a private person has given a sum of £200 for the benefit of a particular benefice. We will also suppose that there has been a sale of ancient tithe which has brought in £200, and we will also suppose in addition that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have taken the opportunity of this private Grant and the sale of this ancient tithe to give a free Grant of an additional £200 to this particular benefice. The result of these three transactions would be that the benefice would be benefited to the extent of a capital sum of £600 derived from three different sources. That £600 under the Bill must be divided up into its component parts in order that it may be redistributed. The private benefaction ultimately goes to the representative body, the money derived from the sale of ancient tithe goes to the Welsh nation, and the money derived from English sources given by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners goes back to those Commissioners, so that this capital sum of £600 is restored in each case to the person whom I will venture to describe as the original donor. [HON. MEMBERS:" Oh, oh!"]
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman cannot help being unhistorical even in his conciliatory moments.
  Mr. McKENNA: I am not attempting to enter into any question of history, and I am only using "donor" as a convenient word.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: It means quite contrary to the truth in this case.
  Mr. McKENNA: I only wanted to use one word, but I will say that somebody gave it in each case. It is necessary that this property should be vested in some authority which can undertake the disentanglement, and we propose that this
  1150
  property, as from the passing of this Act, shall be vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, they having an interest in the property by virtue of their Grant forming part of it, and when they have disentangled the property they should then transfer to each the amount to which each of them is entitled.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the disentangling operation has already been accomplished up to 1006?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, to this extent, that it is known in the case of each property how much the contribution has been from the different sources. I admit that the actual division of the property has not taken place, but the amount of time required to divide the property when it is known what each component part consists of cannot be a very long one. It is for that reason, and purely as a piece of convenient machinery, that Sub-clause 3 stands in the Bill. I would suggest to the hon. Member that you could not have a better body than the Commissioners and the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty to disentangle the property in the creation of which they have had a part. It is for those reasons that we have adopted this system in this Clause.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I think the Home Secretary has already shown the complexity of the proposal with which we-are dealing. We are dealing with funds which may be contributed from a great variety of sources, but which at the present time are really administered through the agency of one central authority. The problem to which the Home Secretary has called attention is whether it is really practicable under the provisions contained in this Bill to obtain the disentangling which, according to his view, is necessary. Before I come to that very technical point, I want to say a word or two as regards the general nature of these funds. The Home Secretary has stated that we are dealing with a sum of £49,800, which has its origin in the English dioceses, and is being expended for the benefit of the Welsh dioceses. That is the fact at the present moment. I think the right hon. Gentleman is underrating the real significance of the position, because at the present moment there are neither Welsh nor English dioceses. The funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commission are dedicated and used for the purposes of the Church as a whole. The establishment of

  1151
  the Ecclesiastical Commission in 1835 was in itself a symbol of the unity of the National Church. The very fact that there is an Ecclesiastical Commission is wholly opposed to the notion that you can separate the Welsh Church and the English Church funds. It is because in dealing with a matter for which there is no parallel, that is the dismemberment of a religious communion against the desire of all its members, that you have to attempt to introduce a complicated principle such as we find in Sub-section (1) of Clause 5.
  Let me apply that as regards the fund which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. As long as you have one Church, with no distinction between the English and the Welsh diocese, it really does not matter what portion of the Church territorially your funds are given to, but the Church of England has no territorial divisions. It is one Church, and, if I may say so in passing, religious communions are never dependent on geographical or nationl distinctions. It is a new principle, brought forward for the first time in this Bill, that religious communions depend not upon religious and spiritual feeling and religious and spiritual life, but on what I may call the accident of geography and nationality. It is quite true that up to this time the funds have been administered for the whole Church by the Ecclesiastical Commission, whatever the source may be. For the first time now, in Subsection 5, we have the expression, "Welsh ecclesiastical property." Of course, until the Bill is passed, there is no such thing as Welsh ecclesiastical property, and it is in order to define a new element in Church life, the separation of property between the Welsh dioceses and the English dioceses, that the whole of this Clause 5 is necessary at all. Let me deal with the injustice of it. The Welsh dioceses are the poorest — that is really because in the old days there was more fanaticism in Wales than in England—and they naturally get the greatest advantage of the common fund at the present time. They get an advantage to the extent of nearly £50,000 — £49,800 derived from English sources. While we have one whole Church that is quite right, but I protest against the proposal that you are to claim in favour of the Welsh portion of the Church a sum of this kind while at the same time you are depriving them of funds, derived from the same sources, which come from the Welsh portion of the Church at
  1152
  the present moment. That is a gross injustice. The Church as a whole is contributing more than her fair proportion to Wales to the extent of £50,000. That is because it is the poorest portion. The Government comes and says as regards that poorest portion, "We are going to deprive them of Endowments which are at present hopelessly inadequate for the religious purposes they have to carry out."
  When you are dealing with the question of Welsh Endowments, this sum of £49,800, and the equivalent sum which comes from Queen Anne's Bounty of £18,600, ought not really to be brought into the calculation at all. There are extremely poor districts in England where every penny of this £68,400 is urgently needed at the present time. You can go into Southwark or into any of our poor districts, and you will find that in every direction our religious life is crippled for the want of sufficient funds. What justification, under those circumstances, can there be for promoting a Bill compulsorily depriving the Welsh Church of certain Endowments to which it is especially entitled, and at the same time attempting to preserve a system which in effect means taking away from the poor districts in England a sum to subsidise the Welsh Church because it is being robbed and despoiled by the disendowment proposals of the Government? Surely that is a proposition almost unthinkable! I do not know what the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty are proposing to do, but, as a Churchman, I object to having the poorest districts of our own English parishes despoiled, and that is what it comes to, in order to back up the Government because they are putting their hands so deeply into the pockets of the Welsh Church. The actual Endowments of the Welsh Church at the present time are not the figures which the Home Secretary gave. They are about £191,000— I am talking of Endowments apart from private benefactions, and apart from anything given by the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty or the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—and of that £191,000 only £18,000 is left. That is the simple truth. It is attempted to make up the rest out of funds which come from other portions of the Church, and which are urgently needed in all our poorer districts and parishes throughout the whole of England. Surely that is intensely unjust, but it is the result of a suggested dismemberment which has never before been carried out as regards any religious com-

  1153
  munion and which alone renders this Clause 5, Sub-section (1), necessary.
  Of course, if you were Disestablishing the Church altogether a Sub-section of this kind would be wholly unnecessary. The reason there is complexity, which it is almost impossible to prevent or to deal with, is that you are seeking to allocate money to two different bodies which heretofore have been applied to one body only, and which have been used without any distinction of territorial area. When the Ecclesiastical Commission was formed in 1835 these funds were paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners under a statutory obligation of trust that they were only to be used for religious purposes. It was not said then, although I understand it is being said now, that the funds which were going to be paid to a central body for the purposes of readjustment between the various parts of the Church had a national element and that therefore they were to be used for national purposes. Exactly the contrary was said. The whole basis of their establishment was that they were religious funds, dedicated solely for religious purposes, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were prohibited from using them except for religious purposes. That seems to me to be in accordance with what my right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. A. Lyttelton) said as regards the distinction between a public trust fund and a national fund. Of course, when these funds were vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners they were vested as public trust funds. That is the entire distinction. If you have public trust funds, there is no matter more essential for the security of priority rights than that they should continue to be used in connection with public services for which they are being used and to which they have been dedicated. That is the principle, and that principle appears in every Act which relates to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The Government propose to upset that arrangement. Whereas in 1835, when the matter came before Parliament, this view of national property was wholly put on one side as inconsistent with the origin and use of Church funds; now these very funds which were placed in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for religious purposes, are going to be taken away from religious purposes and used for what are called national purposes in the Welsh dioceses. You cannot have a greater inconsistency than that between that which
  1154
  this Bill is proposing to do and the original Bills and Acts which constituted the Ecclesiastical Commission.
  Does the Home Secretary say the conditions now as regards these funds which he is going to use for national purposes in Wales are different from what they were in 1835? Does he say the historical position is different now from 1835? Yet the purpose of the Clause as it stands is not to realise what was done in 1835, but to upset it from top to bottom— to alter the very public trust funds which were constituted, not only from ancient history, but by Parliament itself in the provisions of the Act of 1835. I want to know what is the difference which allows the Government of the present day entirely to upset the whole principle on which the Ecclesiastical Commission was founded in 1835. It was founded on the basis that these public trust funds were dedicated to and were to be used for religious Church purposes only. I am not going through all the terms of the Act which constituted the Ecclesiastical Commission. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare) said that was a very complex and long process, but I may say this by way of challenge. Every 1d. under the Statutory Enactments of 1835 and subsequent years, is at the present time dedicated and appropriated in such a way that it can only be used for religious purposes in connection with the Church of England. Yet the effect of this Subsection, following upon the one before, is to take away the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' funds from those purposes, and to use them for secular purposes pure and simple.
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that point can be raised here. This Sub-section does not deal with the designation or the purpose. It deals simply with the ascertainment and declaration of certain facts. The hon. Member's point would arise on Clause 18.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: The ascertainment is the first step towards the declaration of use. I do not mean to go into it in detail, but for diversion of use out of accord with the original Acts this matter of ascertainment will be necessary.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. and learned Member is probably right there, but that would not justify him raising the question of the subsequent allocation of the money on a Clause providing simply for ascertainment.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I do not want to controvert your ruling. I agree, of course, the question of allocation comes later, but am I not in order in pointing out that you are seeking to ascertain a method of segregating funds which are now used for one purpose and for one purpose only, the purpose of segregation being to use a portion of those funds merely for secular purposes. I do not want to go beyond that point. I agree the question of allocation is a different matter in detail, but I think I must be in order to this extent, that if it were not that some allocation is going to be made in the future the provision with which we are now dealing for segregating a property and calling a portion of it Welsh Ecclesiastical property would not be necessary. We are dealing with a very complex and technical subject. We are dealing with a subject which, under any conditions, can only be carried out under great difficulty, and I was pointing out that by this method of ascertainment you are segregating funds which are now used for a common purpose, and that segregation would be quite unnecessary but for the proposal to dismember one existing religious communion, a principle which has never hitherto been sanctioned by any Act of Parliament, and which is absolutely inconsistent with the Act of 1835, which constituted the Ecclesiastical Commission.
  5.0. P. M.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I quite agree with the hon. and learned Member that we are dealing with a highly technical and controversial subject, but I was surprised to hear him, repeating what we have heard continually from the other side, speak of the inadequacy of the Endowments for the work of the Church in Wales. May I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that twenty years ago some of the leading Churchmen in the Welsh Church drafted a Bill with the object of pooling the Welsh Endowments and applying them where most needed? The scheme then promulgated by those interested in the Church deserved a good deal more consideration, and it would have avoided a good deal of the friction which now exists if it had been well considered by the party then in power. I desire, however, to try and obtain some information from the hon. Member for Doncaster (Sir C. Nicholson). I have given him notice I intended to put certain questions to him, though I admit that notice was rather short. I should like, first of all, to get information on another point. Reference has been made
  1156
  to the funds which are in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and which are subject to certain charges. I understand there are two charges on the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, one a sum of £l,500 a year, which is applied to the maintenance of Lampeter College, and the other a sum of £450 a year, which is used for the maintenance of Welsh Church services in London. I am anxious to know, first, what fund is in future to bear these charges. Is the sum of £26,700, handed over to the Welsh Commission, to bear the cost of the Grant to Lampeter College, and also the cost of the Welsh services in London? May I also ask the hon. Member opposite to tell me under what circumstances £l,500 from Endowment of the Welsh Church applied to purposes of education in Lampeter College is less secular than the application of funds towards the Welsh University? Why is the latter secular and why was it not secular to apply the money to Lampeter College in 1882?
  Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. Did I not understand you to rule against the hon. and learned Member opposite when he was dealing with the apportionment of this money, and is it quite fair for an hon. Member on this side to go into that question when the hon. and learned Member opposite was debarred?
  The CHAIRMAN: I had not quite penetrated the point raised by the hon. Member for Carnarvon, but if he proposes to raise a question as to the destination of the funds after ascertainment, he will not now be in order, as that question arises on Clause 18.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: The hon. Member for Pontefract has not quite realised my point. There is at the present moment in existence a sum of £2,000 belonging to the particular fund with which we are dealing, and I am trying to ascertain from the hon. Member for Doncaster whether that £2,000 will continue to go to Lampeter College and to the maintenance of the Welsh services in London. I am afraid I should be out of order in discussing that point, but I do want to ascertain what fund is to bear that charge of £2,000 in the future? Is it to come out of the £26,700?
  Sir A. CRIPPS: That is the very question I was stopped going into with regard to the allocation of this fund. I never attempted to go into this matter in such detail.
  The CHAIRMAN: If that is so, then I must stop it. I gather, with regard to this charge, what the hon. Member was asking was how, after the ascertainment under this Section, these particular charges will be allocated: whether they will come out of English Church money or Welsh Church money, and, if that is what he is asking, then I think he is in order.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: That is the point I am going to make. The Home Secretary said that the difference between the sum granted by the Commissioners and the sum voted to the Welsh Commissioners will amount to £2,000. What I want to know is in what way that £2,000 is to be allocated. An hon. Member who spoke on this point thought that the inquiry by the Commissioners was unnecessary. May I point out we have had no information on this point, and even the Commissioners themselves have failed to elicit the particulars of this episcopal estate. The hon. Member for Swansea put a question the other day, and the Commissioners declined to give the information he asked for. What I really want now to ascertain is this: What are these funds with which we are asked to deal? We have been informed by the Home Secretary that the capitular estate amounts to £29,760, but we have had no information given us as to what this fund consists of. It is stated, not that the income is going to be transferred to the Welsh Commissioners, but that these particular estates are to be transferred, and I am anxious to know from the hon. Member for Doncaster what this surnof £29,700 represents. Twenty-seven thousand six hundred pounds is taken to be the income. Docs that represent the revenue which the Ecclesiastical Commission will receive from the estates transferred to it? I am given to understand that a very large portion of the estates has already been sold. I want to know what were the proceeds of the sale; what became of those proceeds, and whether the income from those proceeds is included in this sum of £27,600. A question was put on that point in May last, and the answer returned was that it was practically impossible to supply the information to the House. At any rate, the information was refused, and I am now going to invite the hon. Member to give it before we come to a decision on this very important Clause. I desire further to ask what area of estate has been sold in Wales and what was the amount of money received from it? Is the income from that
  1158
  sale included in the £27,600 which will vest in the Welsh Commissioners?
  On another point I also desire information, and that is how the money is apportioned as between Wales and England. In particular, I would ask: Are there any leases running out or in the course of running out in connection with this estate? Thirdly, I desire to ask whether or not the property is going to be handed over by the Commissioners, or whether it will remain in the hands of Commissioners and be charged with the specific sum of £27.600. If the latter, then I think we are entitled to know, before we deal with this particular Amendment, what is the present value of the estates in the hands of the Commissioners. I am given to understand that, in connection with the property in South Wales, there are considerable mineral values, and it is highly important, before we finally decide what is to be the contribution the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are to hand over to the Welsh Commissioners, that we should have full details, not only of the annual income, but some estimate of the capital value. Again, the Home Secretary told us last Friday that tithes amounted to £125,000 a year. I find, according to the Returns which have been made to the House, they only amount to £107,000, and I desire to know whether that difference is due to the capitular estates in respect of which I have given notice of a question to the hon, Member? In the same way the hon. and learned Member referred to an estate now in the possession of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in respect of which a certain sum is allocated to Wales. I think we are entitled to know a little more about that. The Home Secretary or the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should tell us how the amount is arrived at. We on this side of the House, and particularly those who represent Welsh constituencies, have to complain of the inadequate information given to us.
  The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I may say say that the points raised by the hon. Member are very numerous, and I confess it was difficult for me to grasp the whole of them. We must remember that this Clause deals with the apportionment of property by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty, and any points raised with the view of ascertaining what is to be done to carry out the decision come to on the previous Clause are in order, but beyond that hon. Members must not travel.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I will endeavour to follow that ruling and not travel beyond the specific points before the Committee. If evidence were wanted in favour of his Amendment we could not have done better than put up the hon. Member opposite, for, by the questions ho has asked, many of which I cannot deal with because they are clearly out of order, show that he, one of the chief supporters of the Bill, does not in the least know what the Bill proposes to do, and I gather from the conversation now going on between him and the Home Secretary that there is some considerable doubt even on the Treasury Bench on this point. At that I am not at all surprised. After all, this only shows what terrible difficulties the Home Secretary and the Government have landed themselves into in trying to disentangle the funds of two Churches, especially when there is one central fund common to the two Churches. I have no doubt that this disentanglement will be found to be a very much more complicated task than the Home Secretary appears to think, and that is a reason why we should have an Amendment like this now before the Committee so that the disentanglement can be put off until after the date of Disestablishment has been fixed to come into operation. One or two questions asked by the hon. Member are, however, capable of fairly simple answers, and perhaps I should be in order by referring to them. He inquired why the grant of money to Lampeter College out of the fund amounted to secularisation whereas it was not secularisation when it was given to the university. The answer to this is very simple. Lampeter College is the Welsh Church Theological College, specifically founded for the training of the Welsh clergy.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: Does not the Welsh University also grant theological degrees?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: If is not a specifically Church institution.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: Is Lampeter College a Church institution solely? Are Nonconformists excluded?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The chief object of Lampeter College is to train the clergy in Wales and to give theological degrees in Wales.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: Are we not again discussing the destination of this money contrary to the ruling of the Chair?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is so, but the point was raised on my right and I did not see my way at the moment to disallow it. As it has been raised, I cannot now stop it, but the hon. Member is quite right in pointing out that it is not in order.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am very much obliged. I do not want to press the matter further, but I would point out that after all this is not so much a question of destination. The hon. Member made that perfectly clear. He put the question what fund is to bear this Grant to Lampeter College, and also what fund is to bear the Grant for Welsh services in London in the future. Surely that depends upon the apportionment under this Clause. If it is found that the money to be given for that purpose conies out of the ecclesiastical property, it will be confiscated. If, on the other hand, it is in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, I apprehend it will go back to them and they will have to determine whether they will give the money for these purposes in the future. If the origin of the money is such that it is Welsh ecclesiastical property, it is confiscated, but if it is not, it will remain in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. May I refer also to one other point made by the hon. Member, a point which, I think, has not very much to do with the Amendment, but I think I am bound to answer it. He referred to what my hon. and learned Friend (Sir A. Cripps) said about the inadequacy of the funds of the Church in Wales, and he stated that they were not inadequate because a few years ago it was suggested that they should be pooled. Your funds may be inadequate in the whole, but if you pool them, it may be you get a better distribution in the future than you had before, but it does not alter the fact that they are inadequate, and always have been inadequate. The only difference this Bill will make is to make them more inadequate in the future than they were before. What has happened— this is the very point we are now discussing— is this: That because the Church in Wales consists of four very poor dioceses, the Ecclesiastical Commission for England and Wales has made special Grants to that part of the Church in order to render the funds more adequate, just in the same way as the Ecclesiastical Commission makes Grants to the poor parishes and poor dioceses in any part of England and Wales. The whole thing has been treated as a central fund, common to every part of the

  1161
  Church. That is where the iniquity of this provision comes in; that is why this Amendment has been moved and why we are protesting against this Clause.
  I fully understand that we are dealing with it under considerable difficulty, because by Clause 4, Sub-section (1), paragraphs (a) and (b), it has already been decided by this Committee that the property apportioned under Clause 5 shall be confiscated under this Bill. If the Government defend themselves on that technical ground, I answer that it is the strongest argument against proceeding with this Bill under the guillotine, because the result of the guillotine was that we could not discuss, in the first instance, the main principle as to whether or not you should alienate part of the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Exactly the same question will arise on the next Sub-section in regard to Queen Anne's Bounty. Here, again, we have an example of the absolute difference between what we are doing now and what was done— it is often held up as a precedent— in the case of the Church of Ireland. No such process of disentanglement was necessary in the case of the Church of Ireland, for the simple reason that when the Church of Ireland was united to the Church of England a separate Irish Ecclesiastical Commission was constituted. In the case of the Church in Wales, the two Churches were never united by Act of Parliament; they grew up together in the course of centuries, and when the Ecclesiastical Commission was formed it was formed as a common body for both. That is a very strong reason why we may well protest against the action of the Government in dismembering the Church of England and compelling the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to go through this very difficult; and complex plan of separating their funds, which is suggested in this Clause. Let us see how it works. You have certain property now vested in the Ecclesiastical Commission which, I suppose, represents in the main the old capitular estates in Wales. You have other property, not vested in them, which is dealt with under Sub-section (3), namely, cases where they have annexed certain property definitely to a certain incumbency. That is to be vested in them now for the purpose of discriminating how much of the value of that benefice was originally their property and how much was not.
  There is another very curious provision in the Bill to which I do not think refer-
  1162
  ence has been made up to the present moment. Clause 5 refers throughout to the First Schedule. If we look at the First Schedule, in the second paragraph we find this, that in order to determine what is Welsh Ecclesiastical property you have to take into account all the property now vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners which is locally situated in or issues from property in Wales; whether it was the original property in Wales which was handed over to the Commissioners at the time of their foundation and belonged in the first instance to the Welsh capitular estates, or whether it is the result of savings on the part of the Commissioners or the result of investments in Welsh property. Let me give an example. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners may have sold some land in England and may have reinvested the money in ground rents at Cardiff. Probably they did. Under this Clause, as read with the First Schedule, all property which even in its origin was English, if it has been reinvested, or any savings have been invested in property locally situated in Wales, is to be Welsh Ecclesiastical property, and is to be subject to confiscation.
  The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY Of LANCASTER (Mr. Hobhouse): Subject to adjustments.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Subject to adjustments under Part II. I think that is so, but I think we ought to have a more full explanation from the Home Secretary as lo how exactly this matter works out. I may be very stupid, but this is a very complicated matter to understand. At all events, we have the case where the property may have been originally in England, but has been sold and the proceeds invested in Wales. As I understand it, the whole of that property is to be regarded as Welsh ecclesiastical property in the future. I think we ought to have a fuller explanation from the Home. Secretary or the Under-Secretary, or from the Chancellor of the Duchy, and we ought to ask, at all events, that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should be given more time to carry out this very cumbrous process of disentanglement. Perhaps the Home Secretary will answer this question: What is going to happen if at the date of Disestablishment these calculations have not been completed? Under Clause 4 the property is to be vested, but only that property is to vest in the Welsh Commissioners which has been apportioned. What is going to

  1163
  happen to the property which has not been apportioned? I think the Home Secretary will see that when we asked last week for a little more time between the passing of the Bill and the date of Disestablishment, we made a request for something which is very necessary, because unless this apportionment has taken place— I think it will be clear that it will be a long, tedious process—it is impossible to say, what is going to happen under Clause 4. I hope my hen. Friend will go to a Division in order that we may show that we entirely disapprove of the action of the Government in breaking up the Ecclesiastical Commission and compelling them to disentangle their property, and also because up to the present moment we have not had any sufficient explanation of the effect of this Clause from the Home Secretary.
  Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I think the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) has, in the latter portion of his speech, approached the Amendment which is now under discussion. I listened with great interest to some of the difficulties which he suggested might arise in the application of the machinery of this Bill. Of course, the discussion on this Amendment, and on all the Amendments to Clause 5, must proceed, if it is to be useful, upon the basis of the determination of the Committee already made. The hon. Member himself recognised that, because he was the first of the hon. Members on the other side who have spoken on this Amendment to call attention to Clause 4. The marginal note of Clause 5 shows what its object is:—
  "Apportionment of property by Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty."
  It is simply a machinery Clause. By no possibility can the funds to be appropriated, shall we say, for national or secular or some other purposes, be really increased by the operation of this Clause. The sole effect of this Amendment, as I read the words, if these words are carried and the consequential Amendment to leave out Sub-section (3) of Clause 5 is carried, will be to deprive the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty of the right to decide the very important and difficult questions which may arise in the application of the Bill, as to the determination of which we on this side are not so much concerned as hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side. Supposing all this is left
  1164
  out, I am not prepared to pronounce at the present moment what would be the effect of leaving out the words, but it may be— I do not say it is so— that the whole of this property, which I will call mixed property for the convenience of argument, may pass into a category under this Bill which would be quite unacceptable to the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. If the structure of Clause 4 and Clause 5 is examined it will be seen that some machinery or other for the determination of questions which arise under existing legislation and under the existing organisation of the Church must be provided in this Bill, and the real question the Committee has before it now is whether or not the machinery provided by Clause 5, looked at altogether, is a fair and proper machinery for the decision of that kind of question. I notice that there were Amendments on the Paper to leave out from the beginning of the Sub-section the word "Ecclesiastical" in order that the determination of these questions should be left to the Commissioners—that is to say, the Commissioners appointed by the Bill Those Amendments have not been moved. Probably these were never seriously intended.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: They were not called.
  Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I am much obliged to the Noble Lord. So far as I am concerned, I can quite see that it might be reasonably contended that it would be better to leave the decision of these questions to the Welsh Commissioners.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: There is no Amendment on the Paper to put the Welsh Commissioners in the place of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
  Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: There was an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the word "Ecclesiastical," the effect of which would be to leave it to the Welsh Commissioners.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: There is an Amendment on the Paper to insert the word "Welsh."
  Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I did not know that. Whether the word "Welsh" is inserted or not, if you merely have the word "Commissioners" it would mean the Commissioners under the Bill. What the Government are doing is to leave it to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty to determine all these admittedly difficult questions which may

  1165
  arise. Of course, that is subject, as I understand Sub-section (4), to the concurence of the Commissioners to be appointed under this Bill, and, if a difference of opinion should arise between the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty and the Commissioners appointed under this Bill, then the King in Council is to determine the matter. I do not know any fairer machinery for determining this kind of question. The hon. Member (Sir A. Cripps) in the course of his argument— I did not follow the logic of it— said, "You have one undivided Church." He referred to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and he said they are Commissioners for England and Wales, and in pursuance of the policy of a common Church, in the administration of the property of a common Church, they have treated Wales, which is a rather poor part, with more generosity from a financial point of view than they have the more prosperous parts of the institution over which they are the presiding guardians, and he objected to the whole of the Clause. He objected to the very fact of this kind of apportionment. But if that indeed is the view which is to be pressed upon the Committee how inconsistent a position he is placed in in regard to the property of the Church. The Statutes relating to the Ecclesiastical Commission afford one of the best arguments we can have on this side for the right of the House, and for the right of the nation to deal with all this class of Endowment in accordance with modern views.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: All that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners do is to alter Endowments which are no longer wanted, and divert them to similar purposes of a general kind.
  Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: That is exactly what the Welsh nation are doing. We are dealing with ancient properties coming from Welsh sources only, and that is the very meaning of this Clause. We want to find what property has come from Welsh sources. We only want to deal with property which comes from Welsh sources. On the point on which the hon. and learned Gentleman interrupted me, let me read the criticism passed upon the Statute founding the Ecclesiastical Commission, and the many Statutes which have followed it, written in a book which has been edited by the hon. and learned Gentleman— "Cripps's Law relating to the Clergy"— originally written by a man whose name is honoured, I believe, throughout the whole
  1166
  of England and Wales as an authority upon all matters connected with the law relating to the Church. This is what the author of this book edited by the hon. and learned Gentleman says:—
  "The important principle on which the inviolability of the Church Establishment depends, that the Church generally possesses no property as a corporation or which is applicable to general purposes, that each particular ecclesiastical corporation, whether aggregate or sole, has its property separate, distinct and inalienable, according to the intention of the original Endowment, was given up without an effort to defend it."
  The policy condemned there has been carried out by Statutes relating to the Ecclesiastical Commission and, if it were in order to develop the point, I could show that this Bill is a logical development of the fundamental principle of those Statutes. But that would be out of order, and I will content myself by saying that so far from this particular Clause being one which is inserted in the Bill in order to do anything unjust to the views entertained by hon. Gentlemen opposite, it is the very reverse. It is a mere machinery Clause. It provides machinery for determining difficult questions. For these reasons I shall certainly oppose the Amendment.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: There are some observations in the very interesting speech we have just heard which seem to mc to call for a reply. I think the hon. Member a little misapprehends what the functions of the Ecclesiastical Commission have already been, and therefore what they are fit to do under this Bill. The Ecclesiastical Commission was set up to make available what may be called the surplus funds of the Church of England of the various corporations, aggregate and sole, assigned for Church purposes, seeing that these sums were in excess of the needs for which they were assigned. What is to be done under this Bill is to provide machinery which is really absolutely inconsistent with the whole idea of the Ecclesiastical Commission, because, as the Solicitor-General explained the last time the Committee sat, the theory of this Bill, and in my view quite an unhistorical theory, is that the funds of the Welsh Church were not given to the community, but were given for the community. I will not go into the answer I should make to that if we were discussing the main principle of the Bill—it was an entire misconception—but the Ecclesiastical Commission and the legislation that set it up proceeded on just the opposite theory. If they were

  1167
  going to use the surplus funds for the community, of course they would be used in the place where they were already using them—that is to say, the surplus funds of the rich chapter of Durham would be used for the city of Durham and the funds of the rich Church of London would be used for London, and so on. But the whole theory of the Ecclesiastical Commission is that the religious purpose of the original donors is more essential than the local purpose, if there was a local purpose. Therefore the surplus funds were taken from the different localities and pooled for the general religious purposes to which such funds had been dedicated. That is just the opposite theory of the Bill, and that makes this Clause, as I conceive it, necessarily quite contradictory, because by this Clause we are allowing the Ecclesiastical Commission to use funds from English sources on the strictly opposite theory of Church Endowments to that which we adopt in respect of funds which come from Welsh sources. The Welsh Endowments are to be treated as though they had been intended for the community; the English Endowments are to be treated as though they had been intended for the Church. It is obvious that the origin of Endowment in England and Wales is, speaking broadly, precisely the same. They are done in the same sort of way by persons animated by the same sort of motive, and yet in this Clause and by this Bill we are going to deal in two directly contradictory ways with these two bodies of Endowment. So far as Welsh Endowments go, we are going to give these to what is called the community.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: The Chairman has already ruled that the dedication of these funds is not in order on this Amendment. May I ask whether the Noble Lord's observations are in order?
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I quite agree with the point of Order. I was not intending to traverse it. I was only speaking of the ultimate purpose of these funds for the purpose of bringing out the difficulty of this system of ascertainment. I do not want to consider whether it is right or wrong now to give funds to the Church or to the community. My point is merely to show the difficulty of putting in a different principle in this Clause from the principle which prevails in the rest of the Bill. You are really going to ask the Eccle-
  1168
  siastical Commission to act here on a principle directly different from those on which they normally act. They are to divide the Welsh Endowments from the English Endowments, with a view to carrying out a purpose fundamentally different from that which they have ever been asked to carry out before. That is one considerable purpose of raising this discussion. It illustrates the immense mechanical difficulties of proceeding in this way to deal with the Endowments of the Church. If the Government had been content to deal with Disendowment in England and Wales altogether, none of this difficulty arises. You would then apply one common set of principles. But now you are using the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—of all machinery the least appropriate to such a proceeding—in a manner fundamentally inconsistent with its original purpose. It is a purely Church body. The great majority of the Commissioners are bishops. Surely it is putting them in a very odious and disagreeable position to ask them to carry out a principle of which they thoroughly disapprove, to be agents of an Act which they consider to be thoroughly unjust, and to do it on principles which they have never adopted and which they are not really the proper persons to perfrom. If you want to carry out the assignment of revenues to a wholly different purpose from that with which we are familiar under past ecclesiastical legislation, it will be far better to set up a new Commission for the purpose, let them ascertain the intention of the donors, and then leave the funds at their discretion. What you are here doing is to put upon the Ecclesiastical Commission a duty for which they are not suited, which is inconsistent with their fundamental purpose, and offensive to their principles.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I should like to answer the last observations of the Noble Lord because they are fresh in the memory of the Committee. I think he has forgotten that the executive body of the Ecclesiastical Commission does not consist of a body of ecclesiastical bishops, but of what are called the Church Estates Commissioners, all of whom are laymen, with the exception of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who presides when he attends. The principal executive body of the Ecclesiastical Commission consists of Sir Lewis Dibdin, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stuart-Wortley), and the hon. Member (Sir C. Nicholson). I am sure all these

  1169
  Gentlemen are members of the Church of England, but it does not follow necessarily that they are all opposed to Disestablishment or Disendowment, and it need not, therefore, be repugnant to their principles, and certainly, as men of business and affairs, it is not putting upon them a duty which ought not to be asked of them. But that is a minor point. I should like to come to the other point, which is that something was done when the Ecclesiastical Commission was created which binds this House for ever from Disestablishing or Disendowing the Church. Of course, in this case it would not be proper to quote the case of the Irish Church. But I should like to recall that when the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were created for the purpose of distributing the surplus revenue of the Church they took it away from local purposes and used it for the general purposes of the Church. They, therefore, violated, so far as we know, the intention of the original donor, but we must not charge against them——
  Lord HUGH CECIL: They preferred the religious purposes of the original donor to the secular purposes which you propose under this Bill.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think, therefore, from our point of view, the purpose of the original donor was violated the moment the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were created. I do not want to deal further with that point. It is one of the inconveniences, if I may say so, in trying to discuss both principle and machinery upon an Amendment of this sort that we are continually straying over the practical line and getting into the line of theory, or principle, or abstraction. Let me return to the proposal contained in the Clause. The Sub-section itself asks the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to separate certain property, which is now vested in them, with the exception of certain other properties mentioned in Sub-section (3). If Subsection (3) was struck out, there would then be certain property which it would be impossible to resolve into its constituent parts, and therefore, so far as I can see, if the Sub-section was amended as proposed, it would not pass over to anybody, and the Church would not get the benefit of that part of the funds which under the proposal of the Clause it will get. That would really be the result of carrying this Amendment, and I am sure that is not
  1170
  what hon. Gentlemen opposite desire. I listened carefully to the speech of the Mover of the Amendment, and he desired an explanation from the Government of the machinery of the Clause. I think my hon. Friend gave a clear and lucid explanation, and I feel that I have no right to trespass longer on the attention of the Committee.
  There was one point which the hon. Baronet referred to, and in regard to which I think he was under some misapprehension. That was the point raised in regard to Lampeter College. Let me explain that Lampeter College is not an ecclesiastical corporation, and under the Bill it is not dissolved at all. It does not come under the operation of the Bill. But suppose the property of Lampeter College is handed over, as I think it will be, to the Welsh Commission, it will always remain an existing interest, and the income, therefore, derived from that college would be paid in perpetuity by the Welsh Commissioners to whoever represents the controlling body of that college. There would be a perpetual interest existing, and there would be a perpetual claim upon the Welsh Commissioners, or on the persons who on the lapse of the Welsh Commissioners sucmissioners succeeded to them. Therefore that college is in no way touched upon or trespassed upon by the Bill. Another point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite was the suggestion that the time which would elapse between the passing of the Act and Disestablishment would not be sufficient for the purpose of dealing with the property which would have to be dealt with under Sub-section (3) by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The property which is touched by the operation of Sub-section (3), and which belongs to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, is only some £700 a year in value. It is obvious that with the knowledge which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have there would be no difficulty in dealing with so very small a sum. I venture to suggest that the Government have given a full, ample, and adequate explanation of the Sub-section, and I trust the Committee will now get on to the next Amendment.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman gets his figure £700 a year. If that is all the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will have to unravel under this Clause——
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, under Subsection (3).
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I may perhaps point out that questions in relation to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners which were put a few moments ago still remain unanswered. The hon. Member for Carnarvon said he was going to ask some questions of which he said he had given notice, but which his letter entirely failed to specify. He then proceeded to read out a number of questions so rapidly that I myself was unable to take them down. The existence of those questions is a very good illustration of some of the financial difficulties which are in front of the rights and liabilities of the various parties affected by the Bill. I think I am safe in saying that the staff of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners at present is worked up to the very fullest capacity. We cannot add to the staff without coming to the Treasury, and any addition of work would be a very serious thing. I am not going to admit, as was suggested, that the doing of this work in six months would be at all an easy or indeed a possible thing. The hon. Member asked about Lampeter College, and the source of the properties now enjoyed by that college. I am informed that the college for some reason or other had appropriated to them in the distant past certain ecclesiastical tithes. In the early forties these were commuted upon terms which I do not think it would be easy to say gave them too much or too little. It was a sum roughly estimated at £l,500. That is a vested interest of the College. My hon. Friends have done so well in exposing the peculiar character of the Bill, and its proposals, that there is really nothing left for me to say in my special capacity as one of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman who acts as Chairman of the Welsh party said that the principle of the Act constituting the Ecclesiastical Commission in 1836 was practically such as to justify Parliament, as a mere corollary or following out of the same principle, in proceeding with the secularisation of ecclesiastical property which this Bill aims at. No doubt Parliament is a sovereign body, but I may remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that some of them profess to be very fond of Preambles. If they will look at the Preamble of the Bill of 1836, they will find that the dominating words are that the Commissioners, in what they do as to the revenues of the Church, are to—
  "render them conducive to the efficiency of the Established Church, and to devise the best mode of providing for the cure of souls, with special reference to the residence of the clergy on their respective benefices."
  1172
  It is true that in 1836 what was done in respect of Ecclesiastical resources never contemplated the separation of Welsh resources from English resources. I daresay 1836 may seem to the right hon. Gentleman a period of comparative intellectual obscurity and historical ignorance. All I can say is that fifty years later Mr. Gladstone spoke as follows:—
  "Wales never has been dealt with separately, or upon any separate principle, in any Reform Bill. The distinction between England and Wales, except in a recital of an Act of Parliament for the purpose of indicating their unity, is totally unknown to our Constitution."
  This is the interesting passage which bears on the question whether England makes a profit or loss out of Wales:—
  "If Wales is to be cut off, because it is certainly true that Wales, if you choose to make an integer of it, will have a somewhat more favourable representation than some other parts of the United Kingdom, there are also some other great districts of England which will likewise have a more favourable representation even than Wales. I believe that under our proposal, if you take the counties of Cornwall. Devon, Wilts, Somerset, and Dorset, which I think together have a population exceeding that of Wales, and are therefore quite as much entitled to separate notice, it will be found that these counties, from the manner in which their ancient areas happened to be distributed, will have a share of representation under the Bill somewhat better than the average, and even better than that of Wales."
  It shows that there are other areas beside Wales, out of which probably the Ecclesiastical Commissioners do not receive quite so much as they give to them. It is common knowledge that the great bulk of the resources of the Commissioners are drawn from the ancient dioceses of London and Durham. It may be a fact that the Amendment would be inconvenient, but it would be mainly inconvenient as a question of drafting and the structure of the Bill, and for my part I fail to see why it should not be accepted.
  6.0. P. M.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not wish to go again into the question of the principle of this Clause. I entirely agree with what has been said by my right hon. Friend. It appears to be unsound in principle to entrust such duties as these to the Ecclesiastical Commission. The difficulties and complexities of doing so demonstrate the essential oneness of the Church in Wales and England. First, let me say a word as to what fell from the Chancellor of the Duchy. He said you must have Sub-section (3) because you must have some machinery for splitting up the property as where the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have joined private people in making an Endowment of a Welsh parish, and so much comes from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and so much comes within the

  1173
  definition of Welsh Ecclesiastical property, and it is for the purpose of arriving at a solution of the Endowments in these cases that Sub-section (3) is wanted. But my objection is, I think it is, misconceived altogether. As I understand from the statement of the Home Secretary, Subsection (3) is this: Say you have — 200 from private benefactors; — 200 from some other source, and — 200 to meet it from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Those Grants have nearly always been made in this way: an offer by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to grant £200——
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The essential condition for which Sub-clause (3) is instituted is where — 200 out of — 600 comes by ancient Endowments.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: That may be a single case, but it deals with a great many more cases than that. In every case where the Ecclesiastical Commissioners give a Grant, even if they only give — 5, Subclause (3) comes into operation. At any rate, in all those cases, which are, I am told, by far the largest number of cases to which the Sub-section will apply, where funds have been called out by the offer of a Grant from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, it seems to me that the whole fund ought to be treated as a private benefaction, and a private benefaction only.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: If the Noble Lord looks at the concluding words he will see that such vesting shall not affect any beneficial interest in such property. That is the point to which the argument is addressed.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Not at all; I do not know what that saving means unless it means the preservation of life interest, because I suppose that the beneficiaries must always be a life interest. I do not think that has any bearing on the argument which I am trying to address. The point I was on is this. You make an offer; you say I will give — 200 if somebody else will give — 400 for a particular purpose. Then when that has been done, when the generosity of the private benefactor has been called out by that offer, you are going to take away the — 200. That is the whole purpose of this Section.
  Mr. McKENNA: This Clause does not do that. You will find that under Clause 7 there is an Amendment put down to treat as private benefactions all money which
  1174
  has been given to meet a Grant. The disentanglement will be first necessary.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: If it is all to be treated as invested with the nature of a private benefaction there is no object in carrying out this disentanglement. My observations and my argument are made all the stronger because I was not aware that that Amendment was put down to Clause 7. That makes the case for this Amendment overwhelming. It is quite clear now that you do not want a separate section, except in one very small case, where Grants are made to meet ancient Endowments. I want to deal also with the general machinery of the Clause and the question of tithes. We are told that this was all done in 1906, and that it is merely a question of copying out a few figures. It is a complete misapprehension of what was done. Certain figures were arrived at in 1906, but the details of the property were never arrived at, and there is an immense amount of work which should be done before this Clause can be complied with. I have a paper showing particulars of a typical Welsh parish with about — 344 of Endowment. That Endowment is derived from ten different sources. There is — 53 tithe rent-charge which is believed to be ancient. There, is — 178 which comes from tithe rent-charge in the parish formerly belonging to the Archdeaconry of Brecon, and it was annexed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in 1879 in substitution for an annual stipend of — 140 granted in 1874. Before you can say what is to be done with that you will have to find out the source from which that sum came.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: From what are you quoting?
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am not disposed to gratify the hon. Member's curiosity, because it has been put into my hands privately. I shall be quite ready to show it to him privately. I am not sure that I am at liberty to state the source from which it comes, but it is, I think, perfectly authentic and that is sufficient. Then there is a lot more. There is a part of land approximately three-fourths private benefaction and one-fourth private bounty. There is an annual payment of interest on Consols; there is interest paid by Queen Anne's Bounty on the balance of the Royal Bounty Fund, interest on the balance of bounty land sold, and the interest on tithe-rent redemption. All those things have to be got out elaborately.
  Mr. McKENNA: Every one of those I think has already been got out. They are all included in the totals which I have stated.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I take this case of the Archdeaconry of Brecon. You have got to investigate further what is the origin of that and prepare an elaborate statement when you are going to fix a legal title for all time or until another Radical Government comes in with a further measure of spoliation. You have got to get the legal title absolutely as it is, and to tell me that no questions of doubt will arise in such a case is to say what nobody can believe. The right hon. Gentleman does not think so himself, because by Sub-section (4) he has provided an appeal to the very highest tribunal he could provide, namely, the Privy Council. Is it credible that all that can possibly be disposed of by the date of Disestablishment? I am quite sure that it cannot. I want to ask what will happen if it is not disposed of? What is going to be the result? I am not at all sure what the result will be, because Clause 4 provides that as from the date of Disestablishment there shall vest in the Welsh Commissioners this property which is defined in this way: all property vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty which is ascertained as hereinafter mentioned to be Welsh ecclesiastical property. But supposing it has not been ascertained, what is to happen to it then? It cannot go to the Welsh Commissioners. It cannot remain in the hands of the Church because you have destroyed the corporation to which it belongs. It cannot go to the representative body because there is nothing to carry it to the representative body. What is the provision of the Bill on this point if the Bill does not operate completely by the date of Disestablishment? I am not aware of any provision. It does appear to me for that reason that my hon. Friend's Amendment will at any rate simplify analysis, and to that extent it ought to be adopted, although I think myself there ought to be a still more drastic Amendment to this Clause postponing the date of operation until long after the date of Disestablishment.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDY: Before we proceed to a Division I think it would be interesting to obtain from the Government a statement of the meaning of the interruption made just now in the Noble
  1176
  Lord's speech in reference to an Amendment further down on the Paper. I understood the Home Secretary to say that there was an Amendment which would deal with the point raised. An Amendment stands in the name of the hon. Member for Morley (Mr. France). I think it would be interesting to know whether that Amendment may be considered to be a Government Amendment or not, because certainly I understood that the Noble Lord was diverted from that portion of his argument by the fact that the Government accepted that Amendment.
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not think I can have been understood to say that. I only pointed out to the Noble Lord that the point which he was raising on this Clause was germane to Clause 7, and that there was already an Amendment on the Paper to Clause 7 under which that point would probably be raised.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that they were going to accept that Amendment. I think we ought to know.
  Mr. McKENNA: We will consider Clause 7 when we get to it.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: The interruption of the Home Secretary could only convey the meaning that he was going to accept it. The Noble Lord was dealing with Subsection (3) of this Clause, and the Home Secretary interrupted him in that portion of his argument which dealt with Subsection (3) when he was saying, "Take the case where money put up by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners elicits money from private benefactors," and the Home Secretary said, "We need not pursue that because there is an Amendment to Clause 7 which deals with that point," and everybody thought that the meaning of that language was that the Home Secretary intended to accept that Amendment.
  Mr. McKENNA: The point of my interruption was a much simpler one than that. The Noble Lord was dealing, not with the disentanglement of the property, but with private benefactions. He wanted to argue now that, because money had been given to meet a private benefaction or a private benefaction had been made in order to meet a Grant, the money so given should have as its destination the representative body. As the Chairman has already pointed out, this Clause does not deal with the destination of the money, but deals only with the disentanglement of the

  1177
  finances. I reminded the Noble Lord that the destination of the money is dealt with by Clause 7, so far as this particular point of private benefaction goes, and that there was an Amendment on the Paper which raised that specific point. That was the sole point of the interruption.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken. I immediately said that my point was made much stronger by the fact that the change was going to be put into the Bill by that Amendment. This is not the first time that the right hon. Gentleman has played with——
  Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord has completely misunderstood me. He has fallen into an innocent, but genuine error that happened five minutes ago. Within five minutes I corrected myself and made perfectly plain what I meant.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman makes a practice of being misunderstood.
  Mr. McKENNA: I cannot make a practice of being misunderstood. The Noble Lord may make a practice of misunderstanding me. The Noble Lord on the present occasion, if he has misunderstood me, as I understand he has——
  Lord HUGH CECIL: I understood what I believe was the right hon. Gentleman's real meaning.
  Mr. McKENNA: That was not my real meaning. My real meaning was precisely what I have stated. It was manifest. I made no statement at all as to whether the Amendment of my hon. Friend would be accepted or not. That will be considered when we reach Clause 7 tomorrow. But so far as the misunderstanding is concerned, if the Noble Lord feels himself prejudiced, I do not sec how ho can think so, because my explanation has been given within five minutes of the misunderstanding taking place.
  Sir J. D. REES: The right hon. Gentleman himself, in referring to the provisions of this Bill, spoke of them as entanglements. He will remember when it is we weave tangled webs, and though I do not accuse him of practising to deceive I maintain in regard to them that anybody may be innocently deceived by them. I wish to ask the Home Secretary one or two questions before the House proceeds to a Division. The right hon. Gentleman, in dealing with the
  1178
  Ecclesiastical Commissioners, said it was decided to give back to the Welsh Church the property which is made over by her. A statement to that effect was made by the right hon. Gentleman in his opening statement. What is the authority for it? How is the House to count upon the fact that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are going to restore this property to the Welsh Church? Will there be any misunderstanding about it, or is the right hon. Gentleman in the position to say to the House, as he has unequivocally said, that this property will be restored to the Welsh Church? Probably he will be good enough to answer that. In his opening speech the right hon. Gentleman also made a statement to precisely the same effect as regards Queen Anne's Bounty, referred to in Sub-section (2). At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he is in a position to give such an engagement, for it would be a comfort to the Committee to know whether he is able to give so serious an undertaking, which would very much improve the resources of the Church after Disestablishment. Another question was raised repeatedly by speaker after speaker, and by the right hon. Gentleman himself, who spoke of property— it is the very property to which I am referring— which will go back to the Welsh Church.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is in order in raising these questions as to the disposal of the property?
  The CHAIRMAN: This arises out of a statement made by the Home Secretary, and I think the question the hon. Member wishes to put is on what authority that statement was made. The hon. Gentleman should not, however, go into details.
  Sir J. D. REES: I will be careful not to proceed in any detail with those questions, but I hope I shall be in order in referring to that which is of the utmost importance, which will be very interesting to the Committee, and about which there should be no misunderstanding as to what the right hon. Gentleman means: the other statement of the right hon. Gentleman was about property going back to the Welsh nation. I understand that to be a crucial point. The whole object of this Bill is said to be the making over of this property to the Welsh nation. The Church is to be dismembered, and her

  1179
  Endowments, partly at any rate, are to be taken away from her. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman upon what exactly is founded the statement that Wales has a national claim to this property?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is going further than asking for an explanation.
  Sir J. D. REES: I greatly regret I cannot proceed with this point, but possibly on some later occasion I shall be able to get an answer, and, in obedience to your ruling, Sir, I now leave it altogether, The Chancellor of the Duchy expressed some doubt as to the position of Ecclesiastical Commissioners in regard to Disestablishment and Disendowment, but he must have overlooked the fact that Sir Charles Dibdin, who was one of the greatest witnesses for the Church, came before the Welsh Church Commission. To me his evidence seemed to be most strongly on behalf of those who are opposing these present proposals. I rose for the specific purpose of obtaining an answer from the right hon. Gentleman to the questions which I have put to him in regard to the action of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and of the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty as regards the restoration to the Welsh Church of funds
  taken from them. I shall be very grateful to him for an answer, and I hope the time will come when I shall be able to put the other question. The hon. Member for Carnarvon raised a question about minerals under property which may belong to the Church. Supposing that this property, which is transferred and re-transferred so that nobody can tell exactly where it is, or how it stands, and the benefit of which the Welsh Church at present enjoys, has minerals underneath it, what will be the position in regard to the income from royalties? Will the Church get the benefit of that income? I apologise for asking that question, because possibly I ought to understand it, but I do not, nor can I gather anything from any notice that has been taken of the point which the hon. Member for Carnarvon raised. Everybody must be deeply interested to know, in the allocation of these funds, whether they are to be available in future for continuing Divine Service., or to be available merely for putting stuffed birds into glass cases in some Cardiff museum.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 275; Noes, 117.

  Division No. 457.]

  AYES.

  [6.25 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Clough, William

  Field, William

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Clynes, John R.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Collons, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Arnold, Sydney

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Gilhooly, James

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Crean, Eugene

  Goldstone, Frank

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Crooks, William

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Cullinan, John

  Greig, Col. J. W.

  Barton, William

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

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

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

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

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

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Dawes, J. A.

  Guiney, Patrick

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Devlin, Joseph

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Hackett, John

  Boland, John Pius

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Doris, William

  Hancock, J. G.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Duffy, William J.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Falconer, James

  Hayward, Evan

  Hazleton, Richard

  Meagher, Michael

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)

  Median, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

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

  Molloy, Michael

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Rowlands, James

  Higham, John Sharp

  Mooney, John J.

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Hinds, John

  Morgan, George Hay

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Morrell, Philip

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

  Hodge, John

  Morison, Hector

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Muldoon, John

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Munro, P.

  Sheehy, David

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Shortt, Edward

  Hudson, Walter

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Hughes, S. L.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Nuttall, Harry

  Snowden, Philip

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

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  O'Dowd, John

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Joyce, Michael

  Ogden, Fred

  Thomas, James Henry

  Keating, Matthew

  O'Grady, James

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

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

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Malley, William

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Kilbride, Denis

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

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  King, J. (Somerset, North)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Verney, Sir Harry

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

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Wadsworth, J.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wardle, George J.

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

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Leach Charles

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Webb, H.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Pointer, Joseph

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  McGhee, Richard

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

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

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

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Wiles, Thomas

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

  Radford, G. H.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Reddy, M.

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

  M'Kean, John

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

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

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Manfield, Harry

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denblghs)

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

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  NOES.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Balcarres, Lord

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

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

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Barnston, Harry

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Barrie, H. T.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Bird, Alfred

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Fell, Arthur

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Bull, Sir William James

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Butcher, John George

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

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

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Campion, W. R.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Forster, Henry William

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Cassel, Felix

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Cator, John

  Gibbs, George Abraham

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

  1182

  1183

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

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

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Touche, George Alexander

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

  Salter, Arthur Clavell.

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Mount, William Arthur

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

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

  Newman, John R. P.

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

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Nield, Herbert

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Younger, Sir George

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Stewart, Gershom

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hoare and Mr. E. Wood.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Swift, Rigby

  Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "shall" ["shall be Welsh"], insert the words, "subject to such alterations therein and additions thereto as may be made between the passing of this Act and the date of Disestab-lishment."—[Mr. McKenna.]
  Mr. BARLOW: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (2).
  The point raised by this Amendment is whether it is fair or equitable in a Bill of this kind to include the properties and income arising from Queen Anne's Bounty in the general scheme of what has been called spoliation. The circumstances of Queen Anne's Bounty are somewhat peculiar, and I suggest to the Committee that on two grounds Queen Anne's Bounty Fund ought to be entirely excluded from the purview of this readjustment. First of all, the property of the Queen Anne's Bounty arose in this way. It is derived from the first-fruits and tenths of the incomes of the bishops and clergy, which were appropriated by the Crown at the time of Henry VIII. in the early stages of the Reformation, and were paid into the Royal Exchequer for a considerable period, and in 1702, as an Act of Grace on the part of the Crown, those revenue charges on the incomes of the bishops and clergy were transferred back to the Church. The word "Bounty" expresses, on the face of it, that the restoration was an Act of Grace on the part of the Crown; but the first point I wish to make clear with regard to this fund is that it is derived entirely from the incomes of the clergy and the bishops. There is no question of Endowment or anything of that kind. It is money paid according to the original adjustment. The book made at the time of Henry VIII, assessed what those first-fruits and tenths were worth, and the money to this day is paid to the Queen Anne's Bounty Fund on that assessment
  1184
  of income. There can therefore be no question whatever of any Endowment or of a permanent capital fund. It is money derived from income and nothing but income. Moreover, it was the income of the clergy and the bishops, and therefore, so far as this money is not paid to them direct, their incomes were then, and have been ever since, reduced. It is true that in course of time some portion of that income so received by the Bounty, though this was not the original arrangement, was treated as capital, and certain accumulations were allowed, but not for long after the date when the fund was handed back to the Church by the Act of Queen Anne.
  It is in its essence and source an annual contribution, and not only that, but the annual contribution of the bishops and clergy themselves. Surely, if ever there was a case where we are entitled on this side to say that it is spoliation to take away from the Church any part of funds derived in that kind of way, we are entitled to say so of this fund, which is purely income and which is derived as income from the clergy and bishops of the Church. Then the other point is that this fund was handed back to the Church in 1702—that is more than half a century, according to the admission of the Government themselves, after the date at which they say it is possible to discriminate between the funds of the Church as to whether they are secular or religious. That fact alone would seem to me to be a sufficient argument in favour of the Amendment. The date of handing back is fifty years after the date from which the Government admit that funds devoted to the Church are Church funds. Therefore I think it does not lie in the mouth of the Government to say that his fund should be subject to the other provisions in the Bill. I beg to move.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I will explain to the hon. Gentleman why we think it necessary

  1185
  to retain this Sub-section. The Subsection affects a very small sum of money indeed. It only affects so much of what is Welsh ecclesiastical property as is derived from the Queen Anne's Bounty Fund. There is one accumulation by the Queen Anne's Bounty Fund which may for the purposes of the Act be divided into two parts—that is, a capital sum which is represented by an income of £27,000 per year. Two-thirds of that is derived from English sources, and therefore does not come in the purview of this Sub-section at all and does not pass through the hands of the Welsh Commissioners, but is revested in the Queen Anne's Bounty, to be kept either for the purpose of the English Church, or, as I understand, to be used in the future for the purposes of the Welsh Church. Going back as it does to the Queen Anne's Bounty, it does not come within the purview of the Welsh Commissioners at all. The remaining part of that part has been derived from Welsh sources and amounts to about £0,300, and that will be transferred to the Welsh Commissioners and will be dealt with by them in accordance with the general principles of the Act. I think the hon. Gentleman will see that it is necessary that this Sub-section should pass in order to arrange what should go back to the Queen Anne's Bounty Fund and for redistribution either to the English Church or the Church in Wales, and what should be retained by the Welsh Commissioners.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I venture to think that the right hon. Gentleman has not made any attempt to answer the arguments put forward by the Proposer of the Amendment. The point was that it is improper to deal with Queen Anne's Bounty as part of the funds which may be taken under this Bill, and it is clearly no answer to say that it is necessary to have an elaborate scheme for dividing it up into two parts. The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the point of my hon. Friend and he did not even mention it. What he said was, assuming that it has to be dealt with, then this is the proper way of dealing with it.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I did not deal with it for this reason, that I did not want to reopen the whole question of Disendowment, the principle of which has already been settled by the House, and in detail it was settled by the discussion on Clause 4, and this is really a machinery Clause.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman is not really accurate at all. What has been settled is that certain property shall be transferred to the Welsh Commissioners under Clause 4, and shall be vested in them, and part of it vested in the representative body. There has been no settlement of the question of how much is to be handed over to the representative body at all, and that is the only point. With regard to Queen Anne's Bounty, all that we have settled so far is that it shall be handed over to the Welsh Commissioners. Nothing else has been settled at all:—
  "All property vested in … Queen Anne's Bounty, which is ascertained as hereinafter mentioned, to be Welsh ecclesiastical property."
  If you decide that it is unnecessary to enter into elaborate distinctions between different kinds of Queen Anne's Bounty, and that it may all be handed over to the Welsh Commissioners for the purpose of being subsequently handed to the representative body, that is still open to you under this Bill. This seems to me the proper place to raise the question, because I do not see in Clause 8 anything specificially dealing with Queen Anne's Bounty. It is really quite a separate matter. It is not the least like what we have been discussing in connection with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I invite the Government to give some ground, I do not care what, which they think they can make intelligible to the Committee for regarding Queen Anne's Bounty as national property. What is the history of it? These funds were originally granted to the Pope.
  Mr. KING: Hear, hear.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Member thinks that he is the successor of the Pope. At the time they were granted they were certainly not national property. They were taken by the King, not in his capacity as head of the State, and were put into his own private pocket.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: By Act of Parliament.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Very likely by Act of Parliament. It was robbery, no doubt. Whether it was or was not done by Act of Parliament, the money was put into the pocket of the King. It was not national property at all. It was kept as the private property of the King until Queen Anne, having some qualms as to whether it had been rightly taken, of her own motion gave it back to the Church.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: By Act of Parliament.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not think she gave it by Act of Parliament.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: Yes.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I will not trouble about that. It was given back by the Queen herself. It was never national property. It was never applied to national purposes. It never had any tincture of national character about it. It originally belonged to the Pope. When Henry VIII. ejected the Pope from this country he took it for his own, as he did most of the other property, and put it into his own pocket. Subsequently it was restored by Queen Anne to the Church. How any human being can describe that as national property I cannot imagine. If it is, it was devoted most specifically by the nation after 1662 to the support of the Church of England in Wales. The case is overwhelmingly clear. Here is an absolutely clear appropriation of property, not to the community—that strange entity which has been invented by Liberationists in search of an argument. I should like to see the face of an eleventh century landowner on being told that he had made a grant of land to the community. He would not know what you meant.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think this point would come up on Clause 8. I understood this Amendment to deal with similar technical questions in regard to Queen Anne's bounty to those that we have been dealing with on the preceding Sub-section.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: If you tell me that there will be an opportunity for raising this question on Clause 8, I shall be quite satisfied. All I am anxious about is that this question should not be passed without fair discussion.
  The CHAIRMAN: My impression is that there are already Amendments down dealing with this subject; if not, the Noble Lord will no doubt hand one in. I am advised that this question will be in order.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: As the interest of this matter is mainly on the question of principle, I will not trouble the Committee further at this point.
  Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: The Noble Lord has apparently not fully understood
  1188
  the effect of Clause 4. Sub-section 1 (b) says "that all property not so vested, and not consisting of charges on the common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty, shall vest in the Welsh Commissioners to be appointed by this Bill." If those words remain and this Sub-section is omitted, the whole of the mixed property, which would be dealt with under Clause 5 (3), would remain in the hands of the Welsh Commissioners and, as I read the subsequent Clauses, there would be no destination for that property at all. Therefore, I think the Noble Lord would defeat his own purpose by leaving out Sub-section (2).
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir D. Brynmor Jnes) has dealt with a matter outside the particular point we are now discussing. I agree that the vesting has been done in Clause 4. But the White Paper points out that since 1704 the Governors have given in Grants from the Royal Bounty Fund to Wales £487,350, while during the same period they received from Wales £163,000, the difference between the two amounts being £324,350. I want to know what assistance that can possibly be to Queen Anne's Bounty when they come to the question of ascertaining the apportionment? The actual difference between the amounts in the past clearly cannot assist Queen Anne's Bounty at the present moment, as regards making any proper apportionment in reference to the funds which are hereafter called Welsh ecclesiastical funds. One is obliged to have regard to the sources of these funds, which are purely ecclesiastical, and were given back to the Church by Queen Anne; and although at that time an Act of Parliament was passed, it was passed after Queen Anne had sent a message that she desired to restore these funds to the Church, and that wish was carried out in the ordinary formal manner. When we are dealing with the question of ascertainment, which is the real question, what relevance have these figures in the White Paper on which the right hon. Gentleman calculates the sum of £9,300? They appear to me to have no relevance to the matter at all. What does it matter what has been spent in the past? It seems to me inapplicable at the present day, when we have to consider the allocation of the fund. Ascertainment on these lines will be impossible. If it is not impossible, and if it proceeds on these lines, it will be inequitable.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I understand the hon. Member's question to be, What is the good of giving these two sets of figures, because they really convey nothing to us?
  Sir A. CRIPPS: They are worse than that. They are contradictory.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE(who was very indistinctly heard): Queen Anne's Bounty dissolved the total capital sum into two component units, one representing the amount which has accrued from English sources, and the other the amount which has accrued from Welsh sources. That is not
  a final process of allocation, but it is the commencement of an allocation, and inasmuch as Queen Anne's Bounty have been able to dissolve the total capital sum, it will not be difficult for them finally to allocate the Welsh portion in accordance not only with Sub-sections (2) and (3), but with Schedule 2 as well.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, down to the word 'be' ['shall be Welsh ecclesiastical property'], stand part of the Clause."
  The Commitee divided: Ayes, 294; Noes, 157.

  Division No. 458.]

  AYES.

  [6.58 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Hinds, John

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Hodge, John

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

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

  Doris, William

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Duffy, William J.

  Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Howard, Hon, Geoffrey

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Hudson, Walter

  Arnold, Sydney

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hughes, S. L.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  John, Edward Thomas

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Esmonds, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Falconer, James

  Jones, Leif Straiten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Barton, William

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Joyce, Michael

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Ftrench, Peter

  Keating, Matthew

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Field, William

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  Black, Arthur W.

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  King, J. (Somerset, North)

  Boland, John Pius

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

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

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Gilhooly, James

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts., Cricklade)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Ginncll, Laurence

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Brace, William

  Glanville, H. J.

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

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Leach, Charles

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Lynch, A. A.

  Burns, Rt. Hen. John

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

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

  McGhee, Richard

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

  Guest, Hon. Frederick (Dorset, E.)

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

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Guiney, Patrick

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

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Hackett, John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Hancock, J. G.

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  M'Kean, John

  Clough, William

  Hardie, J. Keir

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Clynes, John R.

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

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

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Manfield, Harry

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Cotton, William Francis

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

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

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Meagher, Michael

  Crean, Eugene

  Hazleton, Richard

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Crooks, William

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Millar, James Duncan

  Cullinan, John

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Molloy, Michael

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

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

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

  Mooney, John J.

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morgan, George Hay

  Morrell, Philip

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Morison, Hector

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Morten, Alpheus Cleophas

  Radford, G. H.

  Sutton, John E.

  Muldoon, John

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Munro, R.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Reddy, M.

  Thomas, James Henry

  Nannetti, Joseph

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Richards, Thomas

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Nuttall, Harry

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wadsworth, J.

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wardle, George J.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Robinson, Sidney

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  O'Dowd, John

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Ogden, Fred

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Webb, H.

  O'Grady, James

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

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

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Malley, William

  Rowlands, James

  Whitehouse, John Howard

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

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  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, John (Glamorgan)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmathen)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Sheehy, David

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Shortt, Edward

  Winfrey, Richard

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

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

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Snowden, Philip

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

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

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  NOES.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Anson, Rt. Hon, Sir William R.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Kerry, Earl of

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

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Keswick, Henry

  Balcarres, Lord

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Barnston, Harry

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

  Barrie, H. T.

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W Hayes

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Fleming, Valentine

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

  Bird, Alfred

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

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

  Blair, Reginald

  Forster, Henry William

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Gardner, Earnest

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Boyton, James

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Macmaster, Donald

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Gibbs, George Abraham

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

  Bull, Sir William James

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Butcher, John George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Grant, J. A.

  Newman, John R. P.

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

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

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Campion, W. R.

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

  Nield, Herbert

  Carlile, Sir Hildred

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Haddock, John Bahr

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

  Cassel, Felix

  Hall Fred (Dulwich)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Cator, John

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Cave, George

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

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

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Randies, Sir John S.

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Roberts, s. (Sheffield, Ecclcsall)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

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

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  1192

  1193

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

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

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

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

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Yerburgh, Robert A.

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Valentia, Viscount

  Younger, Sir George

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Stewart, Gershom

  Ward, A. S. (Watford)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. M. Barlow and Mr. Hoare.

  Swift, Rigby

  Winterton, Earl

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  It being after Seven of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 28th November, succesively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by the Government, of which notice had been given, and the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at Seven of the clock at this day's sitting.
  Government Amendment: In Sub-section (2), after the word "shall" ["shall be
  Welsh ecclesiastical property"], insert the words "subject to such alterations therein and additions thereto as may be made between the passing of this Act and the date of Disestablishment."—[Mr.-McKenna.]
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 291; Noes, 162.

  Division No. 459.]

  AYES.

  [7.10 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Hancock, J. G.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Crean, Eugene

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Adamson, William

  Crooks, William

  Hardie, J. Keir

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

  Crumley, Patrick

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Cullinan, John

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Arnold, Sydney

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

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

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Dawes, J. A.

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Doris, William

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Barnes, G. N.

  Duffy, William J.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Barton, William

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

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

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Edwards John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Hinds, John

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Hodge, John

  Boland, John Pius

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Falconer, James

  Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Brace, William

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  Hudson, Walter

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Hughes, S. L.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Ftrench, Peter

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Field, William

  John, Edward Thomas

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Fitzgibbon, John

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

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Gilhooly, James

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

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

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Glanville, H. J.

  Joyce, Michael

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Keating, Matthew

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Greig, Col. J. W.

  King, J. (Somerset, North)

  Clough, William

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

  Clynes, John R.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

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

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Guiney, Patrick

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Leach, Charles

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hackett, John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

  O'Dowd, John

  Sheehy, David

  Lundon, Thomas

  Ogden, Fred

  Shortt, Edward

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  O'Grady, James

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Lynch, A. A.

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

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  O'Malley, William

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  McGhee, Richard

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

  Snowden, Philip

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Soames, Arthur Wellcsley

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

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Sutton, John E.

  M'Kean, John

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

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

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Thomas, James Henry

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

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Pointer, Joseph

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Manfield, Harry

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

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

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Meagher, Michael

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Wadsworth, J.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Radford, G. H.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Wardle, George J.

  Molloy, Michael

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Reddy, M.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Mooney, John J.

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Webb, H.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Richards, Thomas

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Morison, Hector

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Muldoon, John

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Munro, R.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Robinson, Sidney

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Williams, John (Glamorgan)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Winfrey, Richard

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

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

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

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

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E))

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  NOES.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

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

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Balcarres, Lord

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Barnston, Harry

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Herbert, Hon A. (Somerset, S.)

  Barrie, H. T.

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hoare, S. J. G.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Bird, Alfred

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Blair, Reginald

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Boyton, James

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Bull, Sir William James

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Fleming, Valentine

  Kerry, Earl of

  Butcher, John George

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Keswick, Henry

  Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

  Campion, W. R.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Gibbs, George Abraham

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

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Cassel, Felix

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

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

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Cator, John

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Grant, J. A.

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

  Cave, George

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

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Macmaster, Donald

  1196

  1197

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

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Rollerston, Sir John

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

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

  Touche, George Alexander

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Tyron, Captain George Clement

  Newman, John R. P.

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Newton, Harry Nottingham

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Nield, Herbert

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Ward, A. (Herts, Watford)

  Norton-Griffiths, J, (Wednesbury)

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

  Winterton, Earl

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

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

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Stewart, Garshom

  Yerburgh, Robert A.

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Younger, Sir George

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Swift, Rigby

  Rawson, Col. Richard H.

  Talbot, Lord E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Fell and Mr. G. Locker-Lampson

  Bees, Sir J. D.

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Question," That the Amendment be made," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 6.—(Powers and Liabilities of Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty after Disestablishment.)
  As from the date of Disestablishment, any liability or power of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty to make payments for any ecclesiastical purpose in or connected with the Church in Wales shall cease:
  Provided that—

  (a) they shall continue to make such payments as are required for the purpose of preserving any existing interests; and

  (b) nothing in this Act shall prevent them from carrying into effect any contract made before the passing of this Act for the sale or purchase of any property affected by this Act or otherwise in relation to any such property, or from making any payments which under this Act they are required or authorised to make; and

  (c) it shall be lawful for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty, if they think fit, within one year after the date of Disestablishment, to transfer to the representative body the whole or any part of the property specified in Part I. and Part II. respectively of the Third Schedule to this Act, and for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to charge their common fund and Queen Anne's Bounty to charge the Royal Bounty Fund with the payment to the representative body of perpetual annuities not exceeding, in the case of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the annual value of the property mentioned in Part III, of the Third Schedule to this Act, and, in the case of Queen Anne's Bounty,
  1198
  the annual value of the property, mentioned in Part IV. of that Schedule, subject to the payment thereout by the representative body of such sums as may be required for preserving existing interests in any such property.

  Mr. CAVE: I beg to move, to leave out the words "or power" ["as from the date of Disestablishment, any liability or power of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty to make."]
  In proposing this Amendment, may I say that this Amendment is only one of a series which I put upon the Paper and which are the result of the consideration of the Bill by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and by the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty. Already a number of them have-been passed over without any opportunity for discussion, and it is not very encouraging to anybody who takes a serious view of this Bill, or attempts even to deal with the practical difficulties found in it, that Amendments which those who are experts in the matter think of real importance should be passed over without consideration, and so far as I know, without even being looked at by the Government in the recesses of their own private office. There has not been the least attempt to deal with matters which are of real practical importance to the future. I am drawing attention to the horrible injustice of this Bill, and to the conditions under which we are discussing it. I think we are entitled when the opportunity appears to make a protest, because I would not have it thought that the Amendments we are discussing now are the only Amendments desired by those who have the administration of the Church funds. With regard to this Amendment the reason for it lies on the surface.

  1199
  The effect of the Clause is to take away from the Commissioners and the Governors of the Bounty, at all events, all Ecclesiastical property coming from Welsh sources. I think it does very much more. I think it takes away property which does not in any sense of the word come from Welsh sources; but all that, of course, can only be discussed on other Amendments and cannot be raised upon this one.
  The intention of this Clause is to limit the power of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the powers of the Governors to make Grants to the Church in Wales, even from incomes arising from English sources. That is the whole purpose of the words which I desire to leave out. May I ask the Committee to consider whether it is necessary and why it is necessary to do that. These Commissioners were formed some seventy or eighty years ago for the particular purpose of taking under their control a great part of the income of the Church of England, and where the income available was in excess of the needs of a parish or district, for applying it to other parts; in other words, so far as it was possible, to begin to equalise incomes and to provide for the poorer parts of the country, in which the Church funds provide an inadequate income for its incumbents. Again, the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty had somewhat similar functions. The first-fruits and tenths were granted to them some 200 years ago for the very purpose of increasing the income to the poorer parishes, and Parliament between 1809 and 1820 made grants of public money to the Bounty for the augmentation of the maintenance of the poorer clergy. Parliamentary grants were made for that purpose, and similar grants were made to a number of ministers who were not clergy of the Church of England. The Bounty and the Commissioners have husbanded the funds entrusted to them, and while other religious bodies have, I think, expended the grants which were made to them in the earlier parts of the last century, the Governors of the Bounty took a more frugal view, and instead of spending the income, they saved a great part of it, and went upon the principle of making capital grants to the different parishes where assistance appeared to be wanted. The funds, therefore, in their case have remained in hand, while in the case of other religious bodies the funds are entirely expended, and so it is that the Bounty is to some extent to
  1200
  be deprived of funds of which other bodies cannot be deprived.
  Besides being, as I think, excellent stewards of their fund, the Bounty and the Commissioners have taken a very liberal and fair-minded view of their duties in distributing these funds. They have inquired, in each case where applications were made, into the circumstances of the particular parishes from which the applications came, and they have made grants. They dealt in each case with the facts as they existed when the grant was applied for, and, of course, it followed that as time went on the grants made to different parts of the country have varied. At one time more went to Wales and less to England proportionately, and at another time, less to Wales and more to England. They dealt with the facts as they existed at the relevant time. What are you going to do by this Bill? The proposal is to take away the discretion of these two bodies. You propose to ascertain under the latter part of this Clause how much at the present moment is being applied to Welsh purposes over and above what comes from Wales—1 am putting it in broad terms and you propose to authorise the Governors and Commissioners to grant once for all a charge in favour of the Church in Wales which shall be equivalent to the surplus grants as they now exist. I am anxious to know what is the reason to be given for that provision. It is extremely inconvenient, because the amount of the grants last year, or during whatever period is taken, depended, not upon the permanent and lasting needs of Wales, but upon the particular requirements of certain Welsh parishes at the particular moment when the grants were made, and therefore the grants given for a particular year are not criterion of the grants that will be required for Wales out of the English funds in future years. It may be of course that your methods of ascertaining the amount will act to the prejudice of England; it may be that the grant made for Wales last year was greater than what is required as a permanent grant to that part of the United Kingdom. On the other hand, it may be, and I suppose it is probable, that the grant made to Wales during the last seven years ought in fairness to be increased. It is quite possible that the needs of the poor Welsh parishes may be greater, and that larger sums ought to come out of the Parliamentary fund, and other funds in question, and

  1201
  to go to these parishes. The effect of the Bill as it stands is to make it impossible for the Commissioners or the Bounty to have regard to the circumstances at any future time. The figure is ascertained once for all, and it is made impossible either to reduce the English grant or to increase these other grants.
  That is the main point I want to raise by this Amendment. What is the purpose of this provision, and what is its justification? The effect of it is to underline and to accentuate the attempted separation or division of the Church into two parts—to cut off, if you can, the Church in England from the Church in wales, and to make the Church in Wales in future nothing but a body having a kind of charge upon the funds of the English Church. I fail to see what is the justification for that. Why is it that if the English Church wants to help the Church in Wales, you are going to make it illegal for it to do so? What purpose of yours does that really serve? It cannot hurt any Nonconformist body that money collected for Church purposes should be applied to Church purposes. There is no injustice in that to anybody in Wales. The effect of these Clauses is to keep the Welsh Church poor. Is that what you desire? Is that one of the purposes of the Bill, and, if not, how can you justify this absolute prohibition? It is not as if you were going to make it impossible to give anything to Wales. That was provided by an earlier Bill, and it was strenuously fought in this House, but it has been given up, and now you are willing to admit the necessity of making some grant to Wales. I think that if you concede the principle you should leave the actual apportionment to those who have full knowledge of the facts, and you should not attempt to limit the grants in this way. I desire to put the point temperately, although one does not always succeed in suppressing one's feelings on this Bill. I should like to do so, however, on this Amendment, and I think a very strong case can be made out for conceding my proposal. May I put one point of detail, because I may not have a chance of moving a later Amendment in my name? I put down an Amendment to leave out the words which limit the amount to be granted to a sum to be ascertained under the Third Schedule, and to insert in its place an Amendment which would limit the grants to the proportion in which the
  1202
  grants are now made by the Commissioners. I should like to have the views of the Government on my Amendment. I press the Government to leave out these words, so as to leave a free hand to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
  Mr. McKENNA: I appreciate the full strength of the argument which has been put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston, but I trust that he will also attach a certain amount of weight to the answer which I have to make. In con-eluding his remarks, the hon. and learned Member spoke of the absolute prohibition which this Bill imposes upon the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It is true, in a sense, that there is a prohibition, but it does not become operative until the Commissioners have exercised a power to give to the Disestablished Church all they are now giving and £28,000 a year beyond, so that the absolute prohibition is only a relative term, and it can only relate, in fact, to a somewhat distant future. How do we justify what we have done? First of all, so far as the present case is concerned, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have appropriated a capital sum to the benefices, and they do not wish to have the capital value. In other cases they have charged their common fund with a perpetual annuity, and they have charged their fund for a period of years. In all cases the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have stated that they do not wish to interfere with whatever has been given to the English Church in Wales in the past. Power is given to them to pay to that extent. But we have done something beyond that, and here I admit that the proposal in the Bill is somewhat too narrow. In the Bill a power is given to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to charge their common funds within one year with a perpetual annuity equal to the average amount which during the last seven years has been appropriated to the Welsh Church out of English funds.
  The appropriation during the last seven years has been of the capital amount, but the amount which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are allowed to pay, if they so determine, within one year is equal to the annual income derived from the appropriation of English funds—that is, the average income during the last seven years, and that amounts to £28,000 a year. But the pro vision in the Bill as it now stands restricts the Commissioners somewhat too severely. If they have to decide within a

  1203
  year that they will give in perpetuity this additional sum of £28,000 a year to the Disestablished Church, the Commissioners might naturally say, "What guarantee have we got that ten, fifteen, or a hundred years hence this Church will still remain in communion with the English Church, and what right have we to charge in perpetuity the funds of the English Church with a payment of £28,000 a year to a communion which may not be in communion with the English Church in future years? I recognise the force of that view. On the other hand, it may be said that if you leave the Ecclesiastical Commissioners the unrestricted power which the hon. and learned Member proposes to give to them, you may lie giving such financial power to the Established English Church as will, in fact,? control the freedom of the Disestablished Welsh Church. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Well, I state the argument and Noble Lords opposite may agree with it or not, but it is an argument which has force in Wales. Considering these two different aspects of the question, I have come to the conclusion that on the whole the best course would be to leave the Ecclesiastical Commissioners power to determine year by year what contribution they would make to the Disestablished Welsh Church, but on the other hand to limit the amount of that contribution as originally proposed in the Bill to the average amount which has been retained from the English Church out of English funds during the last seven years.
  Viscount WOLMER: Why limit it?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think the arguments on that point have been put quite clearly. The effect of that would be that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would, if I understand it, immediately charge their funds or transfer capital to the Disestablished Welsh Church to an amount which would bring in an income of close upon £50,000, and year by year they would be at liberty to determine whether they would make an additional Grant to the Disestablished Welsh Church up to an amount of £28,000 a year. I would remind the Committee that the hon and learned Member for South Bucks (Sir A. Cripps) earlier in the Debate argued that to allow any such charge at all to fall in future upon the Established English Church might become very unfair to that Church, and certainly in limiting the amount I am to that extent limiting the possibility of disagreement
  1204
  within the Church itself as to whether or not or to what extent any Grant should be made out of the English Church funds for the benefit of the Disestablished Welsh Church. So far as my statement has gone I am willing to meet the views of the hon. and learned Member. I quite admit that I do not go the whole length the hon. and learned Member goes, because he wishes that they should Lave an unrestricted power to make what Grants they please. I doubt whether such power would be to the advantage of the Disestablished Welsh Church, but so far as the immediate future is concerned under the Bill in the form I would suggest it might take, the Welsh Church will receive certainly as much from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as she would be likely to receive under the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Under these circumstances I would suggest that this Amendment should not be pushed any further now, and perhaps the Committee will allow me to move an Amendment now, or the hon. and learned Member may move it, to this Clause, which I should be willing to accept.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: You should put them down on the Paper.
  Mr. McKENNA: I quite agree with that view, but the Noble Lord must understand that in going through the Amendments on the Paper in the names of hon. Members I cannot go through them a long time in advance, because I have to wait to see their final shape. I endeavoured to the utmost of my ability to discover what is the underlying view of those Amendments, and if I can meet them I do so; but it is not always convenient for me to place my Amendment upon the Paper.
  Mr. A. LYTTELTON: Of course, attention will be paid to anything that may be done hereafter by the Home Secretary, and I am not averse to expressing my opinion that, bad though I think the situation is as it is left by him, it is slightly better than it was in the original form of the Bill. It seems to me it would be absolutely intolerable to place upon the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty the obligation to decide in one year what should be the limit of the Grant in perpetuity to the Church in Wales, and certainly to the extent that the right hon. Gentleman is making it year after year instead of in one year it is an improve-

  1205
  ment. There remains, however, the objection which we entertain in principle against any limitation of these powers whatever. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not seem to appreciate, if I understand their ideas about patronage and the remuneration of the clergy, that nothing more harmonious with their principle can he conceived than the institution of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty. They are equalising agencies. The Church of England pooled, so to say, her funds in respect of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and directed them—and they have carried out that direction I believe by the consent of everybody with impartiality and with breadth of mind—to take off where there is excess and put on where there is too little. That is what they have done, and to interfere with this process in the future in regard to the Church in Wales is really to dislocate and disorganise one of the best and most liberal agencies that can be imagined.
  The case is even stronger when you come to Queen Anne's Bounty. The contributions which have formed the funds of Queen's Anne's Bounty were provided by the clergy themselves. It has no doubt been a very serious burden upon the bishops and clergy to provide that amount. It was no doubt originally destined for the Pope, but the Pope was despoiled of that amount by Henry VIII., I suppose in his capacity as head of the Church, and when the fund was restored to the source from which it came, a sum of £15,000 at that time, it might, of course, have been distributed, as certain bounties were by certain bodies, in Grants straight away, but the very fact that a frugal and a good economic and thrifty way of dealing with the fund has been taken by the Governors is now used by the Government and the right hon. Gentleman to take away from the Governors funds which they have thus saved. It never could be argued that you could retrospectively take the incomes of people. That has not been suggested even by this 'Government. Those incomes have been saved, and they have been invested by the Governors in real property or in the funds, and, because of their frugal and thrifty way of administering the funds entrusted to them, this invasion is made upon their rights, and for no other reason. It seems to me to be an astounding position to occupy. Let me put it for a moment in another way in order that I may divest hon. Members
  1206
  opposite of their prejudice against the Church. Supposing three or four hundred years ago it had been enacted that the doctors as a body should pay the first fruits of their incomes to the Crown and that afterwards the Crown had restored that amount to the doctors as a body, and supposing that fund when restored had been capitalised instead of being expended, and had been dealt with in the way the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty have dealt with their funds, what possible case would there have been for retrospectively taking the incomes, which surely cannot by any process be said to be other than the rightful possession of the medical body? It seems to me to be quite unarguable and unthinkable.
  You absolutely cripple the discretion of both the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty and the Ecclesiastical Commission. You stereotype the amount they may grant to the Church in Wales to the average amount they grant now. Who can foresee the future? Who can foresee what the wealth of the Established Church in England may be, and what the poverty or the wealth of the Church in Wales may he Nobody can possibly foresee it. You are really interfering with a central point in the operations of these two bodies by refusing to allow them to use their discretion for the purpose for which they exist, that of equalising between rich and poor benefices. Can that be defended? By fettering these Commissioners in this way in future you are really breaking up the organic unity of the English Church with the Welsh Church. That is, I will not say the object, but the necessary consequence of your provisions with regard to the dismemberment of the Church. You not only refuse to allow the whole government of the Church to continue by separating the Welsh Church from the Convocation of the English Church, to which it has always belonged, but you break up the mutual power of help, and by doing so you may be doing the greatest possible injury to the Church. I trust my hon. and learned Friend will press his Amendment, because I feel quite certain that as a matter of principle he is on absolutely sound ground.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: The right hon. Gentleman's analogy of the doctors does not apply. When the funds of Queen Ann's Bounty were restored they were not restored to the same body of people from whom they were taken, and that makes an essential difference.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: Does the hon. Member say the first fruits of their income were not taken from the clergy?
  Mr. E. JONES: They were taken from the Roman Catholic clergy, as the right hon. Gentleman himself said. He said the Pope was despoiled.
  Mr. CAVE: They were entirely savings from money contributed by clergy of the Church of England.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): This is rather wide of the question. Casual references made in the course of the Debate ought not to be developed by subsequent speakers into arguments, so as to take up an undue time of the Committee.
  Mr. E. JONES: I said when I began I thought it was was out of order, but as the right hon. Gentleman had dragged it in I wished to say at once I did not agree with his proposition. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not seem to understand our point of view. They may not accept it, but at least they might try to understand it. There are people in Wales who are very keen for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church purely on national grounds. I am not so sure those are not the grounds on which I am most keen to see it Disestablished. We feel, whether rightly or wrongly, that if you are going to Disestablish this Church, and if you are going to allow the clergy and laymen of the Church in Wales freedom to build anew, you must remove the very powerful determining influences of Queen Anne's Bounty and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Probably hon. Members opposite have not read a very interesting portion of the evidence of the Bishop of St. David's, in which he complains in terms of the way in which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners here in London insist upon dictating to the diocese how its money is to be apportioned and how its parishes are to be arranged for. The bishop complains of the fact that he and the local people in the diocese are not consulted as they ought to be, and that their views are not given the weight they ought to receive. You have in that evidence the germ of a great grievance of a considerable section of the Welsh people.
  8.0 P.M.
  There are people, of course, who demand this on religious grounds, not believing in a State Church at all, but the great majority want a National Church
  1208
  developed on the soil in a national way without being pressed, as the Church has been very much pressed contrary to the best policy and the national aspirations of Wales, by a body here in England, and hon. Members opposite must really take that into account and try to understand it. When they say they do not understand why we put a limit of this kind on the authority of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, that is our answer. If you give absolute authority to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, it must be obvious they will exert an influence on the Welsh Church that will be more or less alien, and that will be more detrimental to the development of the Church than it is now. Therefore I am very glad that the Home Secretary has not gone any further in that direction. I think his Amendment is important, and it is a very fair and wise arrangement of the problems, and therefore hon. Members opposite will be well advised to accept it. Year by year the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will be free to give what Grants they like within the limits laid down in the Bill, and that leaves it open for the Welsh Church, if it wishes, not to accept certain conditions imposed on it by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and to refuse to accept the Grant for that year. I submit that would allow freedom to the Church in Wales, and would assist it materially from a nationalistic point of view. Of course, it will be open to all kinds of voluntary bodies to assist this fund, but when the right hon. Gentleman talks about breaking the organic unity as if it wore a crime or a great mistake in policy or in intention, I think he is wrong. There will remain, of course, so far as the Welsh clergy and laymen wish and desire, the same kind of association working as there is in other denominations, and they will be able to give assistance in the future as they have done in the past. I simply rose to point out that it is upon the question of having a statutory body to impose on a Disestablished Church that we want to be free, conditions that have been so detrimental in the past; and I would remind the hon. Member for Dudley, who has probably read the history of this agitation in Wales, that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were more responsible than anyone else for the terrible outbursts of feeling that took place in Wales in the 'eighties. It

  1209
  was the methods of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in sending down their auctioneers to sell up Welsh peasants for nonpayment of tithes at a time when the clergy on the spot had consideration for we tenants during bad harvests that created the tithe riots. This association of the Ecclesiastical Commission and the continuation of its power over a spiritual body is, of course, amongst the various things that, in the eyes of the Welsh people, is essentially anti-national.
  Mr. POLLOCK: Surely the arguments put forward by hon. Members opposite are remarkable. The hon. and learned Member for Kingston asked the Home Secretary whether the object under this Clause was to keep the new Church in Wales poor, and the Home Secretary must pardon those on this side if, after having heard his answer, they came to the conclusion that that is the object. In plain language, that is the object of the refusal on his part to accept the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend. The Home Secretary tells us of various views put forward in Wales— of a fear lest there should be some control by the Ecclesiastical Commission and a want of freedom, which would be a loss to the Welsh Church, if these sums continued to be paid. That is the view which is apparently held by those who are the opponents if not the enemies of the Church. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will understand, if there are certain persons in Wales who believe that this control should not be exercised by a large body like the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and that the Church in Wales should not be able to receive the Grant from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the real purpose is to prevent the freedom of the Welsh Church, and not for the avowed purpose of preventing the control by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It is because those who are enemies of the Church desire to see the new Church in Wales established poor and kept poor that this Amendment is being refused. What was the argument advanced by the last speaker? He said, "We hope you will have a new National Church springing up and you will have voluntary subscriptions coming in to help." You will have funds given by the laymen and members of the Church, and these funds can be presented and benefactions made upon conditions which would not be imposed by the queen Anne's Bounty or the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as they have imposed them in the past. You will, in fact, get rid of the imposition of all condi-
  1210
  tions in respect of benefactions, but you will not get rid of the fetter if you accept the benefaction from a particular person or a particular body.
  Let me turn to the argument presented by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. It was curious that he should have fallen into so many errors, because we are accustomed to look for some sort of precision in historical and other knowledge from that source. But when he tells us that this income in the case of Queen Anne's Bounty was originally paid by persons to bodies which are not now the same——
  Mr. E. JONES: As I was not allowed to make my proposition, I do not think the hon. and learned Member should be permitted to proceed with his.
  Mr. POLLOCK: It is difficult to deal with these matters which one wants to controvert when they are put forward as a justification for the argument of the hon. Member, but, of course, I do not wish to go outside the ruling of the Chair.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is true I stopped the hon. Member, but I felt it necessary to allow a reply. Still, I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman does not propose to develop it further.
  Mr. POLLOCK: If you tell me I am not to, I will say no more about it. All I wish to point out is that I differ altogether from the proposition advanced by the hon. Member. I differ from the account of the history of Queen Anne's Bounty which he has adumbrated, and I differ also from the conclusion which he has asked the Committee to adopt in respect of his historical researches and the arguments he advanced. I will leave it there. The hon. Member next, referred to a complaint by the Bishop of St. David's about the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, and ho said that, underlying that complaint as to the conditions imposed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, was the same germ which apparently it was desired to develop and nurture for the purpose of improving the condition of the National Church in Wales. What is that germ? It realty is that no conditions are to be imposed at all, although he admits, or will have to admit, that conditions may be imposed by a private person. And when he finds conditions are imposed by a large body who have under their control a large fund, is he prepared to say that he will stop any money coming from that source? He prays in aid observations by the Bishop

  1211
  of St. David's on quite a different ground, and not at all by way of supporting a Clause in this Bill, to prevent the Ecclesiastical Commissioners giving the sum which they may be minded to give in any particular year. The Home Secretary says he is going to allow an additional sum of £28,000 a year. But he does not mean an additional amount to what he is now giving. His generosity in the direction of giving to the Church an additional sum of £28,000, is mitigated by the fact that he is allowing only so much as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners may be prepared to give up to £28,000; they are to be allowed to give no more. He is prepared to allow a certain sum which shall not go beyond the £28,000, and he declines to allow a great body like the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to have any discretion. What is the real effect of a bargain of that nature? How can one believe these proposals are put forward seriously or with an honest determination to try and do the best possible for this new body in Wales? Can they not trust the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to do their best, and may not the Governors of the Queen Anne's Bounty be trusted to determine how far they can safely go in any one year? They have been able to rule wisely over large possessions for a long period. Cannot we trust them to do as well in the future, and is there any reason for placing a fetter upon their powers? Why cannot they deal with any new situation that may arise? Are they not competent to decide what is good for the well-being of the Church in Wales? The Home Secretary must not mind if we say, in face of such arguments, that the ground for them is not goodwill towards the Church in Wales, but a desire to prevent possible sources of income to that Church which might once more make her powerful among the Churches that exist in the Principality. You would have under the Amendment a simple discretion; but you are taking away all discretion. You are taking away discretion in respect of funds, which are not funds which come from any new sources but which are funds that have been piled up and gradually aggregated during a long period of years, during which the same communion beyond question has held them. They have been aggregated over a period of years during which the continuity of the Church of England in Wales has been allowed, by leading Members on the other side of the House, and now to
  1212
  try and take away the discretion from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and to take away this source of income from the new-Church in Wales, is a policy which can only be desired by those who wish to see that Church poor and unsuccessful. It cannot be desired by those well-wishers of the Church who honestly believe in the essential work of religion and who are anxious to see religion flourish again in the Principality, even though they desire the Disendowment and Disestablishment provided for under this Bill.
  Sir FRANCIS EDWARDS: I have listened with great pleasure to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in answer to the Amendment, and I was glad to find that the Home Secretary was prepared to meet the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) to some-considerable degree. I am bound to say that I should have been more glad if the right hon. Gentleman had been prepared to meet the hon. and learned Member for Kingston in a more complete degree, because I fail to see that any really strong reason can be given for refusing power to the Ecclesaistieal Commissioners to give any Grant that they may wish to do to the Welsh Church when it is Disestablished. The only argument against that was that if that were allowed lo be done the Church would not be in a position of freedom. That argument was answered by my hon. Friend the senior Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Edgar Jones), who pointed out that in the case of any gift which was from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or others, conditions were imposed which were not satisfactory to the Church, it would be perfectly open to the Church to refuse them. That is really the answer to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman can dismiss from his mind any fear of the Welsh Church losing its freedom of action in this matter. I am bound to tell the Committee that it would be a great satisfaction to me if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to go further and allow the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to give such Grants as they choose.
  Mr. EDWARD WOOD: I had hoped that after the appeal of the hon. Member who has just sat down the Home Secretary might have seen his way to alter his opinion a little bit as to the merits of the Amendment, I cannot help feeling that on reflection he will admit, what I think is patent to a good many Members of the

  1213
  Committee, that he has on this occasion fallen into what is, from his own side, rather a weak compromise. What was the real point of the case as stated by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cave)? It was that if these words were retained in the Bill you incurred double and equally undesirable result. In the first place you limit what the hon. Member who has just spoken fully realised to be the reasonable claims that may be made on behalf of the liberty of the Commissioners. On the other hand, according to the Home Secretary, it is undesirable to run the risk of the Church in Wales being under the control of the Church of England. Surely under his compromise these two dangers or undesirable elements remain. Because of these the Home Secretary appears to go some way towards meeting the arguments as to the liberty of the Commissioners, but he only does it grudgingly. If it is an argument worthy of acceptation, it is one that ought to be met unhesitatingly and all the way. There is no justification for saying that we are going to limit the Commissioners so far and no further. With regard to the control of the Church of England over the Church in Wales, so far as there is anything in that argument, the Church in Wales will be just as really controlled by the fact of receiving annual Grants as she would be from receiving Grants in the form of capital or in any other way, quite apart from the fact that it is open to her to refuse them. Assume that the Church authorities in England wish to insist upon something being done by the Church in Wales, which that Church on her own initiative might dislike. It will be far more difficult for her to take her own line, if there is anything in the argument that if she knows that if she goes against the wishes of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners then and there she will lose the Annual Grant, far more than if she had a long term of years in which to review the position and make her own arrangements.
  I wish to turn to the arguments used by the Homo Secretary and the Senior Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Edgar Jones). This is really the kernel of the Debate. The Senior Member for Merthyr Tydvil appealed to us to recognise what I may call, without any offence, the Nonconformist view in Wales. I make the same appeal to him to recognise the Church point of view. I state the Church point of view as follows: That to us—and I do not say it offensively—it does seem an almost unwarrantable impertinence that Welsh
  1214
  Nonconformists should regard it as their concern whether the Church of England does or does not control the Church in. Wales. It is quite immaterial to them, and it is no business of theirs to interest themselves about it. Further than that, when the Senior Member for Merthyr Tydvil develops that argument and goes on to expand it, as he did, I am bound to ask him whether he expects, when this Bill has been passed into law, that he and the Member for Swansea (Sir Alfred Mond), for instance, and the Leader of the Welsh Parliamentary party, are looking forward to administering the fortunes of the representative body. If they are not, I fail to see what concern they have in the funds of the Church after it is Disestablished.
  Mr. E. JONES: I strictly confined my objection to the statutory body.
  Mr. E. WOOD: What concern have you got with what is the effect on the Welsh Church when it is a Disestablished body, when you no longer profess yourselves to-be Churchmen?
  Mr. E. JONES: If you want an answer, I will give it you.
  Mr. E. WOOD: I should like to finish, if I may, then the hon. Member may answer. The whole justification for the Bill is that the Church in Wales is no longer a national Church. If it is not a national Church, what right has Welsh citizens, who are not Churchmen, to concern themselves with its fortunes, good or bad?
  Mr. E. JONES: That is arguing the whole basis of the Bill.
  Mr. E. WOOD: It is because we have not had time to argue the Bill on Second Beading that we are bound to take advantage of these opportunities to do so. In conclusion, I should like to ask the hon. Member what difference there is between the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in England, or, if he likes to put it broadly, between the Church of England, exercising influence or control over the Welsh Church as Disestablished, and the great English Nonconformist body exercising influence and control over the Welsh Nonconformist body? I am well aware what answer the hon. Member is prepared to make; he will say the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are a statutory body.
  Mr. E. JONES: Hear, hear.
  Mr. E. WOOD: But so long as the Ecclesiastical Commission keeps within its statutory powers and within the law, what effect it has on a Disestablished or non-established body in the strict sense is no concern of his. I have been rather led away by the interruptions made by the hon. Member consequent upon his speech. What emerges from the Church point of view is that when the Home Secretary turns to us and expects gratitude because he offers what seems to us a small concession, he must not blame us because we regard it as a small concession, and because we are not overwhelmed by gratitude when we think his whole attitude in this matter is one unwarrantable impertinence and interference in the powers of the Church.
  Mr. R. PEARCE: I deprecate very much the suggestion of the Home Secretary that he should enlarge the small concessions which he has indicated, and I should like to call his attention to the fact that all these little manԓuvres for acquiring more money for the Welsh Church are viewed with great dissatisfaction by Nonconformists and others on this side of the House. I should be glad if the Home Secretary could see his way to returning precisely to the form of the Bill as the utmost he would be willing to do. There are some considerations which have been apparently dropped out of this Debate. The Home Secretary has allowed himself to be somewhat bird-limed by the snares of the fowlers on the other side, who are anxious to retain so much of the property of the Welsh Church for its use. They call it the property of the Welsh Church. Let us examine that proposition for a moment with the help of the hon. and learned, and I might almost say reverend Member, who is so great an authority on Ecclesiastical Law, and who has written A book on it which is very much bigger than the Bible. I appeal to him on the point as to whether the Church has any property at all. I think he will admit, as all those who have studied the subject from a legal point of view must necessarily admit, that the Church is incapable of holding any property, and in that form has none at all, but that all the property is held by minor, subordinate, ecclesiastical corporations. I am quite well aware that the mere suggestion I have made is sufficient for the keen and eager spirits on behalf of property on the opposite side to understand the drift of what I was going to say.
  1216
  Let me put another point. I should like the Home Secretary also, when he is anxious to get this Bill through with something like loyal satisfaction from the other side, to bear in mind that on this side we feel that you cannot hurt the unborn, and when you make provision in the Bill for compensating fully and absolutely every living person who has any kind of interest whatever in the property concerned, you have done all that is required of you by any possibility in the way of justice or fairness or generosity. If you are going to compensate superannuated persons or those whose offices have been suppressed, what you do is to give them pensions calculated upon two-thirds of their income, or something of that sort. But here you are going far beyond that. You are giving to the persons who have vested interests in the Church in Wales full compensation for the rest of their lives for all that they can possibly claim, while they are living from the property which has been enjoyed by the incumbents and others who are interested in it—not the Church, because the Church will get nothing out of it. The congregations and the parishioners get nothing. The parishioners are the real persons who are to be benefited by these changes, and, as I understand it, when once you have compensated all the heirarchy of ministers, patrons, bishops, Archbishops of Canterbury, and other archangels, you have done quite enough, supposing that the property should afterwards come to be disposed of for the benefit of the Welsh people.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member that he is going well beyond the limits of the Amendment.
  Mr. R. PEARCE: As other Members have done, I was only endeavouring to explain the reasons why I feel that this concession of further sums should not be made, and why the Clause itself is ample for the purpose for which it is intended. That can only be done by a general examination of the position, and that is out of order; but I have already indicated what I feel to be the main reason for not going beyond the Clause as it stands, that ample allowance has already been made for everybody concerned.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I should like to enter a protest against the way in which the Home Secretary has treated the Committee by handing us, when the discussion has actually begun, the draft of the Amendments that he proposes to make

  1217
  which alter the whole Clause. I can understand that the overburdened brains of the Cabinet find it hard to keep up with the ever-increasing programme which they desire to impose on the country; but surely a Minister in charge of the Bill could find a few hours before the discussion begins to put them on the Paper, so that we could see them and judge for ourselves suggestions which change the whole spirit of the Clause. The discussion begins, the Home Secretary produces an outline of his proposals, the Paper is handed over to us, and we are supposed to be able to understand and discuss these very important alterations which are made at the eleventh hour. I press on the Government that they ought to accept, without the limitations that they propose in their own alterations, in the spirit if not in the exact words, this Amendment. I can understand that if you are bringing forward a scheme to Disestablish and Disendow the Church in Wales it is a necessary concomitant of your scheme that you shall deal with the property of the Church in Wales. I think it is unjust, but still it is part of the scheme. But this property does not come under that heading at all. It stands on an entirely different footing. Queen Anne's Bounty is a fund derived from the subscriptions of the clergy themselves.
  One hon. Member seemed to think that there was a great distinction to be drawn because he said these contributions came in old days from Roman Catholics instead of Protestants. I fail to appreciate that distinction at all. The Church in Wales at the present day is the Church in Wales as it has always existed. Supposing you you had left a certain amount to a hospital for the purpose of carrying out a particular operation, and in the march of science the disease to which it was adapted was cured, would any sane person suggest that you should take the endowment from the operation because that particular form of operation had ceased to be performed? It was given to the hospital as a whole, just as these contributions came from the ministers of the Church as a whole. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners are a body in England administering in England the funds of the Church. I put this in the name of common sense to hon. Members opposite: Supposing you had a Disestablished and Disendowed Church in Wales, if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners chose to allocate some sum to that Church, what conceivable reason is there why they should not do so,
  1218
  unless the real desire underlying this Bill is to impoverish the Church in Wales, a suggestion which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite will repudiate? Unless that be the plan, I invite those who represent the Government to give one reason founded on justice or common sense why by legislation you should deprive some body who is desirous of assisting that Church from adding to their funds. Because their property is gone, is that a reason why someone should not give them something? the Disestablishment of the Church a reason why the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, if they desire to add to the funds of the Church, should not do it? The hon. Gentleman opposite spoke as if it were a grievance that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are a statutory association. If they have got funds which they desire to give to the Disestablished and Disendowed Church, what does it matter whether the funds come from a statutory association or not? I am afraid the truth of it is that the object which hon. Members opposite have in view is to pass an Act of Parliament which shall prevent anybody, statutory or non-statutory, individual or corporation, from making gifts in future to the impoverished Church. I am driven to that conclusion. I do not wish to state it in any sense offensively, for I hope that hon. Members will see the justice of our contention. I cannot pass without comment the speech we heard from the hon. Member, who used a phrase which, I think, is unique. He described our endeavours on this side of the House to preserve some remnant of the property proposed to be taken away as a manԓuvre for acquiring fresh funds for the Welsh Church. I cannot imagine why this Amendment should be resisted, and why the Clause in its entirety should be insisted upon, unless it is part of what the Solicitor-General with unconscious humour called a generous scheme of Disendowment, I really think that of all the amusing phrases we have heard during the Debates that is the greatest. I suppose that you mean that if you took a man's watch and left the chain you would consider that he had been subjected to a generous scheme of Disendowment. I cannot understand why there is any suggestion at all that the power of those who administer Queen Anne's Bounty and the power of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should be interfered with in any degree. It really is not an affair of Nonconformists at all. How can the existence of this

  1219
  power hurt anybody? It may bring some advantage to the Church which, we fear, will be impoverished in future, and if you desire not to hurt the Church, surely you should leave this power.
  Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: The hon. Member (Mr. Hume-Williams) has directed his eloquent speech against something which is really not involved in this Clause. I feel sure that he cannot have followed the tenor of the speeches delivered on this side if he imagines that we wish to hamper or limit the opportunities of the Disestablished Church, or to prevent it from obtaining money from any source. The hon. and learned Member's argument, if I were to follow it, would prove a great deal too much. I understand that he is quite willing that the Ecclesiastical Commission should give money to the Falkland Islands, the bishop of which is in great distress.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I would leave them what they possess.
  Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: What are the powers which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners possess? Would the leaving out of the words "or power" increase their power? Is the hon. Member clear about that?
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: You are taking it away altogether.
  Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: The series of Statutes dealing with the powers and duties of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners number thirty or forty, and I am very doubtful indeed whether, apart from the express powers given to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty as they appear in the Statutes, they would, after this Bill passes, be able to give any money to the Disestablished Church in Wales.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Then you do not want this Clause.
  Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I am not at all sure that we do not want the Clause. Surely the hon. and learned Member ought to remember that, though a general kind of discussion is going on, the question before the Committee is whether the words "or power" should be left in. He assumes for some reason or other that we are taking a certain attitude in regard to the Disestablished Church. I disclaim that. I am not in a position to give any final decision on the matter, but I express
  1220
  doubt whether, if the words "or power" are left out, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would have power to give the sort of assistance to the Established Church which the hon. Member desires. I attach very little importance to the words "or power. "If they are of little importance, why argue about them? I would like to know what really will be the position if the words "or power" are left out. I have considerable doubt in the matter. All I can say, as a matter of general principle, is that we do not in the least desire to prevent the Disestablished Church from obtaining funds in any proper and legitimate way whatever.
  Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: This is rather a technical point. I think the words "or power" here distinctly limit the powers which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty would otherwise have. I think in the absence of these words there would be full discretion, either for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty, to make payment for any ecclesiastical purpose in or connected with the Church in Wales. That is my view as a lawyer. If, in the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, they have not got the power, these words "or power are pure surplusage. I think myself they seriously limit the power which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty would otherwise have. In reference to that, my objection is, assuming they have the power which heretofore has been attached to them, I think the words ought to be excluded from the Bill in the way the Amendment suggests. Having dealt with the technical point, I want to travel a little further in explaining why I think these words ought not to be included in the Bill. We are dealing here with trust funds. If you are going to misapply trust funds, it is no argument whatever to say that you have dealt with the rights of the existing beneficiaries. It is common ground that what we are dealing with here are trust funds of a public character, and the mere fact of giving compensation to existing beneficiaries does not go to the root of the matter at all. That is only an obvious matter of justice which is done in all cases and leaves open for discussion the question whether public trust funds ought to be alienated or not.
  On that point I can conceive no argument which has been addressed from the other side of the House except one—you are going to constitute a religious body

  1221
  for religious purposes in Wales. I want to ask anybody on the other side of the House whether, when that religious body is constituted, it should not have the widest possible power to take advantage of all funds contributed for its duties, from whatever source they may come? When once you constitute a disestablished body why do you seek to limit its powers as regards the acquisition of funds, given for these bodies? It would be a gross invasion of the rights of any Nonconformist body to do so. Let me take any Nonconformist community, and assume that funds were given to them in order to provide for a resident minister, by what is called a statutory body, and that that statutory body has power to give those funds. Surely it would be a gross injustice for members of the Church of England to intervene and say, "We object to your having those funds, because they come from a statutory body." It does not matter from what body those funds come, if that body has power to give them. What we are thinking of as a religious community is the use of those funds, and what right have members of the Church of England to interfere with such funds given to a Nonconformist community, and what right has any Nonconformist community to object to funds being so given to the new Disestablished religious body in Wales? If once you come to that conclusion on the other side of the House, what is the objection to giving freedom to the new body in Wales to accept funds which anybody with statutory power is willing to give them to carry out their great religious duties?
  I cannot help thinking that the objection comes from the feeling unconsciously—I want to give all proper credit to the other side—that they do not want this new religious body in Wales to be too well off as regards its funds. That being so, I ask lion. Members opposite what possible principle can be adduced why that body should not have the advantage of any funds which any person, corporation or statutory body, is empowered to give? If I have the assent of hon. Members opposite to one of the plainest propositions of freedom, the Disestablished body in Wales is entitled to get its funds from any proper source. Take the other side. Why do hon. Members object to the discretion being in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or the Queen Anne's Bounty? Those are bodies in which they have no direct interest, which are receiv-
  1222
  ing their funds or have funds left to them from old sources which are not questioned at the present moment. The question is, Are those funds to be given entirely to the rest of the Church, the Established Church in England, or may those bodies give them partly to the Established Church in England and partly to the Disestablished Church in Wales. What interests have Nonconformists in that question if they are sincere in their desire that the religious work of this new community in Wales should be carried on in the best possible manner? I can understand their seeking to Disestablish the whole Church or anything of that kind, but what interest have they in deciding whether those funds should be given to the religious community in its Disestablished portion or the religious community in its Established portion when they are given to the religious community from a spiritual and religious point of view?
  How does it stand m the mouth of any Nonconformist to interfere in a question of this kind? If there were any proposal to interfere with any of their Endowments in any way I should be the first to stand by them, and say that such a thing ought not to be done. Come to a simple point. Do not you think that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or the Queen Anne's Bounty are bodies that can be properly trusted? Is it suggested that either of these bodies cannot properly be trusted in a matter of this kind? I have, I think, established three propositions: First, a free religious body should be free to receive religious assistance from any person or statutory body competent and desirous to give it. That is the first principle of religious freedom. Second, that people who are Disestablishing the Church in Wales are not interested in the division of Church funds which are to be used as Church funds, whether for the use of the Disestablished Church or the Established Church. That is not a matter for them. It is a matter for Churchmen and Churchmen only. And, lastly, it cannot be said that great public bodies, existing in one case, that of the Queen Anne's Bounty, for 200 years, and, in the other case, that of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, for eighty years, who have administered their funds according to universal consent in an admirable manner, should be fettered in the future and the discretion taken away which they now have because you Disestablish the Welsh Church. That is an impossible suggestion. The proposals of the Home Secretary in

  1223
  the result are to give a further discretion to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to the extern of £28,000, and a further discretion to the Queen Anne's Bounty to the extent of £3,000. That is as I gather the result of the combined Amendments which have been put down, but I put this further question to hon. Members on the other side. If you are to give a discretion of this kind, why limit it? If it is proper that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should have a discretion up to £28,000, why should you not allow them a general discretion, if you do not want to cripple the religious work of the Church in Wales through poverty? What other reason is there?
  Mr. E. JONES: I gave one reason.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: I did not hear what the hon. Member said, and I have not heard, after carefully listening, any argument which is not answered by the three propositions that I have put—freedom to receive and discretion as regards the funds involved. In any sense of the term they are Church funds; and if they are Church funds, and going to be used for Church purposes, you ought to allow Churchmen to have a discretion as to the way in which those funds are used, and you cannot have any better body than the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty. It appears to me that this is one of those matters in regard to which there seems to exist at the back of the minds of some persons—I am sure it is not in the minds of several hon. Members opposite—a wish to cripple the Church in Wales; but if it is not in their minds to cripple the Church in Wales, they should leave Churchmen to do their best to see that those funds which are at their disposal are used in the way which is of most advantage to their Church as a whole. I beg the Government to reconsider this provision, and I hope they will agree to the elimination of these words.
  Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite seemed to dismiss the point which I suggested, and since I spoke I have got the Statute, 3rd and 4th Victoria, Section 57, which deals with the mode of applying the revenue at the disposal of the Commissioners. It expressly provides, at some length:—
  "Provision shall be made by the authority hereinafter provided for the
  1224
  cure of souls in parishes where such assistance as is most required in such a manner as shall by the like authority be deemed most conducive to the efficiency of the Established Church."
  By Clause 1 of this Bill we have already Disestablished the Church so far as it exists in Wales. The point I am putting is that save and so far as this Clause in the proviso part of it gives power to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, any power, except some power already exercised in respect of which the yare under a liability, will cease, because the Church is no longer Established in Wales. That was my point, but the hon. and learned Member rather dismissed it as though there was nothing in it.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: It is a technical matter, in regard to which I do not propose to enter into an argument. I think the expression "Established Church" there means, after the Establishment was created, and that would include both Wales and England. That is my view, which I give in answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I am not going to discuss the technical or legal point.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. MOUNT: Two speeches were made, one by the hon. Member for Radnorshire (Sir F. Edwards) and the other by the hon. Member for Swansea District (Sir D. Brynmor Jones), the first of whom urged the Government to accept the Amendment, and the second of whom apparently attached to it no importance whatever. We have also had two other speeches from Members on the back benches opposite, and I venture to suggest that both of them were to a large extent labouring under a misapprehension as to what exactly this Amendment does. One hon. Gentleman apparently thought that this money was coming from other sources, and the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. E. Jones) seemed to think the money from Queen Anne's Bounty is money which was originally given to the Roman Catholic Church. He has entirely forgotten the fact that Queen Anne's Bounty was only started in 1703, a long time after the Reformation date which is put into this Bill. After all, what are the arguments in favour of this proposal on behalf of the Government? Is it in any way going to help or further the Church, or make the task of the Church am- lighter? Anyone who has followed at all the history of the Grants which have been made by the

  1225
  Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty to the Church must have realised that it has been no small advantage to the Church that those two bodies have both been able to make their Grants with perfect freedom to choose the object to which to give and the amount to be given. One of the great advantages of having an absolutely free hand with regard to the amount—which neither the Ecclesiastical Commissioners nor Queen Anne's Bounty will have if this Amendment be defeated— is that they will be able, as they have been able in the past, to induce the giving of Grants by private persons for the purpose of assisting a benefice or incumbency; whereas, otherwise, if the amount were stereotyped, they might not be able to do so. You get a double advantage in that way from any Grants that may be made by one of these statutory bodies.
  This proposal, as it stands in the Bill, would fix and stereotype the amount. What reason is there for thinking that the amounts now given by those two bodies are amounts which will in future be otherwise than reasonable and sufficient? We have been told by hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite, and, I think, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, that there is a great change coming in the religious life of Wales. We have been told that there is a great change in the Nonconformist bodies, and we know, from what has been said by speakers on this side and also by speakers on the other side, that there is a great increase in the Church throughout Wales. What possible reason is there for thinking that the £28,000 will be sufficient in the future? Even if we look at Wales itself, no one who knows that country at all can doubt that there is going on, in certain parts of the Principality at any rate, an enormous increase of the population. It is more than likely that there will be a large increase of Church work and a large amount required from those two bodies, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty, in order to help the Church in Wales. The hon. Member for Swansea asked us to appreciate the grounds of the arguments on the other side with regard to this Bill. I think we do. I certainly have heard a good deal from the other side, and I have listened with a good deal of attention to the Debates that have taken place. I do not want to deal with the matter in a controversial spirit, but I think it is fair to state that the arguments of the other
  1226
  side are founded on the belief that the money Endowments with which we are dealing are national property, and that this is Welsh money which ought to be devoted to Welsh purposes for the Welsh people. With regard to this Amendment, it is not Welsh money with which we are dealing, but English money coming from English sources, and not from Welsh sources. Are you not going to allow the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to make use of this money in any way in which they wish to do so, and to give it out as they think it is most wanted by the impoverished Welsh Church? Hon. Members opposite are very fond of saying that they have no wish whatever to hurt the Church or to do anything that would make the task of the Disestablished Church more difficult in the future. Having regard to the attitude which is adopted by Members opposite on Amendments such as this, and that they are refusing this very small request which we make, it it very difficult to believe they are sincere when they say they are animated not with the object of hurting the Church, but freeing it from the 'shackles which bind it.
  Mr. KING: This Debate does not seem to me to have been particularly interesting or very illuminative.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: It will be interesting now.
  Mr. KING: I observe that there are ten other Amendments on the Paper, and my study of them leads me to think they are all more important, and yet more than half of our time on these two Clauses has been devoted to what seemed to me to be mean little Amendments put forward in rather a mean spirit.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is it in order to discuss other Amendments on this Amendment?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think it would save time if the hon. Member would come immediately to the Amendment before the Committee.
  Mr. KING: I will come straight to the point. This Amendment proposes to leave out the words "or power, "and to leave in the word "liability" —that is, all liabilities are to cease, but the powers are to continue. Anyone of us would be very glad to have all our liabilities come to an end and all our powers to continue. In effect, what we are asked to do is to give the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in their dealing with the Queen Anne's Bounty a perfectly free hand. I object to giving any-

  1227
  body a free hand, and especially I object to giving gentlemen a free hand who have got the control of money belonging to my countrymen, for, mark you, Queen Anne's Bounty is national property. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Then I shall have, to go back on the question. Did not Queen Anne's Bounty originally belong to the Pope, and was it not taken away from him by Act of Parliament, and was it not given to the Crown by Act of Parliament, and when one of the monarchs of England had at last a tender conscience and wanted to give it up, did they not pass another Act to give it back to the Church? The tender conscience of Queen Anne gave the money to the Church and taxed her faithful subjects. That is the position up to the present time, and I say, without any hesitation or doubt, that Queen Anne's Bounty is national property.
  The Ecclesiastical Commissioners are under the control of Statutes which we may alter, and we have a perfect right to say that even if their liabilities in certain directions may cease their powers are very distinctly to be decided by the House of Commons. I am, therefore, totally unable to see why the very generous offer that was made from the Front Bench as soon as this Amendment was moved was received in such a carping and mean spirit. It was a generous offer, and ought to have been received in greater largeness of heart. We had one Member after another getting up and telling us that this was nothing else but unwarranted impertinence. One hon. Member said that it showed our only object on this side was to prevent any gifts of any kind being given to an impoverished Church. Have those who said so studied the Bill, because I am perfectly certain they do not understand it if they maintain that the Church is to be prevented according to our Bill from receiving any gifts. If any of the Noble Lords who have inherited land which was taken from the Church and settled upon them by Act of Parliament were to offer to give up those lands to the Disestablished Church then the whole machinery is there for the Disestablished Church to receive it. I do not want to detain the Committee from getting on to more important Amendments.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I really do not understand why the hon. Member if he thinks there are other more important Amendments, thought it necessary to say anything on this Amendment at all. Surely
  1228
  he might have passed it over with silence, as he regards it as so unimportant. From what he did say I can only imagine that once again he left his speech behind when he caught your eye, because really he appeared entirely to misunderstand the question. He objected to anybody being left with full powers over national property. Putting aside for the moment the question whether it is national property or not does he not see that they have got full powers now? All that is proposed is that they shall have the same powers in future as they have at the present time. Does the hon. Member really contend that the Queen Anne's Bounty Fund, which is formed out of the savings drawn from the first fruits and tenths paid to the clergy since the year 1703, can in any sense ever have belonged to the Pope?
  Mr. KING: In the earlier part of the Debate the Noble Lord, the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) almost said as much.[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I am sure my Noble Friend never said anything of the kind. I put it to the hon. Member as a man of plain common intelligence, inasmuch as all the funds belonging to Queen Anne's Bounty at the present time are the result of savings out of income which have been contributed by the clergy of the Church of England since 1703, how could any part of the present funds ever have belonged to the Pope? The matter has only got to be stated for even the hon. Member to see the absurdity of his own contention. What we have to deal with is a fund which, under the provisions of the Bill, taking the date 1662, suggested by the Government themselves, ought not under any proper construction of the Bill to be regarded as a modern private benefaction. To talk about its being national property is entirely to misconceive the character of the Queen Anne's Bounty Fund. But I do not wish to speak about what the hon. Member said; I want to make another appeal to the Government to accept this Amendment. For the life of me I cannot understand why they do not accept it, even taking their own position as regards the Bill. Accepting that the Church is to be Disestablished and Disendowed in the manner proposed, why do they deny to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty full right to make such Grants as they choose, either greater or smaller than, or the same as the Giants they make now, out of English

  1229
  very inconclusive. One was that the Church in Wales might cease to be in communion with the Church of England; and the other was that he objected to the English Church my means of these funds controlling the policy of the Church in Wales. The hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. E. Jones) elaborated the latter argument, and objected very strongly from the Welsh point of view to any control exercised by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or by Queen Anne's Bounty over any portion of the money or the general ecclesiastical policy of the Church in Wales. Surely, those are matters which had far better be decided by members of the Church.
  If Churchmen in Wales do not object to having these funds "with any consequent control that they may bring, what does it matter to the Home Secretary or to the hon. Member for Merthyr if there is that amount of control? They do not belong to the Church; they are not bringing in this Bill for the benefit of the Church. What they are doing is to strike a very heavy blow at the Church. That is what every Churchman believes, including many on the other side of the House, as was shown by their votes last Friday. In these circumstances it is really idle for the Home Secretary or the hon. Member for Merthyr to tell us that they do not want this additional money because it would entail extra control.
  Mr. EDGAR JONES: We do not press the matter very much one way or the other, but I stated the view which Welsh people have taken.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Will you vote for the Amendment?
  Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: If you do not press it, why do you oppose the Amendment? In any case, can you answer for the Home Secretary? It was his argument with which I was dealing. Is not this a matter for Churchmen? If we—by "we" I mean Churchmen in England and Churchmen in Wales; I am voicing the opinion of all—do not object to such control provided you give Queen Anne's Bounty and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners the right to give such money as they choose and can afford to poor parishes in Wales, surely it is for us to say and not for the Member for Merthyr or for the Home Secretary? Therefore I appeal to the Home Secretary to withdraw his objection
  1230
  to the Amendment. The position is a very extraordinary one. What are you proposing to do by this Clause 1 First of all, you take away from the Church in Wales all the money vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty which is ascertained to be Welsh ecclesiastical property. You then proceed to give back or to give power to give back to the Church in Wales those sums which are now paid over by these two bodies from English sources. The proposal is utterly inconsistent with the whole tenor and object of the Bill. This Church in future is not to be Established, it is not to be called national, and yet it is to be supported by money which comes from an Established and a National Church. The Church in Wales, because it is to be Disestablished and not to be regarded as national is not to have any right to Welsh property, but it is to have a right to English property coming from the English Church, which remains Established and national. The position is an extraordinary one, but if the Government grant it, and we accept it as far as it goes, why do they not make it logical and allow these two bodies to give as much as they are prepared to give? I cannot say what the objection is. The discretion exists now; why should it not exist in the future?
  The Government, and their supporters entirely misconceive the position and objects of the Ecclesiastical Commission and Queen Anne's Bounty. These are central bodies, controlling central funds for the common purposes of the Church in England and in Wales. There was never any distinction drawn between the two; neither was there any distinction drawn between the four Welsh dioceses and the remaining English dioceses, nor between one English diocese and another. The Ecclesiastical Commission and Queen Anne's Bounty are equalising bodies, giving Grants in necessitous cases, or to what might be termed necessitous areas. By the Bill the Government are proceeding to dismember the Church. The Home Secretary has justified that on the ground that you cannot Disestablish in Wales, and not in England, without some form of dismemberment. I suppose that that is so, but that is a very strong argument against the Bill. If it is necessary to dismember by cutting off the four Welsh dioceses, I fail to see why you need carry dismemberment any further by dividing up the Ecclesiastical Commission and Queen Anne's

  1231
  Bounty. Why not leave these bodies as central bodies to assist poor parishes in either part of the Church, either in England, where it remains Established, or in Wales, where it will be Disestablished, in precisely the same position as they are at present? It does not offend against any principle in the Bill. You admit that English money may be used for Welsh purposes under Disestablishment, but you deny to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty the freedom of control that they would naturally wish to have. You take certain existing Grants, adding a certain sum—£28,000 a year in the case of the Ecclesiastical Commission and £3,000 in the case of Queen Anne's Bounty—and then you stereotype it. That is how you arrive at the difference in this Bill as compared with the last Bill. Why stereotype it? Why say they must give that sum, or why say they must not give any more than that sum? If you admit the principle that English money may be used after Disestablishment for the benefit of the Church in Wales, why not carry the principle to its logical conclusion and say that the Commissioners are to have an absolutely free hand, exactly as they have at the present time? Look how unfair the position may be. We all know, in the case, at all events, of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, that their property has greatly grown in value in recent years. They have been very able financiers. They have husbanded their resources. They have managed their property uncommonly well. What has been the result?
  Their funds have grown largely. They have been able to make additional Grants all over the country; augmenting the stipends of the poorer livings. In the next fifty years, say, the funds may still further grow—that is, the funds that they are left in possession of after this Bill is parsed. At the same time they may find themselves that whereas the Church of England is comparatively well provided for, yet there is frightful poverty in the Church in Wales. They may find that in many of the parishes the passing of this Bill will make it impossible to maintain resident clergy; a matter which is all the more serious because in very many parishes in Wales the clergyman is now the only resident minister there is. If their funds grow, and there is this terrible poverty in the case of the Church in Wales,
  1232
  why on earth should not some of this additional surplus which they may have be devoted to assist the struggling Church in Wales, and to enable that Church to maintain resident clergy? For the life of me I cannot see why the Government do not accept this Amendment. I hope, after all, they will do so, and so enable us to make the Bill a little more equitable than otherwise it would be.
  Mr. McKENNA: A very strong appeal has been made by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and that appeal has-been supported by one of my hon. Friends behind me. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea District has, speaking, I understand, on behalf of certain Welsh Members and himself, said that the subject was a matter of more or less indifference to him.
  Mr. E. JONES: That is only the Amendment.
  Mr. McKENNA: That is what I am speaking to; but the Amendment is not quite so simple as it appears at first sight. In the first place, even if these words were struck out of the Clause they would not of themselves, as I am advised, have the effect which hon. Gentlemen opposite wish. However, that is a point which might easily be put right by setting up other words. As to the merits of the Amendment, the hon. Gentleman wishes that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should have unrestricted power to give out of English funds such money as they please to the Church which is no longer an Established Church.
  Sir A. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: And Queen Anne's Bounty, too!
  Mr. McKENNA: The same principle applies to both of the funds. Frankly, I tell the Committee that I am not in a position to accept this Amendment, no matter what expression of views there might be upon this aspect of the subject. I should like, in the first place, to consult the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It is not at all clear to me that they are entirely willing that their liberty as trustees in this matter should be unrestricted. I may be mistaken, but I am under the impression from communications that have passed—these may have led me erroneously to think what I do—but they have led the question to be raised in my mind, and to give me the impression, that the Commissioners are not anxious to have such an enlargement of their powers in dealing with their trust

  1233
  funds as will enable them to give to Welsh purposes, or to a Disestablished Church, funds which they might conceive should be held to meet a stronger claim put forward on behalf of poor English dioceses. I could not accept the Amendment without further consultation with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. But, in view of this Debate, if I am hereafter advised by the Commissioners and by the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, that they are anxious to have unrestricted powers to pay out of their English resources such funds as may be pleaded for, and as they may think fit to grant to the Welsh Disestablished Church—if I am provided with an assurance from the Commissioners and the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty that this proposal is made at their desire and not merely with their acquiescence — I should be prepared to accept it on Report. I hope the Committee will understand that I do not feel myself justified at the present moment in putting the Commissioners into a position in which they might, immediately after Disestablishment, have great. claims made upon them on the grounds of the special circumstances of the Welsh Church—claims they might have difficulty in meeting having regard to their duties to the English Church. For that reason I hope the Committee will be satisfied with the suggestion I have made. The Commissioners have representatives in this Houses. After they have consulted with the body whom they represent, if they assure me that it is their wish that this Amendment should be made, I shall be willing to make it on Report.
  Mr. E. JONES: May I put just one question to the Home Secretary? Will he keep an open mind as to whether any payment will be by way of perpetual annuity on annual Grant?
  Mr. McKENNA: Annual Grant, of course, in any circumstances. I understand that the Commissioners in no case would be willing to give a perpetual annuity.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I have listened to the speech of the Home Secretary with great astonishment. I thought the first speech of the right hon. Gentleman on this Amendment had really reached the limit of what a Minister might say in answer to the Amendment, but the second speech really appears to me to have gone beyond the limit. What does he tell us? He tells us that he dare not as a Minister give the
  1234
  power to a body like the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to go on spending their money in the way they have spent it up to the present time. He says that to do such a thing might conceivably put them in the awful position that they would be pressed beyond measure by claims from Wales; which they would not be able—being so' feeble a body!—to resist; or to do their duty in connection with. They might therefore be driven to commit a breach of trust! I cannot conceive that that was really seriously put before the Committee. Had the Commissioners protested violently against it, I agree, that might conceivably be a reason for not giving them the power. But to say that unless they actually desire that power the right hon. Gentleman will not give it to them, appears to me to be absolutely futile and ridiculous. Is this Clause-put in at the desire of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners? Not at all! The right hon. Gentleman put it in because he thought it carried out his policy. If he thinks, and if the House of Commons thinks, it right that the Commissioners should have this power, then I myself am strongly of opinion that we ought to put it in, without reference to whether the Commissioners desire it or not. After all, does not this throw a light on what the Home Secretary said previously? What was then the reason? It was that the only reason against this Amendment was that it might give to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners an undue control over the Church in Wales.
  Let the Committee consider what the argument really means. It means if you empower the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to give money to poorer incumbents of the Church in Wales they might use that power to drive the Welsh Church to neglect their duty. That is an opinion which is said to be held very largely in Wales. What an opinion Welshmen must have of their fellow countrymen! That is the kind of thing they come to the House of Commons and say about their own fellow countrymen. I should be ashamed to say such a thing about any of my fellow countrymen. What an absurdity it is! They are to be allowed under the Bill to give £28,000 a year. Welsh morality can stand a bribe of £28,000, but if the amount is carried beyond that then it is too much to expect Welsh Ecclesiastical morality to stand! I never heard a more outrageous, or dreadful argument put before the House of Commons than that, and I must say

  1235
  that is almost too much for the hon. Member for Merthyr, and he is driven by force to say that he does not care very much about this Amendment, and would not quarrel with the Home Secretary if he were to accept it. But the Home Secretary says he cannot accept it because he is not quite sure the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would desire it. I think this illustrates the kind of condition the House of Commons is put in when working under the guillotine. No Minister would venture to make such a speech if we were working under the ordinary rules of Debate. He would know his own party, however servile, would not back him up in such a course. I venture to think this shows the utter falsity and unreality of our discussion upon this Bill in these particular conditions, and if my hon. Friend presses the Amendment I shall certainly support him in the Division Lobby.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: This is a very small matterv——
  Viscount WOLMER: No, no.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: That is my opinion, and I hope the Noble Lord will allow me to express my own opinion. In my view it is a very small matter, but it is a considerable matter inasmuch as it shows how the Opposition act upon any concession made to them by the Government. What is the position? In the Bill of 1895 and in the Bill of 1909 no power at all was given either to Queen Anne's Bounty or to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to differentiate between the English fund or the Welsh fund. The Government in introducing this Bill go out of their way, as the Home Secretary put it, to be perfectly fair to the Church, and they said this: "It is not fair that we should not differentiate between the sources or the origin of these moneys, if the moneys are derived from Wales they should come under the operations of this Bill; if the moneys come from England, as this Bill does not relate to England, these moneys should not, therefore, come under the operations of this Bill;" and that is all the Bill proposes to do, except this. In their anxiety to be perfectly fair to the Church in Wales, they say that as the Church has been in the habit of accepting certain moneys from English sources, both from Queen Anne's Bounty and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, we are not going to put a bar or obstacle in
  1236
  subsidies from these bodies. Nothing could be fairer, I submit, than the proposal contained in the Bill. Then an Amendment was proposed by the hon. and learned Member for South Bucks (Sir Alfred Cripps) in regard to that provision. He says, "It is grossly dishonest that you should at one step rob the Church of Wales, and then, in order to make up for the impoverishment you yourselves bring about, you allow the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to come to England to make up the money caused by your depredation. "That was the argument proposed to the Committee earlier in the afternoon by the hon. and learned Member, and I suppose he still adheres to that view. No sooner is a Division taken upon that point, and no sooner has the Committee decided against it, than an hon. Member opposite moves another Amendment to make the dishonesty still grosser. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Oh, yes, because hon. Members opposite say there are different sees and parishes that steadily require £68,000 a year to be given out of the English fund.
  Sir A. CRIPPS: The point I made was that the dishonesty consists in first robbing the Established Church and then endeavouring to make up the losses in that way.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: That we were robbing in double—first, robbing the Church in Wales, and then robbing the Church in England to make up our depredations. That was the argument. What is it this Amendment proposes to do? It is not sufficient that we should rob or enable the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to rob the English Church of £68,000 a year, but we must by this Amendment empower them to rob the English Church for the benefit of the Church we robbed in Wales to a still larger extent than £68,000. That just shows the character of the opposition to this Bill. I urge my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to take note of this for his future guidance. For my own part I say at once that I do not attach very much importance to the Amendment. It is those who take the view that the hon. Member for South Bucks takes who should object to it. I do not object to the Amendment very strongly if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners accept it, but I should have thought that anyone taking the view of the hon. and learned Member for Bucks should object to it very strongly. Let me

  1237
  say a word as to what has fallen from hon. Gentlemen opposite, and especially the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen), especially with regard to Queen Anne's Bounty. He seems to think—and it is the view of several Gentlemen on the opposite side—that Queen Anne's Bounty is not national property. Let me remind the Committee of what the real facts are. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that because the income of Queen Anne's Bounty is derived from tenths, whatever its origin, it is no longer national income. You might as well say that tithes are not national income because the tithe is paid yearly, and that because once there is no produce taken from a farm it is no longer tithable; therefore you might say that tithes are not national property because they depend on the labour of the people year by year.
  What is the real story of Queen Anne's Bounty? The tenth and first fruits were paid by the clergy, but out of national property. It was a charge upon their property. I say it is national property in the same sense that the Tithe is national property. I agree, hon. Members opposite do not agree that it is national property, and therefore we agree to differ, but if you accept the view that Tithe is national property, and that glebe is national property, you must accept the view that Queen Anne's Bounty is national property. The tenths and first fruits were paid by the clergy to the Pope up to the time of Henry VIII. The Pope on many occasions made Grants of tenths and first fruits to the Crown, but as I reminded the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin, in the twenty-sixth year, I think, of the reign of Henry VIII., tithes and first fruits were ordered to be paid no longer to the Pope but to the Civil List of the King. It is all very well to say it was paid to the Privy Purse of the King, but anyone who knows anything about the way the Government was carried on in England at that time knows that the expenses of his establishment were defrayed out of the private pocket of the King.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman is going into a rather general discussion. I must ask him to confine his remarks to the Amendment before the Committee.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: From the time of Henry VIII. to the time of Queen Anne the tithe was enjoyed by the
  1238
  King as part of his Civil List, and then the funds were diverted to the use of the Church. Why should an Act of Parliament be required unless in those days the tenths and first fruits were looked upon as national property? From that date to this Parliament has looked upon these funds as national property exactly as they looked upon tithes or any other national property enjoyed by the Church. Therefore, I see no reason to differentiate between tenths and first fruits and the rest of the Endowments held by the Church. May I urge the Government to adhere closely to their Bill. They have thought this Bill out, and thought it out well. They have had the advantage of having prepared two other Bills, one in 1895 and one in 1909, and after full deliberation they decided that this is the best form of Bill they could produce. The arguments which have been urged by the other side for the acceptance of this Amendment left me at all events unconvinced, and I urge the Government not only on this, but on other occasions, to think twice and thrice before they depart from the path which they have mapped out for themselves, because if they depart from that path they will only earn the derision of the Opposition, and something like the contempt of their own side.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I regret the absence of the Home Secretary at this stage.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: May I say that the Home Secretary was bound to go away to attend to some urgent Papers. Anything the right hon. Gentleman says I will convey to my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: We heard a surprising speech from the Home Secretary, but we have just had an even more extraordinary speech from the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. L. Williams). That speech may be divided into three sections. The first was an admonition and rebuke to the Opposition for the way in which they have done what they conceive to be their duty under the tyrannical conditions of the guillotine. Secondly, there was a fervid exhortation to the Government not to listen to a single word said in the Debate even under these conditions; and the third section was that in which he worked himself up to rhetorical frenzy over the word "national" as applied to any property which he wishes to divert from its present owners. Both in regard to his admonition and rebuke of the Opposition and his exhortation of the Government, neither the

  1239
  one nor the other were permissible or even logical from a man of culture, except on the supposition that he thinks everybody ought to assume his position in regard to a debateable matter of this kind. He has done nothing to relieve the Committee from the very difficult position in which it is placed and which is almost unparalleled. What has happened? We have been asked during the earlier part of the Debate to take an intelligible course, and then we have been told that perhaps after all we need not take that course for a still more unintelligible reason. If the Home Secretary contented himself by saying that before definitely undertaking to give way to what is obviously the general sense of the Committee, he thought it only right and proper to state the case to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, that would have shown a due regard for a properly constituted authority, but the right hon. Gentleman said "No, I am going to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to ask them if they earnestly desire that this Amendment shall be accepted by the Government."
  Could there be anything more fatuous on the part of the Home Secretary than the course he has suggested? When his Welsh supporters tell him he must give way to the force of reason, he says that he only intends to ask the Ecclesiastical Commissioners whether they are enthusiastically in favour of this Amendment. The Home Secretary ought to have a saving sense of humour before he plunges a Committee of this House into such a ridiculous position. Nobody has opposed the Amend-on its merits. It was evident from the Division last Friday that a number of the supporters of the Government were opposed to these proposals, and that they intended by hook or by crook, or by any device they could adopt, to minimise the injury which these proposals would do to the Church in Wales. To-day we have gone a step further and two Welsh Members have stated that property given from Welsh sources ought not to be given to a Church which they do not think is national enough, and from that point of view they urge the Government to give way. The Home Secretary's point of view is totally unintelligible. He says that where property comes from Welsh sources it must be taken away from the Church in Wales because the Church is not national enough, but where it comes from other sources in England it may well be given to the Disestablished Church in Wales. The whole position is ludicrous, and the Government
  1240
  are basing their case upon grounds which are incapable of argumentative defence. The Home Secretary has for some hours resisted an Amendment which the general sense of the Committee desire him to-accept, and, for reasons which I will investigate perhaps at a future time, he feels justified in violating all the principles on which he put forward the Government case, and then says, "You may violate them to that point and no further." You may take the common Endowments of the Church, the common funds spoken of in this Clause, and you may allocate them in perpetuity, but only on certain dates and only up to a certain amount. Really, out of all the fog and bewilderment into which the Government plunges us one fact does emerge, and that is that this is not a Welsh Bill, but a Bill which taps the common resources of the Church throughout England as much as Wales. It collects money for those parishes, wherever they be situated. That is one thing that is apparent. The other thing that calls for comment is that we are given the promise of the allocation of funds in perpetuity under a Clause which is to destroy Parliamentary Grants given by this House within a century.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I should like the Committee to consider what the real position is in this matter, because I think we have rather strayed away from it. It is urged that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would have the power to grant funds to the Disestablished Church in Wales, but before they can grant funds it is just as well to consider from where those funds are to come and what are the duties of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in this matter. I think we are entitled, first of all, to ask whether in future the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will have any excess funds at their disposal which they could give. There has been a marked hesitation on the part of Ecclesiastical Commissioners who sit in this House to give us any indication at all whether there are any funds at their disposal which with all the goodwill in the world they could give to the Disestablished Church in Wales beyond the £28,000 which they now allot. We have no guidance on that at all. We have had no sort of hint or indication that they are in a position to do that which the Opposition consider they should have the right to do.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: They have got it now.
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am arguing upon the question whether they have funds or not to give beyond the £28,000. That, after all, is the most important point. It is no use saying to them, "You may give" unless you know perfectly well they have anything to give. The first point to establish before granting them the power is that they have anything on which they can exercise that power, and not one word was said by the right hon. Gentleman on that point. He very skilfully, and, if I may say so, very wisely evaded the whole of that issue. What has happened do the past? In the first place, people have offered benefactions to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, either for the Church in Wales or for the Church in England, because they were the one body to which persons desirous of increasing the revenues of the Established Church could go, and which could take charge of those funds, deal with them from generation to generation, and dispose of them in accordance with the wishes of the Church. That will be no longer so in future. Hitherto, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have represented both the Church in Wales and the Church in England. In future the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will remain for the Church in England, and you will have a representative body who will be in a position to take charge of any funds which generous and religious-minded people may wish to give for the benefit of the Disestablished Church in Wales. That essential and governing fact must be borne in mind. Hereafter, you will have a body created by charter in existence, ready and able to receive anything which people sufficiently well off and sufficiently well disposed may be desirous of contributing, and to take charge of any funds. You come back to this, that the power under this Amendment must have reference to any funds which are now in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to distribute. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Bucks (Sir A. Cripps) answered that argument by way of anticipation when he told the Committee he was exceedingly 10th to use any funds which are drawn from the revenues of the Church in England for the benefit of the Disestablished Church in Wales. I venture to say the position taken up by the Opposition in rejecting the offer made by the right hon. Friend is not wise, and from the point of view of the Disestablished Church in Wales is not judicious. They have from the point of view of the Established Church in Eng-
  1242
  land already by anticipation condemned the terms of this Amendment. Let me in the unavoidable absence of my right hon. Friend repeat the offer which he made. He said he must consult the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners in this respect have not only powers, but they have duties. They are the trustees for the funds which are in their hands, and to say to trustees, "You are not to be consulted as to whether or not you should do anything disposing of the funds now in your hands," is, I think, a very wrong view of the duties and responsibilities of such scheme. My right hon. Friend has said he makes this offer subject to the condition there shall not be merely agreement by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but there shall be a plain and decided expression of opinion. On their part they desire this power to be granted to them, and on that condition and on that understanding alone he will accept the Amendment on Report.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down began by asking—and by complaining that the question had been evaded by a previous speaker whether, if this power were left in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, they have any funds out of which to exercise it. There is no Member in this House who has less right to ask that question, because the right hon. Gentleman has been an Ecclesiastical Commissioner himself; not only so, but he was on the Estates Committee, and he knows perfectly well that their income, their property, and their assets, with such valuation as can be placed upon them, are annually laid upon the Table of the House for the inspection of the public and Members of the House. To ask them to say whether twenty, thirty, forty, or possibly fifty years hence they are going to be in possession of funds out of which to make certain Grants is just as if you were to ask any other landowner what he expects to be the condition of his income, urban, mineral, or purely agricultural, at any distant period such as that. For the purpose of the present discussion, my assumption is that this Amendment will have some real effect. I believe the draftsman would not have put words into this Clause if the leaving out of them would not have had some effect. I have to make one or two observations. The first is that this Amendment raises a matter as to public policy which is not proper to be decided by the Ecclesiastical

  1243
  Commissioners alone. The right hon. Gentleman has fallen into some confusion on that — a confusion which constantly prevails amongst people, namely, that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners know better as to the rights and wrongs of policy as distinct from questions of propriety of administration—quite another matter. I have every reason to suppose that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will meet this suggestion made by the Home Secretary, and if powers are left to them they will do their best to see that those powers are properly exercised. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will imagine there is something in reserve in what I have said. It is only due to the Commissioners that I should say this. We do not want, if we are left these powers, to be asked also to say it is a kindness to any one of the Churches in England or in Wales or to religious persons anywhere in England or Wales, to allow us to give to the Disestablished and partly Disendowed parishes in Wales something which is seriously wanted by the English Churches.
  Viscount WOLMER: The attitude we have taken up in this Debate is that full liberty should be given to the Church of England to give such assistance as is necessary and as she is able to give her fellow Church in Wales. We object, first, to the proposal brought forward by the Home Secretary because we object to dismemberment in any shape or form, whenever and wherever it may occur. We desire to preserve the unity of administration and organisation between the Churches in England and Wales wherever we can. I submit if hon. Members opposite are really desirous to let the Church down as lightly as possible and to facilitate the Church accommodating herself to the new position of affairs, that will help forward the work of the Church and not hinder it, and in that point of view they would accept the Amendment at once. It simply is an Amendment designed to enable the Church to use her money in the best possible manner as the necessities and opportunities of the moment may determine. The hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs apparently has not taken the trouble to listen to our speeches or to read even the Amendment, because he drew a contrast between the speech of the lion. Member for Buckinghamshire and the speeches of hon. Members on this side of the House. The hon. and
  1244
  learned Member for Buckinghamshire objects to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Governors of the Queen Anne's Bounty being called upon to give a lump capital sum to the Church in Wales because in future years that money may be much more needed for poor parishes in dioceses in England. What we are asking for now is that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Queen Anne's Bounty should at all times have full and absolute liberty to give as much money as they think right for the assistance of parishes of the Church in Wales. That is a principle to which we attach the greatest importance. We were accused of a lack of generosity in the way in which we have dealt with the Home Secretary's second suggestion. I should like to explain that we object to the shuffling arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman throughout the whole of the Debate. He first came down to the House and said it was necessary to limit the amount which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty could give to the Church in Wales, because if they had power to give a greater amount, they might be able to bribe the Church in Wales to do something which it ought not to do. Then he came down a few hours later proposing to give unlimited power to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners if they ask for it and if they really wanted it. The two arguments were mutually inconsistent. I should like to protest against the first argument which the right hon. Gentleman used—the argument that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners might be expected to bribe the Church in Wales to do something she ought not to do, or might have undue influence over the representative body of the Church in Wales. That argument was insulting both to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and to Churchmen in Wales. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine that the Church in Wales has suffered from her association with the province of Canterbury, and will immediately proceed to alter her doctrines and form some creed for herself. Whether that is so I do not know. I have noticed that right hon. Gentlemen opposite are often under the impression that the Church is in need of self-government in order that she may alter her doctrine. I can assure hon. Members opposite that that is the last thing in the minds of Churchmen. The doctrines of the Church have lasted for 900 years, and are likely to last, at any rate during our lifetime. There is not

  1245
  the slightest prospect of any divergence of doctrine between the Church in England and the Church in Wales, and to insinuate that the Church in England would try to exercise undue influence in such matters over the Church in Wales is an argument which, I submit, is more or less an insult to the whole Church. I desire to refer to one remark made by the hen. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs with regard to Queen Anne's Bounty. I should like to call attention to his argument. I understood him to say that Queen Anne's Bounty was originally national property, and that it was a gift from the Crown to the Church confirmed by Act of Parliament.
  Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: What I said was that as these tenths and first-fruits were diverted to the King's Civil List by Act of Parliament, it was admitted that they were national property which could be disposed of by Parliament.
  Viscount WOLMER: I understood the hon. Member's argument was that this property, before it belonged to the Crown, was national property; that it was voted to the Crown by Act of Parliament, and that the Crown and Parliament transferred it to the Church, and therefore that it was still national property. I should like to contrast that attitude with the general attitude of hon. Members opposite with regard to national property. Although a minor point, it is a very interesting one. We regard Queen Anne's Bounty as being the free gift of Queen Anne to the Church—a free gift of money, which she regarded as having been stolen by her predecessors from the Church, a restoration to the Church, which she took the precaution to have confirmed by Act of Parliament in order that that settlement should not be reversed. The hon. Member says that it is national property because it once belonged to the nation; was transferred by Act of Parliament to the Crown, and was then restored to the Church. I should like to contrast that doctrine with the attitude which hon. Members opposite and the Government take up on the question of the tithes and other Church property held by lay impropriators. At the time of the Reformation it was confiscated from the Church and transferred by Act of Parliament to the Crown. At the present moment you have in Wales £40,000 a year of tithes which was——
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord will recollect that I called the hon.
  1246
  Member for Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. Llewelyn Williams) to order for having travelled beyond the limits of this Debate.
  Viscount WOLMER: I only wish to make the point. I shall not go further into the matter. You, Sir, allowed the hon. Gentleman to make his point, and I thought I might be allowed to reply.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have allowed that.
  Viscount WOLMER: The only point I wish to make in a sentence—I am not trying to get beyond your ruling—is that just as hon. Members opposite regard as private property, because they do not touch it in this Bill, the original Church tithes and glebe which at the time of the Reformation passed into the hands of laymen, so they ought to regard as private property the Church property which passed into the hands of the Crown by the same settlement. Queen Anne's Bounty and the land and tithes held at the present time by lay impropriators are in exactly the same class. The Government confiscate Queen Anne's Bounty because it is easy to get hold of, but they do not dare to touch the tithes held by lay impropriators, because it would create a great deal of disturbance and be very inconvenient to them, to do so. So far as principle is concerned, there is not a hairbreadth of difference between the two. It is part of the utter meanness of this Bill that it confiscates ecclesiastical property, but leaves in the hands of laymen property which hon. Members opposite always say is ecclesiastical property. It is because they have not put it into the Bill that it is difficult to bring this point into the Debates on the Bill, but I think I have managed to do so to-night. We are contending here for the unfettered liberty of the Church to do what she likes with the money which you in your generosity are pleased to leave her. If you withstand that demand you are interfering with the self-government of the Church, and that part of the Church which you are pretending to free by this Bill. It will not harm your scheme in the slightest to accept this Amendment, but it will benefit the Church. It will help her work, and your acceptance of this Amendment would be a guarantee of your bona fides and the profession of friendship that you are always giving to the Church.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I never heard a more extraordinary volte face than the change between the first and the second

  1247
  speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. McKenna). The first speech amounted to a blank refusal of the Amendment. The second speech amounted to a complete affirmative on condition that the desire was expressed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to carry out the policy which he advocates. Surely the Minister in charge of the Bill, dealing with a Clause concerning the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, should be prepared with the views and opinions of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. When the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stuart-Wortley), speaking as one of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, supported the Amendment, surely it is perfectly reasonable for us to suggest that the Government should be open to accept the Ammendment. The other point is that the hon. Gentleman (Sir D. B. Jones), and moreover the hon. Member (Sir F. Edwards), were both sympathetic with the Amendment. They both asked for freedom for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in this respect. Why, then, does the Home Secretary still stand out, still urge the Government Whips, still urge hon. Members who have not listened to the the Debate but have been in the Smoking Rooms and the Libraries to come in and vote down the Amendment which has received sympathy from that side of the House as well as this? We know why. The speech of the hon. Member (Sir D. B. Jones) made it perfectly clear. He said he hoped the Government would resist all Amendments, however reasonable, however good the argument. They have that pressure behind them. They have the Shylock waiting for his pound of flesh. Anything, providing he can get the money from the Church. Anything provided he can hurt the Church. What the hon. Member says is that if the Government listen to argument they will merely bring themselves into contempt and derision on their own side. Then we are taunted on this side because we do not receive these concessions in the spirit of the hon. Member, a spirit of hatred and hostility.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: I do not propose to follow the speech of the hon. Member. I am sure it does not require any words of mine to refute anything so derogatory to the spirit which animates my hon. Friends. I wish to say a few words in reference to the speech of the Noble Lord (Viscount Wolmer). He made a statement with which I am in entire agreement. That was in reference to the lack of logical
  1248
  consistency in the speeches made by the Home Secretary this evening. I am sure the general sense of Members all round here is certainly rather with his earlier speech than with the later one. The general sense of the Committee is not, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wyndham) said in favour of the Amendment, but on the contrary the vast majority surely of this House supports the Bill as it stands. There was a feeling undoubtedly, after the very able and conciliatory speech of the Home Secretary, that when you are considering a position where you are gradually handing over to Wales this Disestablished Church there exists in the nature of things an interregnum period, and therefore the withdrawal of power should be gradual. It seems to me that the Ecclesiastical Commission formed in 1835 was given powers by Parliament for, as was stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. A. Lyttelton), equalising purposes of the Church of England and which were surely national powers. When the Church of England in Wales becomes Disestablished, I think it is obviously logical that the powers of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in dealing with that Church ought to be curtailed. It would be an absurdity and an anomaly to give the same powers to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners after Disestablishment as they previously held when the Church in Wales was part of the Church of England. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I have just endeavoured to explain why not. I believe the Church in Wales after Disestablishment will be much stronger. The idea that a Church is made strong by Endowments seems to me to cut away the main ground of the status of a Church. A Church does not depend upon its wealth, it depends upon something higher and nobler. We are not enemies of the Church. I support the Government in opposing the Amendment.
  Mr. PETO: I would remind the Home Secretary that there are many poor parishes in England. I did not expect to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the reason he gave for not accepting the Amendment.
  It being half-past Ten of the clock, the DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 28th November, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
  Question put, "That the posed to be left out stand Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 165.

  Division No. 460.]

  AYES

  [10.30 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon, Thomas Robinson

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Ffrench, Peter

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Field, William

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Adamson, William

  Fitzgibbon, John

  M'Kean, John

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  France, G. A.

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

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

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Gilhooly, James

  Manfield, Harry

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Ginnell, L.

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Martin, Joseph

  Arnold, Sydney

  Glanville, Harold James

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Meagher, Michael

  Baker, H. T. (Acrington)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Molloy, M.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Barnes, George N.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

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

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Barton, W.

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

  Mooney, J. J.

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hackett, J.

  Morrell, Philip

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Morison, Hector

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hancock, John George

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Black, Arthur W.

  Harcourt, Robert v. (Montrose)

  Muldoon, John

  Boland, John Pius

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Munro, R.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Brace, William

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

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Brady, P. J.

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

  Nuttall, Harry

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

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

  O'Dowd, John

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

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Ogden, Fred

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Grady, James

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Henry, Sir Charles

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

  Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Heywood)

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

  O'Malley, William

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hinds, John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J,

  Clough, William

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Shee, James John

  Clynes, John R.

  Hodge, John

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hudson, Walter

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hughes, S. L.

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

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  John, Edward Thomas

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Crean, Eugene

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

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Crooks, William

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Crumley, Patrick

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Cullinan, J.

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Jones, Leil Stratten (Rushcliffe)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

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

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

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

  Joyce, Michael

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Keating, Matthew

  Radford, G. H.

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Reddy, M.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  King, J.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Doris, W.

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

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Duffy, William J.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

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

  Richards, Thomas

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Falconer, J.

  McGhee, Richard

  Robinson, Sidney

  Farrell, James Patrick

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

  Roch, Walter F.

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

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

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Sutton, John E.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

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

  Thomas, J. H.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Sheeny, David

  Wadsworth, J.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Shorn, Edward

  Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

  Smith, Albert (Lanes, Clitheroe)

  Wardle, George J.

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Snowden, Philip

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.)

  Watt, Henry A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Webb, H.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Fleming, Valentine

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Nield, Herbert

  Balcarres, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gardner, Ernest

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Barnston, Harry

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Bighton)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Barrie, H. T.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Grant, J. A.

  Randles, Sir John S.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Greene, W. R.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beresford, Lord C.

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

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Bird, A.

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

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Blair, Reginald

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Haddock, George Bahr

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

  Boyton, James

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B,

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Helmsley, Viscount

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

  Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

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

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

  Starkey, John R.

  Campion, W. R.

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cassel, Felix

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Swift, Rigby

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Cator, John

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Cautley, H. S.

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

  Cave, George

  Hunter, Sir C. R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Touche, George Alexander

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

  Keswick, Henry

  Valentia, Viscount

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Knight, Captain E. A.

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

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

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

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

  Winterton, Earl

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Dixon, C. H.

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

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

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

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Yerburgh, Robert A.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Macmaster, Donald

  Younger, Sir George

  Fell, Arthur

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

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Mount, William Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Pollock and Col. Rawson.

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at this day's sitting.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 286; Noes, 164.

  Division No. 461.]

  AYES.

  [10.48 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Martin, Joseph

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  France, G. A.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Adamson, William

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Meagher, Michael

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Gilhooly, James

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Ginnell, L.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

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

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Glanville, Harold James

  Molloy, Michael

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Mond, Sir Alfred Miritz

  Arnold, Sydney

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough;

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Morrell, Philip

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Morison, Hector

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

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

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

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

  Muldoon, John

  Barnes, G. N.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Munro, R.

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Hackett, John

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Barton, W.

  Halt, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Nannettl, Joseph P.

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Hancock, John George

  Nolan, Joseph

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Hardie, J. Keir

  Nuttall, Harry

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Boland, John Pius

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Connor, T. p. (Liverpool)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Bowerman, C. W.

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

  O'Donnell, Thomas

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Dowd, John

  Brace, William

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Ogden, Fred

  Brady, P. J.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Grady, James

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Hayward, Evan

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

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Malley, William

  Bryce, J. Annan

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

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

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Shee, James John

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

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

  Outhwaite, R. L.

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Hinds, John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Heywood)

  Hodge, John

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

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Clough, William

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Pirle, Duncan V.

  Clynes, John R.

  Hudson, Walter

  Pointer, Joseph

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hughes, S. L.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  John, Edward Thomas

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

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

  Cotton, William Francis

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Radford, G. H.

  Crean, Eugene

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Crooks, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Crumley, Patrick

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

  Reddy, M.

  Cullinan, J.

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Keating, Matthew

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Davies, E. William (Eifion)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Rendall, Athelstan

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

  Kilbride, Denis

  Richards, Thomas

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

  King, J.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Dawes, James Arthur

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

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Dickinson, W. H.

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

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Doris, W.

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Duffy, William J.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Roch, Walter F.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  McGhee, Richard

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

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

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Falconer, J.

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Kean, John

  Sheehy, David

  Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Shortt, Edward

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  Field, William

  Manfield, Harry

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  1254

  1255

  Snowden, Philip

  Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Wardle, George J.

  Williams, Lleyelyn (Carmarthen)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Sutton, John E.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. McKinnon (Glas)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Webb, H.

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Thomas, J. H.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Wiles, Thomas

  Wadsworth, J.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fleming, Valentine

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

  Forster, Henry William

  Nield, Herbert

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Gardner, Ernest

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

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

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Peto, Basil Edward

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Grant, J. A.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Barrie, H. T.

  Greene, W. R.

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

  Randies, Sir John S.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

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

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beresford, Lord C.

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Rawson, Lt. Col. R. H.

  Bird, A.

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Rees, Sir J. D.

  Blair, Reginald

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen)

  Boyton, James

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

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

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bull, Sir William James

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

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

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

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

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

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

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Starkey, John R.

  Cassel, Felix

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Cator, John

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cautley, H. S.

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

  Swift, Rigby

  Cave, George

  Hunter, Sir C. R.

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W,

  Kerry, Earl of

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Clay, Capt. H. Spender

  Keswick, Henry

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Touche, George Alexander

  Craig, Charles (Antrim, S.)

  Knight, Captain E. A.

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Locker-Lampson, G (Salisbury)

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

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

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

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

  Dixon, C. H.

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

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

  Winterton, Earl

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Mackinder, H. J.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Macmaster, Donald

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

  Fell, Arthur

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  Mount, William Arthur

  Younger, Sir George

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon, W. Hayes

  Newdegate, F. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Barnston and Mr. Campion.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow (Tuesday).
  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."

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
Mr. LARDNER: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture, Ireland, whether he is now prepared to make any statement as to the relaxation of restrictions on the movement of cattle in Ireland,

1257
and as to the transport of stores from Ireland to England?
Mr. FIELD: I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any further information respecting the cases of three heads discovered at Glasgow, that were alleged to be affected with distemper; will he let us know, so far as he can, under the circumstances, what he is going to do?
Mr. GINNELL: At the suggestion of the Vice-President, I beg to repeat the question that I addressed to him earlier in the day?
Sir JOHN LONSDALE: Can the right hon. Gentleman now give us any assurance that the county of Armagh will be relieved from restrictions? So far as I understand there has been no single case of foot-and-mouth disease in the whole county. I understood from the right hon. Gentleman that there is a suspicion of cases that were discovered at Newry, but no actual case was traced to the county of Armagh. I think it is a great hardship that the whole of these counties should be placed upon the scheduled area without any real ground for doing so, and that whenever a diseased cow is found in England a whole number of counties in Ireland not previously scheduled should be placed among the scheduled areas. I think, having regard to the great gravity and the enormous loss occasioned in Ireland, that the right hon. Gentleman should seriously consider the necessity of not treating the counties of Armagh and Tyrone in a manner calculated to create such enormous loss, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman to-night, in accordance with his promise on Friday, will be able to make some reassuring statement with regard to this very serious matter.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in making his statement, he will be able to afford some information as to the position he proposes to take up with regard to the county of Down. May I remind him there has been no case in the original outbreak which has been traced to this county, with the exception of the two transhipment cases that occurred, I believe, in Newry?
Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): I can assure my colleagues from Ireland that I am deeply impressed by the danger and difficulty of the situation, and the great loss which is entailed upon the people of Ireland. I have had this afternoon a long conference with my right hon. Friend
1258
the President of the Board of Agriculture, and I am glad to say that we have arrived at certain conclusions which I intend to-publish to-night. I shall begin by what will be most pleasant for the House to hear. We have reached the conclusion that it will be possible within the next few days—two or three days—to remove entirely from the scheduled areas the counties of Down, Antrim, Cavan, part of Westmeath, and the whole of the county of Louth. To these five counties I propose to give almost complete relief—four counties complete relief, and the fifth almost complete relief. I am sorry that owing to the disquieting circumstances of Londonderry I have had to schedule the whole of the county of Fermanagh, part of the county of Donegal, and a circuit of five miles round the city of Derry. That is due to this fact: The Department made exhaustive inquiry into the circumstances in which these three heads were discovered at Glasgow. We have arrived at the conclusion that it must be admitted that the disease from which the animals suffered to which the heads belonged was foot-and-mouth disease. We are perfectly certain that these heads belonged to animals that were shipped to the port of Londonderry, and we have further found that those who shipped them to the port of Londonderry brought them from Ballyshannon and from Enniskillen, in the county of Fermanagh.
Captain MURRAY: May I ask whether this discovery was made since Question Time this afternoon?
11.0 P.M.
Mr. RUSSELL: Yes. My statement involves a great deal of detail, and I shall be glad to answer questions after I have finished it. That is the reason we have been forced to schedule those three areas We must make the inquiries complete, and we cannot run any risks of the disease spreading whilst inquiries are being made. Taking the county of Westmeath, the hon. Gentleman opposite is aware that I removed the restrictions altogether from one part of that scheduled area last week, and what the President of the Board of Agriculture has consented to is this: He is quite prepared to allow the export of fat cattle from the whole of the Westmeath area, and the only restriciton that will be left on Westmeath for some little time longer is in regard to export of stores. As it is largely a fat cattle area that will not be a very heavy restriction at the present time. The President of the

1259
Board of Agriculture is prepared to issue an order admitting the export of fat stock from every part of Ireland with the exception of Donegal, Fermanagh, a small area round the Port of Derry, and the whole of Meath and Armagh. As regards stores the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to allow the export of stores from every part of Ireland with the exception of Donegal, Fermanagh, a small part of Londonderry round the port, Meath, Tyrone, Westmeath, Armagh, and Monaghan.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: A different area for stores than for fat cattle? In the name of heaven why?
Mr. RUSSELL: There is no reason for bringing heaven into it at all. There is comparatively little danger in fat cattle shipped for immediate slaughter at the port of arrival, but there is danger in shipping stores to be taken through England and put upon English farms. The hon. and learned Member does not need to bring in the name of heaven or anything of the kind, because the thing is evident on the face of it, and I was not able to resist the case which my right hon. Friend made. That is the arrangement we have arrived at tonight.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is that the only answer.
Mr. RUSSELL: That is the material answer. As regards the hon. Baronet who sits for Armagh (Sir J. Lonsdale), he says rightly that there has been no real case of foot-and-mouth disease discovered in his county. I have received a telegram here to-night stating that there has been a case this afternoon examined within one mile of the city of Armagh of the most suspicious character, and it is reserved for the consideration of some of the principal officers of the Department tomorrow. It is not fair to say that because there is no real case announced that the Department has not grounds for exercising caution in regard to that or any other part. With regard to the Birkenhead cargo, the telegram which reached me from Birkenhead from the officer in charge was to the effect that I need not look for affected animals in Monaghan because they were really in a lot which came from Killeleagh and Caledon. These are the grounds upon which we are exercising caution as regards Armagh. The hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin (Mr. Field) has asked me about Louth. Well, Louth is clear.
1260
Let me say that in the adjoining county of Meath we shall have to exercise the greatest caution in seeing that Meath cattle are not shipped from Dundalk and Drogheda. Perhaps the representatives of Meath will make a note of that. We are retaining control over Meath com pletely, and we shall take the greatest pains, and the police will be instructed to see that cattle shipped at Dundalk or Drogheda, shall not be Meath cattle. That disposes of Louth, and of Drogheda, and of Meath. There has been some misunderstanding about Lord Lucas's intimation as to the detention of cattle at the Irish ports. I will tell the House what I know about it. Some six months ago, before foot-and-mouth disease had broken out at all in Ireland, the two Boards had correspondence on the necessity of some period of detention as regards cattle that were being shipped. I summoned representatives of the railway company, of the shipping company, and of the cattle trade. Cattle which have been standing in the Irish fairs all day getting very little to eat or drink before they leave——
Mr. T. M. HEALY: That is not so.
Mr. RUSSELL: I state that which was completely proved at the conference. They stand in the fairs all day; they do not get much food, and they are entrained from Dublin and hurriedly placed on board ship. There is no time for food or inspection. I do not know what happens when they arrive in England or Scotland, but I rather suspect they are hurried off to some fair with little to eat or drink. I say we have no right to treat cattle in that way. It really amounts to something very like cruelty. We decided, in spite of the representations of the interests affected, that, in future, all cattle intended for shipment should be subjected to twelve hours' detention, that their owners should be compelled to provide them with food and water, and that the veterinary surgeon belonging to the Department should have the right to look over them. That is all I know about detention. Whatever may take place on this side that is all that has been arranged for on the Irish side. I have made rather a full statement, because I think the circumstances are so important that Irish Members have a right to know the full facts. I have kept back nothing, and I ask them to believe that at the conference I had with my right hon. Friend he was perfectly willing to treat- Ireland fairly, while I did

1261
my best to do everything possible under the circumstances.
Mr. CRUMLEY: Might I ask how the Department came to the conclusion that Enniskillen should be scheduled, it being situated about thirty-two miles from Ballyshannon. I am sorry the President of the Board of Agriculture is not in his place, inasmuch, as I understand, that since the commencement of this outbreak such a thing as foot disease has only appeared in one instance. I consider the Department have lost their heads over this question. In Austria-Hungary during the past summer 134,000 cattle suffered from this same disease, and in France there have been 100,000 cases. In Kent there appears to have been another scare. I suppose the disease came over somewhere from the French coast. It turns out there were two or three heads infected by this disease, but the carcases have never been examined, and, as far as I have heard, they have found no traces of foot-and-mouth disease. In these circumstances, I think the Minister for Agriculture should try to stamp out this disease by other means than those which he has adopted.
Mr. RUSSELL: Some twenty or twenty-five cattle came from Enniskillen, and I think that what the hon. Member has said gives sufficient ground for my action. He has referred to the fact that there were 134,000 cases of foot-and-mouth disease in Austria-Hungary. We have had sixty-eight cases, all of which we have slaughtered
Mr. MacCAW: When is it proposed to remove the embargo so far as county Down is concerned?
Mr. RUSSELL: I am preparing an Order, but I should not like to announce a specific day. It will probably be Wednesday or Thursday.
Mr. W. A. REDMOND: As the whole of county Tyrone is free from disease may I ask if the exportation of fat stock and movement within the boundaries of that county of fat stock will be allowed; and how is it that the whole county has been scheduled?
Mr. RUSSELL: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture is rather inclined to insist upon scheduling the whole of the affected area in Ireland. I have arranged, however, that the scheduling shall only apply for export purposes, and that movements within the scheduled area shall be free. That will save an enormous amount of trouble.
Mr. W. A. REDMOND: Am I to understand that the ordinary fairs will be allowed?
Mr. RUSSELL: On that point perhaps the hon. Member will put a question tomorrow. I am in communication with the authorities in Dublin, but I would ask the hon. Member to remember that my Department is 360 miles away, and it is not quite easy to answer questions right off.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman said that he is 360 miles away from the scene. I do not think that he is 360 yards away, because he is simply the abject creature of the English Minister. I wish to ask him this question—I will take the case of the province of Munster in which there has not been for thirty-five years a case of disease. It is hundreds of miles away from the scene of the outbreaks. I want to know if he expects us, whether in summer when grass is plentiful or in winter when we are coming close to Christmas, whether he expects the people of that province, in which are the great ports of Limerick, Cork, and Waterford, to be content by his glossing observations while he is suppressing the fact that millions of money are being lost? Are we to be satisfied with this condition of affairs? He tells us with regard to what Lord Lucas has said in Glasgow. I can only say, in my opinion, Lord Lucas's remarks have cost us hundreds and thousands of pounds. I never heard of Lord Lucas before. If I were put to a competitive examination, I should say, except that he happens to be a Minister, I know nothing whatever about him to his discredit. But there he is. This gentleman thinks it a proper thing on a festive occasion like this to bluster out these observations of a most calamitous kind. I now ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will be so good as to tell us in what way he has ever vindicated his Department or the English Department with regard to the treatment of Munster. Fifteen miles is your limit in England. In regard to Ireland, in addition to that you have the wholesome sea flowing in between you, and with regard to these, perhaps, a dozen or so counties, why are these people to be subjected to conditions which you do not impose upon Wales, which you do not impose upon Scotland, and which you do not impose upon any other part of the Kingdom except these particular counties? It has not been my duty to go through the Orders which the Government are making. That is the affair of the Gentlemen immediately con-

1263
cerned. I can only say for myself that I have the very gravest doubts as to their legality. Up to the present the Government have not been in any way confronted with the legal consequences of their action. They have taken advice no doubt. I am quite sure that some of that advice has been honestly tendered by those who have tendered it. The right hon. Gentleman says his Department is 350 miles from the scene of operations. Has he ever consulted any independent Irish authority as to whether the Orders which were being made against Munster are in themselves legal Orders. I can only say that I have very grave doubts on that matter.
Mr. RUSSELL: Perhaps the House will allow me to say a word in reply in regard to the Orders that have been issued. As a matter of fact, in the whole of the province of Munster the ports are open and fat cattle are being exported by the thousand, and store cattle also. There is no stoppage at the ports of Munster.
Mr. P. WHITE: When were they opened?
Mr. RUSSELL: The ports at Cork, Limerick, and Waterford have been open for store cattle.
Mr. P. WHITE: What about quarantine?
Mr. RUSSELL: There is no quarantine for fat cattle.
Mr. HUGH BARRIE: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the circuit round Londonderry has been imposed penalising Londonderry, which is absolutely free from all suspicion of disease, because of the fact that these suspected heads passed through it by rail to the city of Derry? Does he consider that a sufficient reason for penalising a county which is absolutely non-suspect?
Mr. RUSSELL: This is not a disease of an ordinary character, and we cannot afford to take any risk whatever. An animal crossing the road has been known over and over again to carry disease with it. It is a mere precautionary measure until the Department has time to examine.
Mr. POWER: What system have they of quarantine with regard to store cattle in Ireland?
Mr. RUSSELL: The Irish Department imposes no quarantine. It is imposed on this side.
Mr. POWER: Is there a quarantine imposed?
Mr. RUSSELL: Four days.
Mr. KILBRIDE: When the right hon. Gentleman said earlier in the evening that an arrangement was about to be made between the two Departments to detain all cattle coming to this country twelve hours at the port of landing——
Mr. RUSSELL: No, at the port of embarkation.
Mr. KILBRIDE: What arrangements are made there for their keep? Are they to be kept in uncovered yards at this time of the year, or in sheds? Also are they to be kept on stone or on concrete, and will they be allowed in the summer time to be turned into pasture fields to graze?
Mr. RUSSELL: We have insisted on the railway companies and the shipping companies providing suitable accommodation.
Mr. PATRICK WHITE: I rise to ask the right hon. Gentleman if some explanation of his extraordinary conduct with regard to the restrictions of the county Meath, and that he may give some indication of when he is going to remove those restrictions. Let me put before the House the absurd position in which the Department is at present. The area of Oldcastle was scheduled because of an outbreak at Mullingar, in the county Westmeath. Mullingar is now declared a healthy area, and cattle can be removed from that area, but Oldcastle, which was restricted because of an outbreak in Westmeath is still a restricted area. The right hon. Gentleman was asked to pay compensation for the beast which came from Dunshaughlin, and he replied that he could not, as his inspector said it was not a case of foot-and-mouth disease. The whole county Meath is scheduled because of this case.
Mr. RUSSELL: It is quite true that our inspector said he did not believe it to be a case of foot-and-mouth disease, but the inspectors of the Board of Agriculture in England said it was, and it has the power here to close the ports.
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Somebody must be lying.
Mr. WHITE: What steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken to free the county Meath?
And, it being half-an-hour after the conclusion of Government business, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at Twenty-three minutes after Eleven o'clock.