§ (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.1141
§ 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.
§ 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.
§ 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.
§ 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.
§ 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. 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.
§ 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. 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.
§ 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——
§ 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?
§ 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, 117.1183
|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)|
|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.|
|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.]
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.
§ 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.
§ 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.
§ 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?
§ 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, 157.1193
|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.)|
|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|
|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 be1194
§ 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, 162.1197
|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)|
|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|
|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.