§ As from the date of Disestablishment, any liability or power of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty to make payments for any ecclesiastical purpose in or connected with the Church in Wales shall cease:
§ Provided that—
- (a) they shall continue to make such payments as are required for the purpose of preserving any existing interests; and
- (b) nothing in this Act shall prevent them from carrying into effect any contract made before the passing of this Act for the sale or purchase of any property affected by this Act or otherwise in relation to any such property, or from making any payments which under this Act they are required or authorised to make; and
- (c) it shall be lawful for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty, if they think fit, within one year after the date of Disestablishment, to transfer to the representative body the whole or any part of the property specified in Part I. and Part II. respectively of the Third Schedule to this Act, and for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to charge their common fund and Queen Anne's Bounty to charge the Royal Bounty Fund with the payment to the representative body of perpetual annuities not exceeding, in the case of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the annual value of the property mentioned in Part III, of the Third Schedule to this Act, and, in the case of Queen Anne's Bounty,
1198 the annual value of the property, mentioned in Part IV. of that Schedule, subject to the payment thereout by the representative body of such sums as may be required for preserving existing interests in any such property.
§ Mr. CAVE
I beg to move, to leave out the words "or power" ["as from the date of Disestablishment, any liability or power of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty to make."]
In proposing this Amendment, may I say that this Amendment is only one of a series which I put upon the Paper and which are the result of the consideration of the Bill by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and by the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty. Already a number of them have-been passed over without any opportunity for discussion, and it is not very encouraging to anybody who takes a serious view of this Bill, or attempts even to deal with the practical difficulties found in it, that Amendments which those who are experts in the matter think of real importance should be passed over without consideration, and so far as I know, without even being looked at by the Government in the recesses of their own private office. There has not been the least attempt to deal with matters which are of real practical importance to the future. I am drawing attention to the horrible injustice of this Bill, and to the conditions under which we are discussing it. I think we are entitled when the opportunity appears to make a protest, because I would not have it thought that the Amendments we are discussing now are the only Amendments desired by those who have the administration of the Church funds. With regard to this Amendment the reason for it lies on the surface. 1199 The effect of the Clause is to take away from the Commissioners and the Governors of the Bounty, at all events, all Ecclesiastical property coming from Welsh sources. I think it does very much more. I think it takes away property which does not in any sense of the word come from Welsh sources; but all that, of course, can only be discussed on other Amendments and cannot be raised upon this one.
The intention of this Clause is to limit the power of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the powers of the Governors to make Grants to the Church in Wales, even from incomes arising from English sources. That is the whole purpose of the words which I desire to leave out. May I ask the Committee to consider whether it is necessary and why it is necessary to do that. These Commissioners were formed some seventy or eighty years ago for the particular purpose of taking under their control a great part of the income of the Church of England, and where the income available was in excess of the needs of a parish or district, for applying it to other parts; in other words, so far as it was possible, to begin to equalise incomes and to provide for the poorer parts of the country, in which the Church funds provide an inadequate income for its incumbents. Again, the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty had somewhat similar functions. The first-fruits and tenths were granted to them some 200 years ago for the very purpose of increasing the income to the poorer parishes, and Parliament between 1809 and 1820 made grants of public money to the Bounty for the augmentation of the maintenance of the poorer clergy. Parliamentary grants were made for that purpose, and similar grants were made to a number of ministers who were not clergy of the Church of England. The Bounty and the Commissioners have husbanded the funds entrusted to them, and while other religious bodies have, I think, expended the grants which were made to them in the earlier parts of the last century, the Governors of the Bounty took a more frugal view, and instead of spending the income, they saved a great part of it, and went upon the principle of making capital grants to the different parishes where assistance appeared to be wanted. The funds, therefore, in their case have remained in hand, while in the case of other religious bodies the funds are entirely expended, and so it is that the Bounty is to some extent to 1200 be deprived of funds of which other bodies cannot be deprived.
Besides being, as I think, excellent stewards of their fund, the Bounty and the Commissioners have taken a very liberal and fair-minded view of their duties in distributing these funds. They have inquired, in each case where applications were made, into the circumstances of the particular parishes from which the applications came, and they have made grants. They dealt in each case with the facts as they existed when the grant was applied for, and, of course, it followed that as time went on the grants made to different parts of the country have varied. At one time more went to Wales and less to England proportionately, and at another time, less to Wales and more to England. They dealt with the facts as they existed at the relevant time. What are you going to do by this Bill? The proposal is to take away the discretion of these two bodies. You propose to ascertain under the latter part of this Clause how much at the present moment is being applied to Welsh purposes over and above what comes from Wales—1 am putting it in broad terms and you propose to authorise the Governors and Commissioners to grant once for all a charge in favour of the Church in Wales which shall be equivalent to the surplus grants as they now exist. I am anxious to know what is the reason to be given for that provision. It is extremely inconvenient, because the amount of the grants last year, or during whatever period is taken, depended, not upon the permanent and lasting needs of Wales, but upon the particular requirements of certain Welsh parishes at the particular moment when the grants were made, and therefore the grants given for a particular year are not criterion of the grants that will be required for Wales out of the English funds in future years. It may be of course that your methods of ascertaining the amount will act to the prejudice of England; it may be that the grant made for Wales last year was greater than what is required as a permanent grant to that part of the United Kingdom. On the other hand, it may be, and I suppose it is probable, that the grant made to Wales during the last seven years ought in fairness to be increased. It is quite possible that the needs of the poor Welsh parishes may be greater, and that larger sums ought to come out of the Parliamentary fund, and other funds in question, and 1201 to go to these parishes. The effect of the Bill as it stands is to make it impossible for the Commissioners or the Bounty to have regard to the circumstances at any future time. The figure is ascertained once for all, and it is made impossible either to reduce the English grant or to increase these other grants.
That is the main point I want to raise by this Amendment. What is the purpose of this provision, and what is its justification? The effect of it is to underline and to accentuate the attempted separation or division of the Church into two parts—to cut off, if you can, the Church in England from the Church in wales, and to make the Church in Wales in future nothing but a body having a kind of charge upon the funds of the English Church. I fail to see what is the justification for that. Why is it that if the English Church wants to help the Church in Wales, you are going to make it illegal for it to do so? What purpose of yours does that really serve? It cannot hurt any Nonconformist body that money collected for Church purposes should be applied to Church purposes. There is no injustice in that to anybody in Wales. The effect of these Clauses is to keep the Welsh Church poor. Is that what you desire? Is that one of the purposes of the Bill, and, if not, how can you justify this absolute prohibition? It is not as if you were going to make it impossible to give anything to Wales. That was provided by an earlier Bill, and it was strenuously fought in this House, but it has been given up, and now you are willing to admit the necessity of making some grant to Wales. I think that if you concede the principle you should leave the actual apportionment to those who have full knowledge of the facts, and you should not attempt to limit the grants in this way. I desire to put the point temperately, although one does not always succeed in suppressing one's feelings on this Bill. I should like to do so, however, on this Amendment, and I think a very strong case can be made out for conceding my proposal. May I put one point of detail, because I may not have a chance of moving a later Amendment in my name? I put down an Amendment to leave out the words which limit the amount to be granted to a sum to be ascertained under the Third Schedule, and to insert in its place an Amendment which would limit the grants to the proportion in which the 1202 grants are now made by the Commissioners. I should like to have the views of the Government on my Amendment. I press the Government to leave out these words, so as to leave a free hand to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
§ Mr. McKENNA
I appreciate the full strength of the argument which has been put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Kingston, but I trust that he will also attach a certain amount of weight to the answer which I have to make. In con-eluding his remarks, the hon. and learned Member spoke of the absolute prohibition which this Bill imposes upon the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It is true, in a sense, that there is a prohibition, but it does not become operative until the Commissioners have exercised a power to give to the Disestablished Church all they are now giving and £28,000 a year beyond, so that the absolute prohibition is only a relative term, and it can only relate, in fact, to a somewhat distant future. How do we justify what we have done? First of all, so far as the present case is concerned, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have appropriated a capital sum to the benefices, and they do not wish to have the capital value. In other cases they have charged their common fund with a perpetual annuity, and they have charged their fund for a period of years. In all cases the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have stated that they do not wish to interfere with whatever has been given to the English Church in Wales in the past. Power is given to them to pay to that extent. But we have done something beyond that, and here I admit that the proposal in the Bill is somewhat too narrow. In the Bill a power is given to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to charge their common funds within one year with a perpetual annuity equal to the average amount which during the last seven years has been appropriated to the Welsh Church out of English funds.
The appropriation during the last seven years has been of the capital amount, but the amount which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are allowed to pay, if they so determine, within one year is equal to the annual income derived from the appropriation of English funds—that is, the average income during the last seven years, and that amounts to £28,000 a year. But the pro vision in the Bill as it now stands restricts the Commissioners somewhat too severely. If they have to decide within a 1203 year that they will give in perpetuity this additional sum of £28,000 a year to the Disestablished Church, the Commissioners might naturally say, "What guarantee have we got that ten, fifteen, or a hundred years hence this Church will still remain in communion with the English Church, and what right have we to charge in perpetuity the funds of the English Church with a payment of £28,000 a year to a communion which may not be in communion with the English Church in future years? I recognise the force of that view. On the other hand, it may be said that if you leave the Ecclesiastical Commissioners the unrestricted power which the hon. and learned Member proposes to give to them, you may lie giving such financial power to the Established English Church as will, in fact,? control the freedom of the Disestablished Welsh Church. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Well, I state the argument and Noble Lords opposite may agree with it or not, but it is an argument which has force in Wales. Considering these two different aspects of the question, I have come to the conclusion that on the whole the best course would be to leave the Ecclesiastical Commissioners power to determine year by year what contribution they would make to the Disestablished Welsh Church, but on the other hand to limit the amount of that contribution as originally proposed in the Bill to the average amount which has been retained from the English Church out of English funds during the last seven years.
§ Mr. McKENNA
I think the arguments on that point have been put quite clearly. The effect of that would be that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would, if I understand it, immediately charge their funds or transfer capital to the Disestablished Welsh Church to an amount which would bring in an income of close upon £50,000, and year by year they would be at liberty to determine whether they would make an additional Grant to the Disestablished Welsh Church up to an amount of £28,000 a year. I would remind the Committee that the hon and learned Member for South Bucks (Sir A. Cripps) earlier in the Debate argued that to allow any such charge at all to fall in future upon the Established English Church might become very unfair to that Church, and certainly in limiting the amount I am to that extent limiting the possibility of disagreement 1204 within the Church itself as to whether or not or to what extent any Grant should be made out of the English Church funds for the benefit of the Disestablished Welsh Church. So far as my statement has gone I am willing to meet the views of the hon. and learned Member. I quite admit that I do not go the whole length the hon. and learned Member goes, because he wishes that they should Lave an unrestricted power to make what Grants they please. I doubt whether such power would be to the advantage of the Disestablished Welsh Church, but so far as the immediate future is concerned under the Bill in the form I would suggest it might take, the Welsh Church will receive certainly as much from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as she would be likely to receive under the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Under these circumstances I would suggest that this Amendment should not be pushed any further now, and perhaps the Committee will allow me to move an Amendment now, or the hon. and learned Member may move it, to this Clause, which I should be willing to accept.
§ Mr. McKENNA
I quite agree with that view, but the Noble Lord must understand that in going through the Amendments on the Paper in the names of hon. Members I cannot go through them a long time in advance, because I have to wait to see their final shape. I endeavoured to the utmost of my ability to discover what is the underlying view of those Amendments, and if I can meet them I do so; but it is not always convenient for me to place my Amendment upon the Paper.
§ Mr. A. LYTTELTON
Of course, attention will be paid to anything that may be done hereafter by the Home Secretary, and I am not averse to expressing my opinion that, bad though I think the situation is as it is left by him, it is slightly better than it was in the original form of the Bill. It seems to me it would be absolutely intolerable to place upon the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty the obligation to decide in one year what should be the limit of the Grant in perpetuity to the Church in Wales, and certainly to the extent that the right hon. Gentleman is making it year after year instead of in one year it is an improve- 1205 ment. There remains, however, the objection which we entertain in principle against any limitation of these powers whatever. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not seem to appreciate, if I understand their ideas about patronage and the remuneration of the clergy, that nothing more harmonious with their principle can he conceived than the institution of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty. They are equalising agencies. The Church of England pooled, so to say, her funds in respect of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and directed them—and they have carried out that direction I believe by the consent of everybody with impartiality and with breadth of mind—to take off where there is excess and put on where there is too little. That is what they have done, and to interfere with this process in the future in regard to the Church in Wales is really to dislocate and disorganise one of the best and most liberal agencies that can be imagined.
The case is even stronger when you come to Queen Anne's Bounty. The contributions which have formed the funds of Queen's Anne's Bounty were provided by the clergy themselves. It has no doubt been a very serious burden upon the bishops and clergy to provide that amount. It was no doubt originally destined for the Pope, but the Pope was despoiled of that amount by Henry VIII., I suppose in his capacity as head of the Church, and when the fund was restored to the source from which it came, a sum of £15,000 at that time, it might, of course, have been distributed, as certain bounties were by certain bodies, in Grants straight away, but the very fact that a frugal and a good economic and thrifty way of dealing with the fund has been taken by the Governors is now used by the Government and the right hon. Gentleman to take away from the Governors funds which they have thus saved. It never could be argued that you could retrospectively take the incomes of people. That has not been suggested even by this 'Government. Those incomes have been saved, and they have been invested by the Governors in real property or in the funds, and, because of their frugal and thrifty way of administering the funds entrusted to them, this invasion is made upon their rights, and for no other reason. It seems to me to be an astounding position to occupy. Let me put it for a moment in another way in order that I may divest hon. Members 1206 opposite of their prejudice against the Church. Supposing three or four hundred years ago it had been enacted that the doctors as a body should pay the first fruits of their incomes to the Crown and that afterwards the Crown had restored that amount to the doctors as a body, and supposing that fund when restored had been capitalised instead of being expended, and had been dealt with in the way the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty have dealt with their funds, what possible case would there have been for retrospectively taking the incomes, which surely cannot by any process be said to be other than the rightful possession of the medical body? It seems to me to be quite unarguable and unthinkable.
You absolutely cripple the discretion of both the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty and the Ecclesiastical Commission. You stereotype the amount they may grant to the Church in Wales to the average amount they grant now. Who can foresee the future? Who can foresee what the wealth of the Established Church in England may be, and what the poverty or the wealth of the Church in Wales may he Nobody can possibly foresee it. You are really interfering with a central point in the operations of these two bodies by refusing to allow them to use their discretion for the purpose for which they exist, that of equalising between rich and poor benefices. Can that be defended? By fettering these Commissioners in this way in future you are really breaking up the organic unity of the English Church with the Welsh Church. That is, I will not say the object, but the necessary consequence of your provisions with regard to the dismemberment of the Church. You not only refuse to allow the whole government of the Church to continue by separating the Welsh Church from the Convocation of the English Church, to which it has always belonged, but you break up the mutual power of help, and by doing so you may be doing the greatest possible injury to the Church. I trust my hon. and learned Friend will press his Amendment, because I feel quite certain that as a matter of principle he is on absolutely sound ground.
§ Mr. EDGAR JONES
The right hon. Gentleman's analogy of the doctors does not apply. When the funds of Queen Ann's Bounty were restored they were not restored to the same body of people from whom they were taken, and that makes an essential difference.
§ Mr. LYTTELTON
Does the hon. Member say the first fruits of their income were not taken from the clergy?
§ Mr. E. JONES
They were taken from the Roman Catholic clergy, as the right hon. Gentleman himself said. He said the Pope was despoiled.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean)
This is rather wide of the question. Casual references made in the course of the Debate ought not to be developed by subsequent speakers into arguments, so as to take up an undue time of the Committee.
§ Mr. E. JONES
I said when I began I thought it was was out of order, but as the right hon. Gentleman had dragged it in I wished to say at once I did not agree with his proposition. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not seem to understand our point of view. They may not accept it, but at least they might try to understand it. There are people in Wales who are very keen for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church purely on national grounds. I am not so sure those are not the grounds on which I am most keen to see it Disestablished. We feel, whether rightly or wrongly, that if you are going to Disestablish this Church, and if you are going to allow the clergy and laymen of the Church in Wales freedom to build anew, you must remove the very powerful determining influences of Queen Anne's Bounty and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Probably hon. Members opposite have not read a very interesting portion of the evidence of the Bishop of St. David's, in which he complains in terms of the way in which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners here in London insist upon dictating to the diocese how its money is to be apportioned and how its parishes are to be arranged for. The bishop complains of the fact that he and the local people in the diocese are not consulted as they ought to be, and that their views are not given the weight they ought to receive. You have in that evidence the germ of a great grievance of a considerable section of the Welsh people.
There are people, of course, who demand this on religious grounds, not believing in a State Church at all, but the great majority want a National Church 1208 developed on the soil in a national way without being pressed, as the Church has been very much pressed contrary to the best policy and the national aspirations of Wales, by a body here in England, and hon. Members opposite must really take that into account and try to understand it. When they say they do not understand why we put a limit of this kind on the authority of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, that is our answer. If you give absolute authority to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, it must be obvious they will exert an influence on the Welsh Church that will be more or less alien, and that will be more detrimental to the development of the Church than it is now. Therefore I am very glad that the Home Secretary has not gone any further in that direction. I think his Amendment is important, and it is a very fair and wise arrangement of the problems, and therefore hon. Members opposite will be well advised to accept it. Year by year the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will be free to give what Grants they like within the limits laid down in the Bill, and that leaves it open for the Welsh Church, if it wishes, not to accept certain conditions imposed on it by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and to refuse to accept the Grant for that year. I submit that would allow freedom to the Church in Wales, and would assist it materially from a nationalistic point of view. Of course, it will be open to all kinds of voluntary bodies to assist this fund, but when the right hon. Gentleman talks about breaking the organic unity as if it wore a crime or a great mistake in policy or in intention, I think he is wrong. There will remain, of course, so far as the Welsh clergy and laymen wish and desire, the same kind of association working as there is in other denominations, and they will be able to give assistance in the future as they have done in the past. I simply rose to point out that it is upon the question of having a statutory body to impose on a Disestablished Church that we want to be free, conditions that have been so detrimental in the past; and I would remind the hon. Member for Dudley, who has probably read the history of this agitation in Wales, that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were more responsible than anyone else for the terrible outbursts of feeling that took place in Wales in the 'eighties. It 1209 was the methods of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in sending down their auctioneers to sell up Welsh peasants for nonpayment of tithes at a time when the clergy on the spot had consideration for we tenants during bad harvests that created the tithe riots. This association of the Ecclesiastical Commission and the continuation of its power over a spiritual body is, of course, amongst the various things that, in the eyes of the Welsh people, is essentially anti-national.
§ Mr. POLLOCK
Surely the arguments put forward by hon. Members opposite are remarkable. The hon. and learned Member for Kingston asked the Home Secretary whether the object under this Clause was to keep the new Church in Wales poor, and the Home Secretary must pardon those on this side if, after having heard his answer, they came to the conclusion that that is the object. In plain language, that is the object of the refusal on his part to accept the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend. The Home Secretary tells us of various views put forward in Wales— of a fear lest there should be some control by the Ecclesiastical Commission and a want of freedom, which would be a loss to the Welsh Church, if these sums continued to be paid. That is the view which is apparently held by those who are the opponents if not the enemies of the Church. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will understand, if there are certain persons in Wales who believe that this control should not be exercised by a large body like the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and that the Church in Wales should not be able to receive the Grant from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the real purpose is to prevent the freedom of the Welsh Church, and not for the avowed purpose of preventing the control by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It is because those who are enemies of the Church desire to see the new Church in Wales established poor and kept poor that this Amendment is being refused. What was the argument advanced by the last speaker? He said, "We hope you will have a new National Church springing up and you will have voluntary subscriptions coming in to help." You will have funds given by the laymen and members of the Church, and these funds can be presented and benefactions made upon conditions which would not be imposed by the queen Anne's Bounty or the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as they have imposed them in the past. You will, in fact, get rid of the imposition of all condi- 1210 tions in respect of benefactions, but you will not get rid of the fetter if you accept the benefaction from a particular person or a particular body.
Let me turn to the argument presented by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. It was curious that he should have fallen into so many errors, because we are accustomed to look for some sort of precision in historical and other knowledge from that source. But when he tells us that this income in the case of Queen Anne's Bounty was originally paid by persons to bodies which are not now the same——
§ Mr. E. JONES
As I was not allowed to make my proposition, I do not think the hon. and learned Member should be permitted to proceed with his.
§ Mr. POLLOCK
It is difficult to deal with these matters which one wants to controvert when they are put forward as a justification for the argument of the hon. Member, but, of course, I do not wish to go outside the ruling of the Chair.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
It is true I stopped the hon. Member, but I felt it necessary to allow a reply. Still, I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman does not propose to develop it further.
§ Mr. POLLOCK
If you tell me I am not to, I will say no more about it. All I wish to point out is that I differ altogether from the proposition advanced by the hon. Member. I differ from the account of the history of Queen Anne's Bounty which he has adumbrated, and I differ also from the conclusion which he has asked the Committee to adopt in respect of his historical researches and the arguments he advanced. I will leave it there. The hon. Member next, referred to a complaint by the Bishop of St. David's about the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, and ho said that, underlying that complaint as to the conditions imposed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, was the same germ which apparently it was desired to develop and nurture for the purpose of improving the condition of the National Church in Wales. What is that germ? It realty is that no conditions are to be imposed at all, although he admits, or will have to admit, that conditions may be imposed by a private person. And when he finds conditions are imposed by a large body who have under their control a large fund, is he prepared to say that he will stop any money coming from that source? He prays in aid observations by the Bishop 1211 of St. David's on quite a different ground, and not at all by way of supporting a Clause in this Bill, to prevent the Ecclesiastical Commissioners giving the sum which they may be minded to give in any particular year. The Home Secretary says he is going to allow an additional sum of £28,000 a year. But he does not mean an additional amount to what he is now giving. His generosity in the direction of giving to the Church an additional sum of £28,000, is mitigated by the fact that he is allowing only so much as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners may be prepared to give up to £28,000; they are to be allowed to give no more. He is prepared to allow a certain sum which shall not go beyond the £28,000, and he declines to allow a great body like the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to have any discretion. What is the real effect of a bargain of that nature? How can one believe these proposals are put forward seriously or with an honest determination to try and do the best possible for this new body in Wales? Can they not trust the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to do their best, and may not the Governors of the Queen Anne's Bounty be trusted to determine how far they can safely go in any one year? They have been able to rule wisely over large possessions for a long period. Cannot we trust them to do as well in the future, and is there any reason for placing a fetter upon their powers? Why cannot they deal with any new situation that may arise? Are they not competent to decide what is good for the well-being of the Church in Wales? The Home Secretary must not mind if we say, in face of such arguments, that the ground for them is not goodwill towards the Church in Wales, but a desire to prevent possible sources of income to that Church which might once more make her powerful among the Churches that exist in the Principality. You would have under the Amendment a simple discretion; but you are taking away all discretion. You are taking away discretion in respect of funds, which are not funds which come from any new sources but which are funds that have been piled up and gradually aggregated during a long period of years, during which the same communion beyond question has held them. They have been aggregated over a period of years during which the continuity of the Church of England in Wales has been allowed, by leading Members on the other side of the House, and now to 1212 try and take away the discretion from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and to take away this source of income from the new-Church in Wales, is a policy which can only be desired by those who wish to see that Church poor and unsuccessful. It cannot be desired by those well-wishers of the Church who honestly believe in the essential work of religion and who are anxious to see religion flourish again in the Principality, even though they desire the Disendowment and Disestablishment provided for under this Bill.
§ Sir FRANCIS EDWARDS
I have listened with great pleasure to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in answer to the Amendment, and I was glad to find that the Home Secretary was prepared to meet the hon. and learned Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) to some-considerable degree. I am bound to say that I should have been more glad if the right hon. Gentleman had been prepared to meet the hon. and learned Member for Kingston in a more complete degree, because I fail to see that any really strong reason can be given for refusing power to the Ecclesaistieal Commissioners to give any Grant that they may wish to do to the Welsh Church when it is Disestablished. The only argument against that was that if that were allowed lo be done the Church would not be in a position of freedom. That argument was answered by my hon. Friend the senior Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Edgar Jones), who pointed out that in the case of any gift which was from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or others, conditions were imposed which were not satisfactory to the Church, it would be perfectly open to the Church to refuse them. That is really the answer to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman can dismiss from his mind any fear of the Welsh Church losing its freedom of action in this matter. I am bound to tell the Committee that it would be a great satisfaction to me if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to go further and allow the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to give such Grants as they choose.
§ Mr. EDWARD WOOD
I had hoped that after the appeal of the hon. Member who has just sat down the Home Secretary might have seen his way to alter his opinion a little bit as to the merits of the Amendment, I cannot help feeling that on reflection he will admit, what I think is patent to a good many Members of the 1213 Committee, that he has on this occasion fallen into what is, from his own side, rather a weak compromise. What was the real point of the case as stated by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cave)? It was that if these words were retained in the Bill you incurred double and equally undesirable result. In the first place you limit what the hon. Member who has just spoken fully realised to be the reasonable claims that may be made on behalf of the liberty of the Commissioners. On the other hand, according to the Home Secretary, it is undesirable to run the risk of the Church in Wales being under the control of the Church of England. Surely under his compromise these two dangers or undesirable elements remain. Because of these the Home Secretary appears to go some way towards meeting the arguments as to the liberty of the Commissioners, but he only does it grudgingly. If it is an argument worthy of acceptation, it is one that ought to be met unhesitatingly and all the way. There is no justification for saying that we are going to limit the Commissioners so far and no further. With regard to the control of the Church of England over the Church in Wales, so far as there is anything in that argument, the Church in Wales will be just as really controlled by the fact of receiving annual Grants as she would be from receiving Grants in the form of capital or in any other way, quite apart from the fact that it is open to her to refuse them. Assume that the Church authorities in England wish to insist upon something being done by the Church in Wales, which that Church on her own initiative might dislike. It will be far more difficult for her to take her own line, if there is anything in the argument that if she knows that if she goes against the wishes of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners then and there she will lose the Annual Grant, far more than if she had a long term of years in which to review the position and make her own arrangements.
I wish to turn to the arguments used by the Homo Secretary and the Senior Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Edgar Jones). This is really the kernel of the Debate. The Senior Member for Merthyr Tydvil appealed to us to recognise what I may call, without any offence, the Nonconformist view in Wales. I make the same appeal to him to recognise the Church point of view. I state the Church point of view as follows: That to us—and I do not say it offensively—it does seem an almost unwarrantable impertinence that Welsh 1214 Nonconformists should regard it as their concern whether the Church of England does or does not control the Church in. Wales. It is quite immaterial to them, and it is no business of theirs to interest themselves about it. Further than that, when the Senior Member for Merthyr Tydvil develops that argument and goes on to expand it, as he did, I am bound to ask him whether he expects, when this Bill has been passed into law, that he and the Member for Swansea (Sir Alfred Mond), for instance, and the Leader of the Welsh Parliamentary party, are looking forward to administering the fortunes of the representative body. If they are not, I fail to see what concern they have in the funds of the Church after it is Disestablished.
§ Mr. E. WOOD
What concern have you got with what is the effect on the Welsh Church when it is a Disestablished body, when you no longer profess yourselves to-be Churchmen?
§ Mr. E. WOOD
I should like to finish, if I may, then the hon. Member may answer. The whole justification for the Bill is that the Church in Wales is no longer a national Church. If it is not a national Church, what right has Welsh citizens, who are not Churchmen, to concern themselves with its fortunes, good or bad?
§ Mr. E. WOOD
It is because we have not had time to argue the Bill on Second Beading that we are bound to take advantage of these opportunities to do so. In conclusion, I should like to ask the hon. Member what difference there is between the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in England, or, if he likes to put it broadly, between the Church of England, exercising influence or control over the Welsh Church as Disestablished, and the great English Nonconformist body exercising influence and control over the Welsh Nonconformist body? I am well aware what answer the hon. Member is prepared to make; he will say the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are a statutory body.
§ Mr. E. WOOD
But so long as the Ecclesiastical Commission keeps within its statutory powers and within the law, what effect it has on a Disestablished or non-established body in the strict sense is no concern of his. I have been rather led away by the interruptions made by the hon. Member consequent upon his speech. What emerges from the Church point of view is that when the Home Secretary turns to us and expects gratitude because he offers what seems to us a small concession, he must not blame us because we regard it as a small concession, and because we are not overwhelmed by gratitude when we think his whole attitude in this matter is one unwarrantable impertinence and interference in the powers of the Church.
§ Mr. R. PEARCE
I deprecate very much the suggestion of the Home Secretary that he should enlarge the small concessions which he has indicated, and I should like to call his attention to the fact that all these little manԓuvres for acquiring more money for the Welsh Church are viewed with great dissatisfaction by Nonconformists and others on this side of the House. I should be glad if the Home Secretary could see his way to returning precisely to the form of the Bill as the utmost he would be willing to do. There are some considerations which have been apparently dropped out of this Debate. The Home Secretary has allowed himself to be somewhat bird-limed by the snares of the fowlers on the other side, who are anxious to retain so much of the property of the Welsh Church for its use. They call it the property of the Welsh Church. Let us examine that proposition for a moment with the help of the hon. and learned, and I might almost say reverend Member, who is so great an authority on Ecclesiastical Law, and who has written A book on it which is very much bigger than the Bible. I appeal to him on the point as to whether the Church has any property at all. I think he will admit, as all those who have studied the subject from a legal point of view must necessarily admit, that the Church is incapable of holding any property, and in that form has none at all, but that all the property is held by minor, subordinate, ecclesiastical corporations. I am quite well aware that the mere suggestion I have made is sufficient for the keen and eager spirits on behalf of property on the opposite side to understand the drift of what I was going to say.
1216 Let me put another point. I should like the Home Secretary also, when he is anxious to get this Bill through with something like loyal satisfaction from the other side, to bear in mind that on this side we feel that you cannot hurt the unborn, and when you make provision in the Bill for compensating fully and absolutely every living person who has any kind of interest whatever in the property concerned, you have done all that is required of you by any possibility in the way of justice or fairness or generosity. If you are going to compensate superannuated persons or those whose offices have been suppressed, what you do is to give them pensions calculated upon two-thirds of their income, or something of that sort. But here you are going far beyond that. You are giving to the persons who have vested interests in the Church in Wales full compensation for the rest of their lives for all that they can possibly claim, while they are living from the property which has been enjoyed by the incumbents and others who are interested in it—not the Church, because the Church will get nothing out of it. The congregations and the parishioners get nothing. The parishioners are the real persons who are to be benefited by these changes, and, as I understand it, when once you have compensated all the heirarchy of ministers, patrons, bishops, Archbishops of Canterbury, and other archangels, you have done quite enough, supposing that the property should afterwards come to be disposed of for the benefit of the Welsh people.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I would remind the hon. Member that he is going well beyond the limits of the Amendment.
§ Mr. R. PEARCE
As other Members have done, I was only endeavouring to explain the reasons why I feel that this concession of further sums should not be made, and why the Clause itself is ample for the purpose for which it is intended. That can only be done by a general examination of the position, and that is out of order; but I have already indicated what I feel to be the main reason for not going beyond the Clause as it stands, that ample allowance has already been made for everybody concerned.
§ Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS
I should like to enter a protest against the way in which the Home Secretary has treated the Committee by handing us, when the discussion has actually begun, the draft of the Amendments that he proposes to make 1217 which alter the whole Clause. I can understand that the overburdened brains of the Cabinet find it hard to keep up with the ever-increasing programme which they desire to impose on the country; but surely a Minister in charge of the Bill could find a few hours before the discussion begins to put them on the Paper, so that we could see them and judge for ourselves suggestions which change the whole spirit of the Clause. The discussion begins, the Home Secretary produces an outline of his proposals, the Paper is handed over to us, and we are supposed to be able to understand and discuss these very important alterations which are made at the eleventh hour. I press on the Government that they ought to accept, without the limitations that they propose in their own alterations, in the spirit if not in the exact words, this Amendment. I can understand that if you are bringing forward a scheme to Disestablish and Disendow the Church in Wales it is a necessary concomitant of your scheme that you shall deal with the property of the Church in Wales. I think it is unjust, but still it is part of the scheme. But this property does not come under that heading at all. It stands on an entirely different footing. Queen Anne's Bounty is a fund derived from the subscriptions of the clergy themselves.
One hon. Member seemed to think that there was a great distinction to be drawn because he said these contributions came in old days from Roman Catholics instead of Protestants. I fail to appreciate that distinction at all. The Church in Wales at the present day is the Church in Wales as it has always existed. Supposing you you had left a certain amount to a hospital for the purpose of carrying out a particular operation, and in the march of science the disease to which it was adapted was cured, would any sane person suggest that you should take the endowment from the operation because that particular form of operation had ceased to be performed? It was given to the hospital as a whole, just as these contributions came from the ministers of the Church as a whole. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners are a body in England administering in England the funds of the Church. I put this in the name of common sense to hon. Members opposite: Supposing you had a Disestablished and Disendowed Church in Wales, if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners chose to allocate some sum to that Church, what conceivable reason is there why they should not do so, 1218 unless the real desire underlying this Bill is to impoverish the Church in Wales, a suggestion which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite will repudiate? Unless that be the plan, I invite those who represent the Government to give one reason founded on justice or common sense why by legislation you should deprive some body who is desirous of assisting that Church from adding to their funds. Because their property is gone, is that a reason why someone should not give them something? the Disestablishment of the Church a reason why the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, if they desire to add to the funds of the Church, should not do it? The hon. Gentleman opposite spoke as if it were a grievance that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are a statutory association. If they have got funds which they desire to give to the Disestablished and Disendowed Church, what does it matter whether the funds come from a statutory association or not? I am afraid the truth of it is that the object which hon. Members opposite have in view is to pass an Act of Parliament which shall prevent anybody, statutory or non-statutory, individual or corporation, from making gifts in future to the impoverished Church. I am driven to that conclusion. I do not wish to state it in any sense offensively, for I hope that hon. Members will see the justice of our contention. I cannot pass without comment the speech we heard from the hon. Member, who used a phrase which, I think, is unique. He described our endeavours on this side of the House to preserve some remnant of the property proposed to be taken away as a manԓuvre for acquiring fresh funds for the Welsh Church. I cannot imagine why this Amendment should be resisted, and why the Clause in its entirety should be insisted upon, unless it is part of what the Solicitor-General with unconscious humour called a generous scheme of Disendowment, I really think that of all the amusing phrases we have heard during the Debates that is the greatest. I suppose that you mean that if you took a man's watch and left the chain you would consider that he had been subjected to a generous scheme of Disendowment. I cannot understand why there is any suggestion at all that the power of those who administer Queen Anne's Bounty and the power of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should be interfered with in any degree. It really is not an affair of Nonconformists at all. How can the existence of this 1219 power hurt anybody? It may bring some advantage to the Church which, we fear, will be impoverished in future, and if you desire not to hurt the Church, surely you should leave this power.
§ Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES
The hon. Member (Mr. Hume-Williams) has directed his eloquent speech against something which is really not involved in this Clause. I feel sure that he cannot have followed the tenor of the speeches delivered on this side if he imagines that we wish to hamper or limit the opportunities of the Disestablished Church, or to prevent it from obtaining money from any source. The hon. and learned Member's argument, if I were to follow it, would prove a great deal too much. I understand that he is quite willing that the Ecclesiastical Commission should give money to the Falkland Islands, the bishop of which is in great distress.
§ Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES
What are the powers which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners possess? Would the leaving out of the words "or power" increase their power? Is the hon. Member clear about that?
§ Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES
The series of Statutes dealing with the powers and duties of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners number thirty or forty, and I am very doubtful indeed whether, apart from the express powers given to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty as they appear in the Statutes, they would, after this Bill passes, be able to give any money to the Disestablished Church in Wales.
§ Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES
I am not at all sure that we do not want the Clause. Surely the hon. and learned Member ought to remember that, though a general kind of discussion is going on, the question before the Committee is whether the words "or power" should be left in. He assumes for some reason or other that we are taking a certain attitude in regard to the Disestablished Church. I disclaim that. I am not in a position to give any final decision on the matter, but I express 1220 doubt whether, if the words "or power" are left out, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would have power to give the sort of assistance to the Established Church which the hon. Member desires. I attach very little importance to the words "or power. "If they are of little importance, why argue about them? I would like to know what really will be the position if the words "or power" are left out. I have considerable doubt in the matter. All I can say, as a matter of general principle, is that we do not in the least desire to prevent the Disestablished Church from obtaining funds in any proper and legitimate way whatever.
§ Sir ALFRED CRIPPS
This is rather a technical point. I think the words "or power" here distinctly limit the powers which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty would otherwise have. I think in the absence of these words there would be full discretion, either for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty, to make payment for any ecclesiastical purpose in or connected with the Church in Wales. That is my view as a lawyer. If, in the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, they have not got the power, these words "or power are pure surplusage. I think myself they seriously limit the power which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty would otherwise have. In reference to that, my objection is, assuming they have the power which heretofore has been attached to them, I think the words ought to be excluded from the Bill in the way the Amendment suggests. Having dealt with the technical point, I want to travel a little further in explaining why I think these words ought not to be included in the Bill. We are dealing here with trust funds. If you are going to misapply trust funds, it is no argument whatever to say that you have dealt with the rights of the existing beneficiaries. It is common ground that what we are dealing with here are trust funds of a public character, and the mere fact of giving compensation to existing beneficiaries does not go to the root of the matter at all. That is only an obvious matter of justice which is done in all cases and leaves open for discussion the question whether public trust funds ought to be alienated or not.
On that point I can conceive no argument which has been addressed from the other side of the House except one—you are going to constitute a religious body 1221 for religious purposes in Wales. I want to ask anybody on the other side of the House whether, when that religious body is constituted, it should not have the widest possible power to take advantage of all funds contributed for its duties, from whatever source they may come? When once you constitute a disestablished body why do you seek to limit its powers as regards the acquisition of funds, given for these bodies? It would be a gross invasion of the rights of any Nonconformist body to do so. Let me take any Nonconformist community, and assume that funds were given to them in order to provide for a resident minister, by what is called a statutory body, and that that statutory body has power to give those funds. Surely it would be a gross injustice for members of the Church of England to intervene and say, "We object to your having those funds, because they come from a statutory body." It does not matter from what body those funds come, if that body has power to give them. What we are thinking of as a religious community is the use of those funds, and what right have members of the Church of England to interfere with such funds given to a Nonconformist community, and what right has any Nonconformist community to object to funds being so given to the new Disestablished religious body in Wales? If once you come to that conclusion on the other side of the House, what is the objection to giving freedom to the new body in Wales to accept funds which anybody with statutory power is willing to give them to carry out their great religious duties?
I cannot help thinking that the objection comes from the feeling unconsciously—I want to give all proper credit to the other side—that they do not want this new religious body in Wales to be too well off as regards its funds. That being so, I ask lion. Members opposite what possible principle can be adduced why that body should not have the advantage of any funds which any person, corporation or statutory body, is empowered to give? If I have the assent of hon. Members opposite to one of the plainest propositions of freedom, the Disestablished body in Wales is entitled to get its funds from any proper source. Take the other side. Why do hon. Members object to the discretion being in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or the Queen Anne's Bounty? Those are bodies in which they have no direct interest, which are receiv- 1222 ing their funds or have funds left to them from old sources which are not questioned at the present moment. The question is, Are those funds to be given entirely to the rest of the Church, the Established Church in England, or may those bodies give them partly to the Established Church in England and partly to the Disestablished Church in Wales. What interests have Nonconformists in that question if they are sincere in their desire that the religious work of this new community in Wales should be carried on in the best possible manner? I can understand their seeking to Disestablish the whole Church or anything of that kind, but what interest have they in deciding whether those funds should be given to the religious community in its Disestablished portion or the religious community in its Established portion when they are given to the religious community from a spiritual and religious point of view?
How does it stand m the mouth of any Nonconformist to interfere in a question of this kind? If there were any proposal to interfere with any of their Endowments in any way I should be the first to stand by them, and say that such a thing ought not to be done. Come to a simple point. Do not you think that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or the Queen Anne's Bounty are bodies that can be properly trusted? Is it suggested that either of these bodies cannot properly be trusted in a matter of this kind? I have, I think, established three propositions: First, a free religious body should be free to receive religious assistance from any person or statutory body competent and desirous to give it. That is the first principle of religious freedom. Second, that people who are Disestablishing the Church in Wales are not interested in the division of Church funds which are to be used as Church funds, whether for the use of the Disestablished Church or the Established Church. That is not a matter for them. It is a matter for Churchmen and Churchmen only. And, lastly, it cannot be said that great public bodies, existing in one case, that of the Queen Anne's Bounty, for 200 years, and, in the other case, that of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, for eighty years, who have administered their funds according to universal consent in an admirable manner, should be fettered in the future and the discretion taken away which they now have because you Disestablish the Welsh Church. That is an impossible suggestion. The proposals of the Home Secretary in 1223 the result are to give a further discretion to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to the extern of £28,000, and a further discretion to the Queen Anne's Bounty to the extent of £3,000. That is as I gather the result of the combined Amendments which have been put down, but I put this further question to hon. Members on the other side. If you are to give a discretion of this kind, why limit it? If it is proper that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should have a discretion up to £28,000, why should you not allow them a general discretion, if you do not want to cripple the religious work of the Church in Wales through poverty? What other reason is there?
§ Sir A. CRIPPS
I did not hear what the hon. Member said, and I have not heard, after carefully listening, any argument which is not answered by the three propositions that I have put—freedom to receive and discretion as regards the funds involved. In any sense of the term they are Church funds; and if they are Church funds, and going to be used for Church purposes, you ought to allow Churchmen to have a discretion as to the way in which those funds are used, and you cannot have any better body than the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty. It appears to me that this is one of those matters in regard to which there seems to exist at the back of the minds of some persons—I am sure it is not in the minds of several hon. Members opposite—a wish to cripple the Church in Wales; but if it is not in their minds to cripple the Church in Wales, they should leave Churchmen to do their best to see that those funds which are at their disposal are used in the way which is of most advantage to their Church as a whole. I beg the Government to reconsider this provision, and I hope they will agree to the elimination of these words.
§ Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES
The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite seemed to dismiss the point which I suggested, and since I spoke I have got the Statute, 3rd and 4th Victoria, Section 57, which deals with the mode of applying the revenue at the disposal of the Commissioners. It expressly provides, at some length:—Provision shall be made by the authority hereinafter provided for the 1224 cure of souls in parishes where such assistance as is most required in such a manner as shall by the like authority be deemed most conducive to the efficiency of the Established Church.By Clause 1 of this Bill we have already Disestablished the Church so far as it exists in Wales. The point I am putting is that save and so far as this Clause in the proviso part of it gives power to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, any power, except some power already exercised in respect of which the yare under a liability, will cease, because the Church is no longer Established in Wales. That was my point, but the hon. and learned Member rather dismissed it as though there was nothing in it.
§ Sir A. CRIPPS
It is a technical matter, in regard to which I do not propose to enter into an argument. I think the expression "Established Church" there means, after the Establishment was created, and that would include both Wales and England. That is my view, which I give in answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I am not going to discuss the technical or legal point.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Mr. MOUNT
Two speeches were made, one by the hon. Member for Radnorshire (Sir F. Edwards) and the other by the hon. Member for Swansea District (Sir D. Brynmor Jones), the first of whom urged the Government to accept the Amendment, and the second of whom apparently attached to it no importance whatever. We have also had two other speeches from Members on the back benches opposite, and I venture to suggest that both of them were to a large extent labouring under a misapprehension as to what exactly this Amendment does. One hon. Gentleman apparently thought that this money was coming from other sources, and the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. E. Jones) seemed to think the money from Queen Anne's Bounty is money which was originally given to the Roman Catholic Church. He has entirely forgotten the fact that Queen Anne's Bounty was only started in 1703, a long time after the Reformation date which is put into this Bill. After all, what are the arguments in favour of this proposal on behalf of the Government? Is it in any way going to help or further the Church, or make the task of the Church am- lighter? Anyone who has followed at all the history of the Grants which have been made by the 1225 Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty to the Church must have realised that it has been no small advantage to the Church that those two bodies have both been able to make their Grants with perfect freedom to choose the object to which to give and the amount to be given. One of the great advantages of having an absolutely free hand with regard to the amount—which neither the Ecclesiastical Commissioners nor Queen Anne's Bounty will have if this Amendment be defeated— is that they will be able, as they have been able in the past, to induce the giving of Grants by private persons for the purpose of assisting a benefice or incumbency; whereas, otherwise, if the amount were stereotyped, they might not be able to do so. You get a double advantage in that way from any Grants that may be made by one of these statutory bodies.
This proposal, as it stands in the Bill, would fix and stereotype the amount. What reason is there for thinking that the amounts now given by those two bodies are amounts which will in future be otherwise than reasonable and sufficient? We have been told by hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite, and, I think, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, that there is a great change coming in the religious life of Wales. We have been told that there is a great change in the Nonconformist bodies, and we know, from what has been said by speakers on this side and also by speakers on the other side, that there is a great increase in the Church throughout Wales. What possible reason is there for thinking that the £28,000 will be sufficient in the future? Even if we look at Wales itself, no one who knows that country at all can doubt that there is going on, in certain parts of the Principality at any rate, an enormous increase of the population. It is more than likely that there will be a large increase of Church work and a large amount required from those two bodies, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty, in order to help the Church in Wales. The hon. Member for Swansea asked us to appreciate the grounds of the arguments on the other side with regard to this Bill. I think we do. I certainly have heard a good deal from the other side, and I have listened with a good deal of attention to the Debates that have taken place. I do not want to deal with the matter in a controversial spirit, but I think it is fair to state that the arguments of the other 1226 side are founded on the belief that the money Endowments with which we are dealing are national property, and that this is Welsh money which ought to be devoted to Welsh purposes for the Welsh people. With regard to this Amendment, it is not Welsh money with which we are dealing, but English money coming from English sources, and not from Welsh sources. Are you not going to allow the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to make use of this money in any way in which they wish to do so, and to give it out as they think it is most wanted by the impoverished Welsh Church? Hon. Members opposite are very fond of saying that they have no wish whatever to hurt the Church or to do anything that would make the task of the Disestablished Church more difficult in the future. Having regard to the attitude which is adopted by Members opposite on Amendments such as this, and that they are refusing this very small request which we make, it it very difficult to believe they are sincere when they say they are animated not with the object of hurting the Church, but freeing it from the 'shackles which bind it.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I think it would save time if the hon. Member would come immediately to the Amendment before the Committee.
§ Mr. KING
I will come straight to the point. This Amendment proposes to leave out the words "or power, "and to leave in the word "liability" —that is, all liabilities are to cease, but the powers are to continue. Anyone of us would be very glad to have all our liabilities come to an end and all our powers to continue. In effect, what we are asked to do is to give the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in their dealing with the Queen Anne's Bounty a perfectly free hand. I object to giving any- 1227 body a free hand, and especially I object to giving gentlemen a free hand who have got the control of money belonging to my countrymen, for, mark you, Queen Anne's Bounty is national property. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Then I shall have, to go back on the question. Did not Queen Anne's Bounty originally belong to the Pope, and was it not taken away from him by Act of Parliament, and was it not given to the Crown by Act of Parliament, and when one of the monarchs of England had at last a tender conscience and wanted to give it up, did they not pass another Act to give it back to the Church? The tender conscience of Queen Anne gave the money to the Church and taxed her faithful subjects. That is the position up to the present time, and I say, without any hesitation or doubt, that Queen Anne's Bounty is national property.
The Ecclesiastical Commissioners are under the control of Statutes which we may alter, and we have a perfect right to say that even if their liabilities in certain directions may cease their powers are very distinctly to be decided by the House of Commons. I am, therefore, totally unable to see why the very generous offer that was made from the Front Bench as soon as this Amendment was moved was received in such a carping and mean spirit. It was a generous offer, and ought to have been received in greater largeness of heart. We had one Member after another getting up and telling us that this was nothing else but unwarranted impertinence. One hon. Member said that it showed our only object on this side was to prevent any gifts of any kind being given to an impoverished Church. Have those who said so studied the Bill, because I am perfectly certain they do not understand it if they maintain that the Church is to be prevented according to our Bill from receiving any gifts. If any of the Noble Lords who have inherited land which was taken from the Church and settled upon them by Act of Parliament were to offer to give up those lands to the Disestablished Church then the whole machinery is there for the Disestablished Church to receive it. I do not want to detain the Committee from getting on to more important Amendments.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
I really do not understand why the hon. Member if he thinks there are other more important Amendments, thought it necessary to say anything on this Amendment at all. Surely 1228 he might have passed it over with silence, as he regards it as so unimportant. From what he did say I can only imagine that once again he left his speech behind when he caught your eye, because really he appeared entirely to misunderstand the question. He objected to anybody being left with full powers over national property. Putting aside for the moment the question whether it is national property or not does he not see that they have got full powers now? All that is proposed is that they shall have the same powers in future as they have at the present time. Does the hon. Member really contend that the Queen Anne's Bounty Fund, which is formed out of the savings drawn from the first fruits and tenths paid to the clergy since the year 1703, can in any sense ever have belonged to the Pope?
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
I am sure my Noble Friend never said anything of the kind. I put it to the hon. Member as a man of plain common intelligence, inasmuch as all the funds belonging to Queen Anne's Bounty at the present time are the result of savings out of income which have been contributed by the clergy of the Church of England since 1703, how could any part of the present funds ever have belonged to the Pope? The matter has only got to be stated for even the hon. Member to see the absurdity of his own contention. What we have to deal with is a fund which, under the provisions of the Bill, taking the date 1662, suggested by the Government themselves, ought not under any proper construction of the Bill to be regarded as a modern private benefaction. To talk about its being national property is entirely to misconceive the character of the Queen Anne's Bounty Fund. But I do not wish to speak about what the hon. Member said; I want to make another appeal to the Government to accept this Amendment. For the life of me I cannot understand why they do not accept it, even taking their own position as regards the Bill. Accepting that the Church is to be Disestablished and Disendowed in the manner proposed, why do they deny to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty full right to make such Grants as they choose, either greater or smaller than, or the same as the Giants they make now, out of English 1229 very inconclusive. One was that the Church in Wales might cease to be in communion with the Church of England; and the other was that he objected to the English Church my means of these funds controlling the policy of the Church in Wales. The hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. E. Jones) elaborated the latter argument, and objected very strongly from the Welsh point of view to any control exercised by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or by Queen Anne's Bounty over any portion of the money or the general ecclesiastical policy of the Church in Wales. Surely, those are matters which had far better be decided by members of the Church.
If Churchmen in Wales do not object to having these funds "with any consequent control that they may bring, what does it matter to the Home Secretary or to the hon. Member for Merthyr if there is that amount of control? They do not belong to the Church; they are not bringing in this Bill for the benefit of the Church. What they are doing is to strike a very heavy blow at the Church. That is what every Churchman believes, including many on the other side of the House, as was shown by their votes last Friday. In these circumstances it is really idle for the Home Secretary or the hon. Member for Merthyr to tell us that they do not want this additional money because it would entail extra control.
§ Mr. EDGAR JONES
We do not press the matter very much one way or the other, but I stated the view which Welsh people have taken.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
If you do not press it, why do you oppose the Amendment? In any case, can you answer for the Home Secretary? It was his argument with which I was dealing. Is not this a matter for Churchmen? If we—by "we" I mean Churchmen in England and Churchmen in Wales; I am voicing the opinion of all—do not object to such control provided you give Queen Anne's Bounty and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners the right to give such money as they choose and can afford to poor parishes in Wales, surely it is for us to say and not for the Member for Merthyr or for the Home Secretary? Therefore I appeal to the Home Secretary to withdraw his objection 1230 to the Amendment. The position is a very extraordinary one. What are you proposing to do by this Clause 1 First of all, you take away from the Church in Wales all the money vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty which is ascertained to be Welsh ecclesiastical property. You then proceed to give back or to give power to give back to the Church in Wales those sums which are now paid over by these two bodies from English sources. The proposal is utterly inconsistent with the whole tenor and object of the Bill. This Church in future is not to be Established, it is not to be called national, and yet it is to be supported by money which comes from an Established and a National Church. The Church in Wales, because it is to be Disestablished and not to be regarded as national is not to have any right to Welsh property, but it is to have a right to English property coming from the English Church, which remains Established and national. The position is an extraordinary one, but if the Government grant it, and we accept it as far as it goes, why do they not make it logical and allow these two bodies to give as much as they are prepared to give? I cannot say what the objection is. The discretion exists now; why should it not exist in the future?
The Government, and their supporters entirely misconceive the position and objects of the Ecclesiastical Commission and Queen Anne's Bounty. These are central bodies, controlling central funds for the common purposes of the Church in England and in Wales. There was never any distinction drawn between the two; neither was there any distinction drawn between the four Welsh dioceses and the remaining English dioceses, nor between one English diocese and another. The Ecclesiastical Commission and Queen Anne's Bounty are equalising bodies, giving Grants in necessitous cases, or to what might be termed necessitous areas. By the Bill the Government are proceeding to dismember the Church. The Home Secretary has justified that on the ground that you cannot Disestablish in Wales, and not in England, without some form of dismemberment. I suppose that that is so, but that is a very strong argument against the Bill. If it is necessary to dismember by cutting off the four Welsh dioceses, I fail to see why you need carry dismemberment any further by dividing up the Ecclesiastical Commission and Queen Anne's 1231 Bounty. Why not leave these bodies as central bodies to assist poor parishes in either part of the Church, either in England, where it remains Established, or in Wales, where it will be Disestablished, in precisely the same position as they are at present? It does not offend against any principle in the Bill. You admit that English money may be used for Welsh purposes under Disestablishment, but you deny to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty the freedom of control that they would naturally wish to have. You take certain existing Grants, adding a certain sum—£28,000 a year in the case of the Ecclesiastical Commission and £3,000 in the case of Queen Anne's Bounty—and then you stereotype it. That is how you arrive at the difference in this Bill as compared with the last Bill. Why stereotype it? Why say they must give that sum, or why say they must not give any more than that sum? If you admit the principle that English money may be used after Disestablishment for the benefit of the Church in Wales, why not carry the principle to its logical conclusion and say that the Commissioners are to have an absolutely free hand, exactly as they have at the present time? Look how unfair the position may be. We all know, in the case, at all events, of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, that their property has greatly grown in value in recent years. They have been very able financiers. They have husbanded their resources. They have managed their property uncommonly well. What has been the result?
Their funds have grown largely. They have been able to make additional Grants all over the country; augmenting the stipends of the poorer livings. In the next fifty years, say, the funds may still further grow—that is, the funds that they are left in possession of after this Bill is parsed. At the same time they may find themselves that whereas the Church of England is comparatively well provided for, yet there is frightful poverty in the Church in Wales. They may find that in many of the parishes the passing of this Bill will make it impossible to maintain resident clergy; a matter which is all the more serious because in very many parishes in Wales the clergyman is now the only resident minister there is. If their funds grow, and there is this terrible poverty in the case of the Church in Wales, 1232 why on earth should not some of this additional surplus which they may have be devoted to assist the struggling Church in Wales, and to enable that Church to maintain resident clergy? For the life of me I cannot see why the Government do not accept this Amendment. I hope, after all, they will do so, and so enable us to make the Bill a little more equitable than otherwise it would be.
§ Mr. McKENNA
A very strong appeal has been made by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and that appeal has-been supported by one of my hon. Friends behind me. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea District has, speaking, I understand, on behalf of certain Welsh Members and himself, said that the subject was a matter of more or less indifference to him.
§ Mr. McKENNA
That is what I am speaking to; but the Amendment is not quite so simple as it appears at first sight. In the first place, even if these words were struck out of the Clause they would not of themselves, as I am advised, have the effect which hon. Gentlemen opposite wish. However, that is a point which might easily be put right by setting up other words. As to the merits of the Amendment, the hon. Gentleman wishes that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should have unrestricted power to give out of English funds such money as they please to the Church which is no longer an Established Church.
§ Mr. McKENNA
The same principle applies to both of the funds. Frankly, I tell the Committee that I am not in a position to accept this Amendment, no matter what expression of views there might be upon this aspect of the subject. I should like, in the first place, to consult the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It is not at all clear to me that they are entirely willing that their liberty as trustees in this matter should be unrestricted. I may be mistaken, but I am under the impression from communications that have passed—these may have led me erroneously to think what I do—but they have led the question to be raised in my mind, and to give me the impression, that the Commissioners are not anxious to have such an enlargement of their powers in dealing with their trust 1233 funds as will enable them to give to Welsh purposes, or to a Disestablished Church, funds which they might conceive should be held to meet a stronger claim put forward on behalf of poor English dioceses. I could not accept the Amendment without further consultation with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. But, in view of this Debate, if I am hereafter advised by the Commissioners and by the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, that they are anxious to have unrestricted powers to pay out of their English resources such funds as may be pleaded for, and as they may think fit to grant to the Welsh Disestablished Church—if I am provided with an assurance from the Commissioners and the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty that this proposal is made at their desire and not merely with their acquiescence — I should be prepared to accept it on Report. I hope the Committee will understand that I do not feel myself justified at the present moment in putting the Commissioners into a position in which they might, immediately after Disestablishment, have great. claims made upon them on the grounds of the special circumstances of the Welsh Church—claims they might have difficulty in meeting having regard to their duties to the English Church. For that reason I hope the Committee will be satisfied with the suggestion I have made. The Commissioners have representatives in this Houses. After they have consulted with the body whom they represent, if they assure me that it is their wish that this Amendment should be made, I shall be willing to make it on Report.
§ Mr. E. JONES
May I put just one question to the Home Secretary? Will he keep an open mind as to whether any payment will be by way of perpetual annuity on annual Grant?
§ Mr. McKENNA
Annual Grant, of course, in any circumstances. I understand that the Commissioners in no case would be willing to give a perpetual annuity.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
I have listened to the speech of the Home Secretary with great astonishment. I thought the first speech of the right hon. Gentleman on this Amendment had really reached the limit of what a Minister might say in answer to the Amendment, but the second speech really appears to me to have gone beyond the limit. What does he tell us? He tells us that he dare not as a Minister give the 1234 power to a body like the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to go on spending their money in the way they have spent it up to the present time. He says that to do such a thing might conceivably put them in the awful position that they would be pressed beyond measure by claims from Wales; which they would not be able—being so' feeble a body!—to resist; or to do their duty in connection with. They might therefore be driven to commit a breach of trust! I cannot conceive that that was really seriously put before the Committee. Had the Commissioners protested violently against it, I agree, that might conceivably be a reason for not giving them the power. But to say that unless they actually desire that power the right hon. Gentleman will not give it to them, appears to me to be absolutely futile and ridiculous. Is this Clause-put in at the desire of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners? Not at all! The right hon. Gentleman put it in because he thought it carried out his policy. If he thinks, and if the House of Commons thinks, it right that the Commissioners should have this power, then I myself am strongly of opinion that we ought to put it in, without reference to whether the Commissioners desire it or not. After all, does not this throw a light on what the Home Secretary said previously? What was then the reason? It was that the only reason against this Amendment was that it might give to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners an undue control over the Church in Wales.
Let the Committee consider what the argument really means. It means if you empower the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to give money to poorer incumbents of the Church in Wales they might use that power to drive the Welsh Church to neglect their duty. That is an opinion which is said to be held very largely in Wales. What an opinion Welshmen must have of their fellow countrymen! That is the kind of thing they come to the House of Commons and say about their own fellow countrymen. I should be ashamed to say such a thing about any of my fellow countrymen. What an absurdity it is! They are to be allowed under the Bill to give £28,000 a year. Welsh morality can stand a bribe of £28,000, but if the amount is carried beyond that then it is too much to expect Welsh Ecclesiastical morality to stand! I never heard a more outrageous, or dreadful argument put before the House of Commons than that, and I must say 1235 that is almost too much for the hon. Member for Merthyr, and he is driven by force to say that he does not care very much about this Amendment, and would not quarrel with the Home Secretary if he were to accept it. But the Home Secretary says he cannot accept it because he is not quite sure the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would desire it. I think this illustrates the kind of condition the House of Commons is put in when working under the guillotine. No Minister would venture to make such a speech if we were working under the ordinary rules of Debate. He would know his own party, however servile, would not back him up in such a course. I venture to think this shows the utter falsity and unreality of our discussion upon this Bill in these particular conditions, and if my hon. Friend presses the Amendment I shall certainly support him in the Division Lobby.
Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS
That is my opinion, and I hope the Noble Lord will allow me to express my own opinion. In my view it is a very small matter, but it is a considerable matter inasmuch as it shows how the Opposition act upon any concession made to them by the Government. What is the position? In the Bill of 1895 and in the Bill of 1909 no power at all was given either to Queen Anne's Bounty or to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to differentiate between the English fund or the Welsh fund. The Government in introducing this Bill go out of their way, as the Home Secretary put it, to be perfectly fair to the Church, and they said this: "It is not fair that we should not differentiate between the sources or the origin of these moneys, if the moneys are derived from Wales they should come under the operations of this Bill; if the moneys come from England, as this Bill does not relate to England, these moneys should not, therefore, come under the operations of this Bill;" and that is all the Bill proposes to do, except this. In their anxiety to be perfectly fair to the Church in Wales, they say that as the Church has been in the habit of accepting certain moneys from English sources, both from Queen Anne's Bounty and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, we are not going to put a bar or obstacle in 1236 subsidies from these bodies. Nothing could be fairer, I submit, than the proposal contained in the Bill. Then an Amendment was proposed by the hon. and learned Member for South Bucks (Sir Alfred Cripps) in regard to that provision. He says, "It is grossly dishonest that you should at one step rob the Church of Wales, and then, in order to make up for the impoverishment you yourselves bring about, you allow the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to come to England to make up the money caused by your depredation. "That was the argument proposed to the Committee earlier in the afternoon by the hon. and learned Member, and I suppose he still adheres to that view. No sooner is a Division taken upon that point, and no sooner has the Committee decided against it, than an hon. Member opposite moves another Amendment to make the dishonesty still grosser. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Oh, yes, because hon. Members opposite say there are different sees and parishes that steadily require £68,000 a year to be given out of the English fund.
§ Sir A. CRIPPS
The point I made was that the dishonesty consists in first robbing the Established Church and then endeavouring to make up the losses in that way.
Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS
That we were robbing in double—first, robbing the Church in Wales, and then robbing the Church in England to make up our depredations. That was the argument. What is it this Amendment proposes to do? It is not sufficient that we should rob or enable the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to rob the English Church of £68,000 a year, but we must by this Amendment empower them to rob the English Church for the benefit of the Church we robbed in Wales to a still larger extent than £68,000. That just shows the character of the opposition to this Bill. I urge my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to take note of this for his future guidance. For my own part I say at once that I do not attach very much importance to the Amendment. It is those who take the view that the hon. Member for South Bucks takes who should object to it. I do not object to the Amendment very strongly if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners accept it, but I should have thought that anyone taking the view of the hon. and learned Member for Bucks should object to it very strongly. Let me 1237 say a word as to what has fallen from hon. Gentlemen opposite, and especially the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen), especially with regard to Queen Anne's Bounty. He seems to think—and it is the view of several Gentlemen on the opposite side—that Queen Anne's Bounty is not national property. Let me remind the Committee of what the real facts are. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that because the income of Queen Anne's Bounty is derived from tenths, whatever its origin, it is no longer national income. You might as well say that tithes are not national income because the tithe is paid yearly, and that because once there is no produce taken from a farm it is no longer tithable; therefore you might say that tithes are not national property because they depend on the labour of the people year by year.
What is the real story of Queen Anne's Bounty? The tenth and first fruits were paid by the clergy, but out of national property. It was a charge upon their property. I say it is national property in the same sense that the Tithe is national property. I agree, hon. Members opposite do not agree that it is national property, and therefore we agree to differ, but if you accept the view that Tithe is national property, and that glebe is national property, you must accept the view that Queen Anne's Bounty is national property. The tenths and first fruits were paid by the clergy to the Pope up to the time of Henry VIII. The Pope on many occasions made Grants of tenths and first fruits to the Crown, but as I reminded the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin, in the twenty-sixth year, I think, of the reign of Henry VIII., tithes and first fruits were ordered to be paid no longer to the Pope but to the Civil List of the King. It is all very well to say it was paid to the Privy Purse of the King, but anyone who knows anything about the way the Government was carried on in England at that time knows that the expenses of his establishment were defrayed out of the private pocket of the King.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. and learned Gentleman is going into a rather general discussion. I must ask him to confine his remarks to the Amendment before the Committee.
Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS
From the time of Henry VIII. to the time of Queen Anne the tithe was enjoyed by the 1238 King as part of his Civil List, and then the funds were diverted to the use of the Church. Why should an Act of Parliament be required unless in those days the tenths and first fruits were looked upon as national property? From that date to this Parliament has looked upon these funds as national property exactly as they looked upon tithes or any other national property enjoyed by the Church. Therefore, I see no reason to differentiate between tenths and first fruits and the rest of the Endowments held by the Church. May I urge the Government to adhere closely to their Bill. They have thought this Bill out, and thought it out well. They have had the advantage of having prepared two other Bills, one in 1895 and one in 1909, and after full deliberation they decided that this is the best form of Bill they could produce. The arguments which have been urged by the other side for the acceptance of this Amendment left me at all events unconvinced, and I urge the Government not only on this, but on other occasions, to think twice and thrice before they depart from the path which they have mapped out for themselves, because if they depart from that path they will only earn the derision of the Opposition, and something like the contempt of their own side.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
May I say that the Home Secretary was bound to go away to attend to some urgent Papers. Anything the right hon. Gentleman says I will convey to my right hon. Friend.
§ Mr. WYNDHAM
We heard a surprising speech from the Home Secretary, but we have just had an even more extraordinary speech from the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. L. Williams). That speech may be divided into three sections. The first was an admonition and rebuke to the Opposition for the way in which they have done what they conceive to be their duty under the tyrannical conditions of the guillotine. Secondly, there was a fervid exhortation to the Government not to listen to a single word said in the Debate even under these conditions; and the third section was that in which he worked himself up to rhetorical frenzy over the word "national" as applied to any property which he wishes to divert from its present owners. Both in regard to his admonition and rebuke of the Opposition and his exhortation of the Government, neither the 1239 one nor the other were permissible or even logical from a man of culture, except on the supposition that he thinks everybody ought to assume his position in regard to a debateable matter of this kind. He has done nothing to relieve the Committee from the very difficult position in which it is placed and which is almost unparalleled. What has happened? We have been asked during the earlier part of the Debate to take an intelligible course, and then we have been told that perhaps after all we need not take that course for a still more unintelligible reason. If the Home Secretary contented himself by saying that before definitely undertaking to give way to what is obviously the general sense of the Committee, he thought it only right and proper to state the case to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, that would have shown a due regard for a properly constituted authority, but the right hon. Gentleman said "No, I am going to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to ask them if they earnestly desire that this Amendment shall be accepted by the Government."
Could there be anything more fatuous on the part of the Home Secretary than the course he has suggested? When his Welsh supporters tell him he must give way to the force of reason, he says that he only intends to ask the Ecclesiastical Commissioners whether they are enthusiastically in favour of this Amendment. The Home Secretary ought to have a saving sense of humour before he plunges a Committee of this House into such a ridiculous position. Nobody has opposed the Amend-on its merits. It was evident from the Division last Friday that a number of the supporters of the Government were opposed to these proposals, and that they intended by hook or by crook, or by any device they could adopt, to minimise the injury which these proposals would do to the Church in Wales. To-day we have gone a step further and two Welsh Members have stated that property given from Welsh sources ought not to be given to a Church which they do not think is national enough, and from that point of view they urge the Government to give way. The Home Secretary's point of view is totally unintelligible. He says that where property comes from Welsh sources it must be taken away from the Church in Wales because the Church is not national enough, but where it comes from other sources in England it may well be given to the Disestablished Church in Wales. The whole position is ludicrous, and the Government 1240 are basing their case upon grounds which are incapable of argumentative defence. The Home Secretary has for some hours resisted an Amendment which the general sense of the Committee desire him to-accept, and, for reasons which I will investigate perhaps at a future time, he feels justified in violating all the principles on which he put forward the Government case, and then says, "You may violate them to that point and no further." You may take the common Endowments of the Church, the common funds spoken of in this Clause, and you may allocate them in perpetuity, but only on certain dates and only up to a certain amount. Really, out of all the fog and bewilderment into which the Government plunges us one fact does emerge, and that is that this is not a Welsh Bill, but a Bill which taps the common resources of the Church throughout England as much as Wales. It collects money for those parishes, wherever they be situated. That is one thing that is apparent. The other thing that calls for comment is that we are given the promise of the allocation of funds in perpetuity under a Clause which is to destroy Parliamentary Grants given by this House within a century.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I should like the Committee to consider what the real position is in this matter, because I think we have rather strayed away from it. It is urged that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would have the power to grant funds to the Disestablished Church in Wales, but before they can grant funds it is just as well to consider from where those funds are to come and what are the duties of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in this matter. I think we are entitled, first of all, to ask whether in future the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will have any excess funds at their disposal which they could give. There has been a marked hesitation on the part of Ecclesiastical Commissioners who sit in this House to give us any indication at all whether there are any funds at their disposal which with all the goodwill in the world they could give to the Disestablished Church in Wales beyond the £28,000 which they now allot. We have no guidance on that at all. We have had no sort of hint or indication that they are in a position to do that which the Opposition consider they should have the right to do.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I am arguing upon the question whether they have funds or not to give beyond the £28,000. That, after all, is the most important point. It is no use saying to them, "You may give" unless you know perfectly well they have anything to give. The first point to establish before granting them the power is that they have anything on which they can exercise that power, and not one word was said by the right hon. Gentleman on that point. He very skilfully, and, if I may say so, very wisely evaded the whole of that issue. What has happened do the past? In the first place, people have offered benefactions to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, either for the Church in Wales or for the Church in England, because they were the one body to which persons desirous of increasing the revenues of the Established Church could go, and which could take charge of those funds, deal with them from generation to generation, and dispose of them in accordance with the wishes of the Church. That will be no longer so in future. Hitherto, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have represented both the Church in Wales and the Church in England. In future the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will remain for the Church in England, and you will have a representative body who will be in a position to take charge of any funds which generous and religious-minded people may wish to give for the benefit of the Disestablished Church in Wales. That essential and governing fact must be borne in mind. Hereafter, you will have a body created by charter in existence, ready and able to receive anything which people sufficiently well off and sufficiently well disposed may be desirous of contributing, and to take charge of any funds. You come back to this, that the power under this Amendment must have reference to any funds which are now in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to distribute. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Bucks (Sir A. Cripps) answered that argument by way of anticipation when he told the Committee he was exceedingly 10th to use any funds which are drawn from the revenues of the Church in England for the benefit of the Disestablished Church in Wales. I venture to say the position taken up by the Opposition in rejecting the offer made by the right hon. Friend is not wise, and from the point of view of the Disestablished Church in Wales is not judicious. They have from the point of view of the Established Church in Eng- 1242 land already by anticipation condemned the terms of this Amendment. Let me in the unavoidable absence of my right hon. Friend repeat the offer which he made. He said he must consult the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners in this respect have not only powers, but they have duties. They are the trustees for the funds which are in their hands, and to say to trustees, "You are not to be consulted as to whether or not you should do anything disposing of the funds now in your hands," is, I think, a very wrong view of the duties and responsibilities of such scheme. My right hon. Friend has said he makes this offer subject to the condition there shall not be merely agreement by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but there shall be a plain and decided expression of opinion. On their part they desire this power to be granted to them, and on that condition and on that understanding alone he will accept the Amendment on Report.
§ Mr. STUART-WORTLEY
The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down began by asking—and by complaining that the question had been evaded by a previous speaker whether, if this power were left in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, they have any funds out of which to exercise it. There is no Member in this House who has less right to ask that question, because the right hon. Gentleman has been an Ecclesiastical Commissioner himself; not only so, but he was on the Estates Committee, and he knows perfectly well that their income, their property, and their assets, with such valuation as can be placed upon them, are annually laid upon the Table of the House for the inspection of the public and Members of the House. To ask them to say whether twenty, thirty, forty, or possibly fifty years hence they are going to be in possession of funds out of which to make certain Grants is just as if you were to ask any other landowner what he expects to be the condition of his income, urban, mineral, or purely agricultural, at any distant period such as that. For the purpose of the present discussion, my assumption is that this Amendment will have some real effect. I believe the draftsman would not have put words into this Clause if the leaving out of them would not have had some effect. I have to make one or two observations. The first is that this Amendment raises a matter as to public policy which is not proper to be decided by the Ecclesiastical 1243 Commissioners alone. The right hon. Gentleman has fallen into some confusion on that — a confusion which constantly prevails amongst people, namely, that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners know better as to the rights and wrongs of policy as distinct from questions of propriety of administration—quite another matter. I have every reason to suppose that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will meet this suggestion made by the Home Secretary, and if powers are left to them they will do their best to see that those powers are properly exercised. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will imagine there is something in reserve in what I have said. It is only due to the Commissioners that I should say this. We do not want, if we are left these powers, to be asked also to say it is a kindness to any one of the Churches in England or in Wales or to religious persons anywhere in England or Wales, to allow us to give to the Disestablished and partly Disendowed parishes in Wales something which is seriously wanted by the English Churches.
§ Viscount WOLMER
The attitude we have taken up in this Debate is that full liberty should be given to the Church of England to give such assistance as is necessary and as she is able to give her fellow Church in Wales. We object, first, to the proposal brought forward by the Home Secretary because we object to dismemberment in any shape or form, whenever and wherever it may occur. We desire to preserve the unity of administration and organisation between the Churches in England and Wales wherever we can. I submit if hon. Members opposite are really desirous to let the Church down as lightly as possible and to facilitate the Church accommodating herself to the new position of affairs, that will help forward the work of the Church and not hinder it, and in that point of view they would accept the Amendment at once. It simply is an Amendment designed to enable the Church to use her money in the best possible manner as the necessities and opportunities of the moment may determine. The hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs apparently has not taken the trouble to listen to our speeches or to read even the Amendment, because he drew a contrast between the speech of the lion. Member for Buckinghamshire and the speeches of hon. Members on this side of the House. The hon. and 1244 learned Member for Buckinghamshire objects to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Governors of the Queen Anne's Bounty being called upon to give a lump capital sum to the Church in Wales because in future years that money may be much more needed for poor parishes in dioceses in England. What we are asking for now is that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Queen Anne's Bounty should at all times have full and absolute liberty to give as much money as they think right for the assistance of parishes of the Church in Wales. That is a principle to which we attach the greatest importance. We were accused of a lack of generosity in the way in which we have dealt with the Home Secretary's second suggestion. I should like to explain that we object to the shuffling arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman throughout the whole of the Debate. He first came down to the House and said it was necessary to limit the amount which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty could give to the Church in Wales, because if they had power to give a greater amount, they might be able to bribe the Church in Wales to do something which it ought not to do. Then he came down a few hours later proposing to give unlimited power to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners if they ask for it and if they really wanted it. The two arguments were mutually inconsistent. I should like to protest against the first argument which the right hon. Gentleman used—the argument that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners might be expected to bribe the Church in Wales to do something she ought not to do, or might have undue influence over the representative body of the Church in Wales. That argument was insulting both to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and to Churchmen in Wales. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine that the Church in Wales has suffered from her association with the province of Canterbury, and will immediately proceed to alter her doctrines and form some creed for herself. Whether that is so I do not know. I have noticed that right hon. Gentlemen opposite are often under the impression that the Church is in need of self-government in order that she may alter her doctrine. I can assure hon. Members opposite that that is the last thing in the minds of Churchmen. The doctrines of the Church have lasted for 900 years, and are likely to last, at any rate during our lifetime. There is not 1245 the slightest prospect of any divergence of doctrine between the Church in England and the Church in Wales, and to insinuate that the Church in England would try to exercise undue influence in such matters over the Church in Wales is an argument which, I submit, is more or less an insult to the whole Church. I desire to refer to one remark made by the hen. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs with regard to Queen Anne's Bounty. I should like to call attention to his argument. I understood him to say that Queen Anne's Bounty was originally national property, and that it was a gift from the Crown to the Church confirmed by Act of Parliament.
Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS
What I said was that as these tenths and first-fruits were diverted to the King's Civil List by Act of Parliament, it was admitted that they were national property which could be disposed of by Parliament.
§ Viscount WOLMER
I understood the hon. Member's argument was that this property, before it belonged to the Crown, was national property; that it was voted to the Crown by Act of Parliament, and that the Crown and Parliament transferred it to the Church, and therefore that it was still national property. I should like to contrast that attitude with the general attitude of hon. Members opposite with regard to national property. Although a minor point, it is a very interesting one. We regard Queen Anne's Bounty as being the free gift of Queen Anne to the Church—a free gift of money, which she regarded as having been stolen by her predecessors from the Church, a restoration to the Church, which she took the precaution to have confirmed by Act of Parliament in order that that settlement should not be reversed. The hon. Member says that it is national property because it once belonged to the nation; was transferred by Act of Parliament to the Crown, and was then restored to the Church. I should like to contrast that doctrine with the attitude which hon. Members opposite and the Government take up on the question of the tithes and other Church property held by lay impropriators. At the time of the Reformation it was confiscated from the Church and transferred by Act of Parliament to the Crown. At the present moment you have in Wales £40,000 a year of tithes which was——
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The Noble Lord will recollect that I called the hon. 1246 Member for Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. Llewelyn Williams) to order for having travelled beyond the limits of this Debate.
§ Viscount WOLMER
I only wish to make the point. I shall not go further into the matter. You, Sir, allowed the hon. Gentleman to make his point, and I thought I might be allowed to reply.
§ Viscount WOLMER
The only point I wish to make in a sentence—I am not trying to get beyond your ruling—is that just as hon. Members opposite regard as private property, because they do not touch it in this Bill, the original Church tithes and glebe which at the time of the Reformation passed into the hands of laymen, so they ought to regard as private property the Church property which passed into the hands of the Crown by the same settlement. Queen Anne's Bounty and the land and tithes held at the present time by lay impropriators are in exactly the same class. The Government confiscate Queen Anne's Bounty because it is easy to get hold of, but they do not dare to touch the tithes held by lay impropriators, because it would create a great deal of disturbance and be very inconvenient to them, to do so. So far as principle is concerned, there is not a hairbreadth of difference between the two. It is part of the utter meanness of this Bill that it confiscates ecclesiastical property, but leaves in the hands of laymen property which hon. Members opposite always say is ecclesiastical property. It is because they have not put it into the Bill that it is difficult to bring this point into the Debates on the Bill, but I think I have managed to do so to-night. We are contending here for the unfettered liberty of the Church to do what she likes with the money which you in your generosity are pleased to leave her. If you withstand that demand you are interfering with the self-government of the Church, and that part of the Church which you are pretending to free by this Bill. It will not harm your scheme in the slightest to accept this Amendment, but it will benefit the Church. It will help her work, and your acceptance of this Amendment would be a guarantee of your bona fides and the profession of friendship that you are always giving to the Church.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
I never heard a more extraordinary volte face than the change between the first and the second 1247 speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. McKenna). The first speech amounted to a blank refusal of the Amendment. The second speech amounted to a complete affirmative on condition that the desire was expressed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to carry out the policy which he advocates. Surely the Minister in charge of the Bill, dealing with a Clause concerning the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, should be prepared with the views and opinions of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. When the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stuart-Wortley), speaking as one of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, supported the Amendment, surely it is perfectly reasonable for us to suggest that the Government should be open to accept the Ammendment. The other point is that the hon. Gentleman (Sir D. B. Jones), and moreover the hon. Member (Sir F. Edwards), were both sympathetic with the Amendment. They both asked for freedom for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in this respect. Why, then, does the Home Secretary still stand out, still urge the Government Whips, still urge hon. Members who have not listened to the the Debate but have been in the Smoking Rooms and the Libraries to come in and vote down the Amendment which has received sympathy from that side of the House as well as this? We know why. The speech of the hon. Member (Sir D. B. Jones) made it perfectly clear. He said he hoped the Government would resist all Amendments, however reasonable, however good the argument. They have that pressure behind them. They have the Shylock waiting for his pound of flesh. Anything, providing he can get the money from the Church. Anything provided he can hurt the Church. What the hon. Member says is that if the Government listen to argument they will merely bring themselves into contempt and derision on their own side. Then we are taunted on this side because we do not receive these concessions in the spirit of the hon. Member, a spirit of hatred and hostility.
§ Mr. DAVID MASON
I do not propose to follow the speech of the hon. Member. I am sure it does not require any words of mine to refute anything so derogatory to the spirit which animates my hon. Friends. I wish to say a few words in reference to the speech of the Noble Lord (Viscount Wolmer). He made a statement with which I am in entire agreement. That was in reference to the lack of logical 1248 consistency in the speeches made by the Home Secretary this evening. I am sure the general sense of Members all round here is certainly rather with his earlier speech than with the later one. The general sense of the Committee is not, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wyndham) said in favour of the Amendment, but on the contrary the vast majority surely of this House supports the Bill as it stands. There was a feeling undoubtedly, after the very able and conciliatory speech of the Home Secretary, that when you are considering a position where you are gradually handing over to Wales this Disestablished Church there exists in the nature of things an interregnum period, and therefore the withdrawal of power should be gradual. It seems to me that the Ecclesiastical Commission formed in 1835 was given powers by Parliament for, as was stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. A. Lyttelton), equalising purposes of the Church of England and which were surely national powers. When the Church of England in Wales becomes Disestablished, I think it is obviously logical that the powers of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in dealing with that Church ought to be curtailed. It would be an absurdity and an anomaly to give the same powers to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners after Disestablishment as they previously held when the Church in Wales was part of the Church of England. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I have just endeavoured to explain why not. I believe the Church in Wales after Disestablishment will be much stronger. The idea that a Church is made strong by Endowments seems to me to cut away the main ground of the status of a Church. A Church does not depend upon its wealth, it depends upon something higher and nobler. We are not enemies of the Church. I support the Government in opposing the Amendment.
§ Mr. PETO
I would remind the Home Secretary that there are many poor parishes in England. I did not expect to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the reason he gave for not accepting the Amendment.
It being half-past Ten of the clock, the DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 28th November, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
§ Question put, "That the posed to be left out stand Clause."1250
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 165.1251
|Division No. 460.]||AYES||[10.30 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Ferens, Rt. Hon, Thomas Robinson||Macpherson, James Ian|
|Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)||Ffrench, Peter||MacVeagh, Jeremiah|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Field, William||M'Callum, Sir John M.|
|Adamson, William||Fitzgibbon, John||M'Kean, John|
|Addison, Dr. Christopher||Flavin, Michael Joseph||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald|
|Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.||France, G. A.||M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S, (Lincs., Spalding)|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd||M'Micking, Major Gilbert|
|Agnew, Sir George William||Gilhooly, James||Manfield, Harry|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Ginnell, L.||Markham, Sir Arthur Basil|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)||Gladstone, W. G. C.||Martin, Joseph|
|Arnold, Sydney||Glanville, Harold James||Mason, David M. (Coventry)|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Meagher, Michael|
|Baker, H. T. (Acrington)||Goldstone, Frank||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)||Menzies, Sir Walter|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)||Millar, James Duncan|
|Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Greig, Colonel J. W.||Molloy, M.|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Barnes, George N.||Griffith, Ellis J.||Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz|
|Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)||Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)||Money, L. G. Chiozza|
|Barton, W.||Guest, Hon Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Mooney, J. J.|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||Morgan, George Hay|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Hackett, J.||Morrell, Philip|
|Bethell, Sir J. H.||Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)||Morison, Hector|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Hancock, John George||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Black, Arthur W.||Harcourt, Robert v. (Montrose)||Muldoon, John|
|Boland, John Pius||Hardie, J. Keir||Munro, R.|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)||Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Nolan, Joseph|
|Brace, William||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West))||Norton, Captain Cecil W.|
|Brady, P. J.||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Nuttall, Harry|
|Brunner, John F. L.||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Hayward, Evan||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Hazleton, Richard||O'Donnell, Thomas|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)||O'Dowd, John|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)||Hemmerde, Edward George||Ogden, Fred|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Grady, James|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Henry, Sir Charles||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)|
|Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Heywood)||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Won., S.)||O'Malley, William|
|Chancellor, H. G.||Higham, John Sharp||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Hinds, John||O'Shaughnessy, P. J,|
|Clough, William||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||O'Shee, James John|
|Clynes, John R.||Hodge, John||O'Sullivan, Timothy|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Holmes, Daniel Turner||Outhwaite, R. L.|
|Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Hudson, Walter||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Cotton, William Francis||Hughes, S. L.||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)|
|Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||John, Edward Thomas||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Crean, Eugene||Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Crooks, William||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||Pointer, Joseph|
|Crumley, Patrick||Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Cullinan, J.||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)||Jones, Leil Stratten (Rushcliffe)||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Davies, E. William (Eifion)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)|
|Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)||Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)||Primrose, Hon. Neil James|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Joyce, Michael||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Dawes, James Arthur||Keating, Matthew||Radford, G. H.|
|Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Kellaway, Frederick George||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)|
|Devlin, Joseph||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)|
|Dickinson, W. H.||Kilbride, Denis||Reddy, M.|
|Donelan, Captain A.||King, J.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Doris, W.||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)|
|Duffy, William J.||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)||Richards, Thomas|
|Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)||Lewis, John Herbert||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|
|Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||Lundon, Thomas||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||Lyell, Charles Henry||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Lynch, A. A.||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)|
|Falconer, J.||McGhee, Richard||Robinson, Sidney|
|Farrell, James Patrick||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Roch, Walter F.|
|Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)||Roche, Augustine (Louth)|
|Roe, Sir Thomas||Sutton, John E.||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Rose, Sir Charles Day||Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)||Thomas, J. H.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Scanlan, Thomas||Toulmin, Sir George||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)||Verney, Sir Harry||Williamson, Sir Archibald|
|Sheeny, David||Wadsworth, J.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Shorn, Edward||Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)||Winfrey, Richard|
|Simon, Sir John Allsebrook||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)|
|Smith, Albert (Lanes, Clitheroe)||Wardle, George J.||Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)|
|Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay||Young, William (Perth, East)|
|Snowden, Philip||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.)||Watt, Henry A.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.|
|Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)||Webb, H.|
|Sutherland, J. E.||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes||Newdegate, F. A.|
|Amery, L. C. M. S.||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Newman, John R. P.|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue||Newton, Harry Kottingham|
|Archer-Shee, Major Martin||Fleming, Valentine||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)|
|Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)||Fletcher, John Samuel||Nield, Herbert|
|Balcarres, Lord||Forster, Henry William||O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Gardner, Ernest||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Gastrell, Major W. H.||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)||Gibbs, G. A.||Perkins, Walter F.|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Barnston, Harry||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Bighton)||Pole-Carew, Sir R.|
|Barrie, H. T.||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Pryce-Jones, Col. E.|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Grant, J. A.||Randles, Sir John S.|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Greene, W. R.||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Beresford, Lord C.||Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)||Rees, Sir J. D.|
|Bird, A.||Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Blair, Reginald||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen)|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Haddock, George Bahr||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)|
|Boyton, James||Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hall, Fred (Dulwich)||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence||Sanders, Robert A.|
|Bull, Sir William James||Harris, Henry Percy||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Harrison-Broadley, H. B,||Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Helmsley, Viscount||Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)|
|Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Smith, Harold (Warrington)|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)||Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)||Starkey, John R.|
|Campion, W. R.||Hewins, William Albert Samuel||Staveley-Hill, Henry|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Hill, Sir Clement L.||Steel-Maitland, A. D.|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.||Hoare, Samuel John Gurney||Stewart, Gershom|
|Cassel, Felix||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Swift, Rigby|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Talbot, Lord E.|
|Cator, John||Houston, Robert Paterson||Terrell, H. (Gloucester)|
|Cautley, H. S.||Hume-Williams, William Ellis||Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)|
|Cave, George||Hunter, Sir C. R.||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Ingleby, Holcombe||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)||Jessel, Captain H. M.||Tobin, Alfred Aspinall|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Touche, George Alexander|
|Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Kerry, Earl of||Tryon, Captain George Clement|
|Clay, Captain H. H. Spender||Keswick, Henry||Valentia, Viscount|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Knight, Captain E. A.||Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Larmor, Sir J.||Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian||Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)||Wills, Sir Gilbert|
|Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Winterton, Earl|
|Denniss, E. R. B.||Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Dixon, C. H.||Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)||Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)|
|Doughty, Sir George||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)||Worthington-Evans, L.|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Eyres-Monsell, B. M.||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Faber, George Denison (Clapham)||Mackinder, Halford J.||Yerburgh, Robert A.|
|Falle, Bertram Godfray||Macmaster, Donald||Younger, Sir George|
|Fell, Arthur||M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)|
|Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Mount, William Arthur||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Pollock and Col. Rawson.|
|Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert||Neville, Reginald J. N.|
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at this day's sitting.1252
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 286; Noes, 164.1255
|Division No. 461.]||AYES.||[10.48 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Fitzgibbon, John||Markham, Sir Arthur Basil|
|Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Martin, Joseph|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||France, G. A.||Mason, David M. (Coventry)|
|Adamson, William||George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd||Meagher, Michael|
|Addison, Dr. Christopher||Gilhooly, James||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)|
|Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.||Ginnell, L.||Menzies, Sir Walter|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Gladstone, W. G. C.||Millar, James Duncan|
|Agnew, Sir George William||Glanville, Harold James||Molloy, Michael|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)||Goldstone, Frank||Mond, Sir Alfred Miritz|
|Arnold, Sydney||Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough;||Money, L. G. Chiozza|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)||Mooney, J. J.|
|Baker, H. T. (Accrington)||Greig, Colonel J. W.||Morgan, George Hay|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Morrell, Philip|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Griffith, Ellis J.||Morison, Hector|
|Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Muldoon, John|
|Barnes, G. N.||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||Munro, R.|
|Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)||Hackett, John||Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.|
|Barton, W.||Halt, F. (Yorks, Normanton)||Nannettl, Joseph P.|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Hancock, John George||Nolan, Joseph|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Norton, Captain Cecil W.|
|Bethell, Sir J. H.||Hardie, J. Keir||Nuttall, Harry|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Boland, John Pius||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||O'Connor, T. p. (Liverpool)|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||O'Donnell, Thomas|
|Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||O'Dowd, John|
|Brace, William||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Ogden, Fred|
|Brady, P. J.||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Grady, James|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Hayward, Evan||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.|
|Brunner, John F. L.||Hazleton, Richard||O'Malley, William|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Hemmerde, Edward George||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Shee, James John|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Henry, Sir Charles||O'Sullivan, Timothy|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||Outhwaite, R. L.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)||Higham, John Sharp||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Hinds, John||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Heywood)||Hodge, John||Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Rotherham)|
|Chancellor, H. G.||Holmes, Daniel Turner||Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Clough, William||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Pirle, Duncan V.|
|Clynes, John R.||Hudson, Walter||Pointer, Joseph|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Hughes, S. L.||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||John, Edward Thomas||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)|
|Cotton, William Francis||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||Primrose, Hon. Neil James|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||Radford, G. H.|
|Crean, Eugene||Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)|
|Crooks, William||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)|
|Crumley, Patrick||Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)||Reddy, M.|
|Cullinan, J.||Joyce, Michael||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)||Keating, Matthew||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)|
|Davies, E. William (Eifion)||Kellaway, Frederick George||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)|
|Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Kilbride, Denis||Richards, Thomas|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)||King, J.||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)|
|Dawes, James Arthur||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molten)||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Devlin, Joseph||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)|
|Dickinson, W. H.||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Lewis, John Herbert||Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)|
|Doris, W.||Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)||Robinson, Sidney|
|Duffy, William J.||Lundon, Thomas||Roch, Walter F.|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Lyell, Charles Henry||Roche, Augustine (Louth)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)||Lynch, A. A.||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Rose, Sir Charles Day|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||McGhee, Richard||Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.|
|Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Macpherson, James Ian||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.|
|Falconer, J.||M'Callum, Sir John M.||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|Farrell, James Patrick||M'Kean, John||Sheehy, David|
|Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Shortt, Edward|
|Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs, Spalding)||Simon, Sir John Allsebrook|
|Ffrench, Peter||M'Micking, Major Gilbert||Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)|
|Field, William||Manfield, Harry||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Snowden, Philip||Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)||Wardle, George J.||Williams, Lleyelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay||Williamson, Sir Archibald|
|Sutherland, J. E.||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Sutton, John E.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)||Winfrey, Richard|
|Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Watt, Henry A.||Wood, Rt. Hon. McKinnon (Glas)|
|Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Webb, H.||Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)|
|Thomas, J. H.||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)||Young, William (Perth, East)|
|Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Toulmin, Sir George||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Wedgwood Benn.|
|Verney, Sir Harry||Wiles, Thomas|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Fleming, Valentine||Newton, Harry Kottingham|
|Amery, L. C. M. S.||Fletcher, John Samuel||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Forster, Henry William||Nield, Herbert|
|Archer-Shee, Major Martin||Gardner, Ernest||O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)|
|Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)||Gastrell, Major W. H.||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William|
|Balcarres, Lord||Gibbs, G. A.||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)||Perkins, Walter F.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Pole-Carew, Sir R.|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Grant, J. A.||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Barrie, H. T.||Greene, W. R.||Pryce-Jones, Col. E.|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)||Randies, Sir John S.|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Beresford, Lord C.||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Rawson, Lt. Col. R. H.|
|Bird, A.||Haddock, George Bahr||Rees, Sir J. D.|
|Blair, Reginald||Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Hall, Fred (Dulwich)||Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen)|
|Boyton, James||Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Harris, Henry Percy||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Bull, Sir William James||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Helmsley, Viscount||Sanders, Robert A.|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)||Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)||Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)||Hewins, William Albert Samuel||Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Hill, Sir Clement L.||Smith, Harold (Warrington)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.||Hoare, Samuel John Gurney||Starkey, John R.|
|Cassel, Felix||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Staveley-Hill, Henry|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Steel-Maitland, A. D.|
|Cator, John||Houston, Robert Paterson||Stewart, Gershom|
|Cautley, H. S.||Hume-Williams, William Ellis||Swift, Rigby|
|Cave, George||Hunter, Sir C. R.||Talbot, Lord E.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Ingleby, Holcombe||Terrell, H. (Gloucester)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)||Jessel, Captain H. M.||Thompson, Robert (Belfast, N.)|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)|
|Chaloner, Col. R. G. W,||Kerry, Earl of||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Clay, Capt. H. Spender||Keswick, Henry||Tobin, Alfred Aspinall|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Touche, George Alexander|
|Craig, Charles (Antrim, S.)||Knight, Captain E. A.||Tryon, Captain George Clement|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Larmor, Sir J.||Valentia, Viscount|
|Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Locker-Lampson, G (Salisbury)||Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian||Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Denniss, E. R. B.||Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Dixon, C. H.||Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)||Wills, Sir Gilbert|
|Doughty, Sir George||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)||Winterton, Earl|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Eyres-Monsell, B. M.||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh||Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)|
|Faber, George Denison (Clapham)||Mackinder, H. J.||Worthington-Evans, L.|
|Falle, Bertram Godfray||Macmaster, Donald||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Fell, Arthur||M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Mount, William Arthur||Younger, Sir George|
|Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert||Neville, Reginald J. N.|
|Fisher, Rt. Hon, W. Hayes||Newdegate, F. A.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Barnston and Mr. Campion.|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Newman, John R. P.|
|Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue|
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow (Tuesday).
§ The Orders for the remaining Government business were read, and postponed.
§ Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."