Commons Sitting of 4 February 1913

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

VACATION OF SEAT (MEMBER HOLDING CONTRACT).
The Treasurer of the Household (Captain Guest) reported His Majesty's Answer to the humble Address of the 31st January as followeth:—
I have received your Address praying that I will refer to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for hearing and consideration the question of Law whether, by reason of the facts which have been reported by the Select Committee mentioned in this Address, Sir Stuart Samuel is disabled from sitting and voting in the House of Commons, and further praying that I may be pleased to communicate to the House such advice as I may receive from the said Judicial Committee.
I shall give directions in accordance with your Address.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
Petitions were presented praying the House not to pass into law the Established Church (Wales) Bill by—
Mr. Houston (41 petitions, 10,772 signatures), from residents of Liverpool, Bootle, and district.
Mr. Campion (64 petitions, 17,272 signatures), from the North-Eastern or Wimbledon Division of Surrey; (62 petitions, 11,603 signatures), from Derbyshire; (1 petition, 71 signatures); and a general petition from different parts of the country, containing 5,598 signatures.
Sir H. Samuel (36 petitions, 11,536 signatures), from Norwood, the Epsom Division of Surrey, and Bow and Bromley.
Major Archer-Shee (11 petitions, 1,112 signatures).
Sir W. Bull (195 petitions, 24,246 signatures), from various Parliamentary Divisions.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 25th January, 1913 (1) in terms of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, affecting the Shops of pharmacists, and (2) in terms of Section 4, affecting the Shops of butchers and pharmacists, in the burgh of Arbroath [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 10th December, 1912, in terms of Section 5 of the Act, affecting certain classes of Shops in the burgh of Burghead [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Report, No. 748 (Barbados, Report for 1911–12).
Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

1. Adjournment Motions under Standing Order No. 10,—Return relative thereto [ordered 3rd February; The Deputy-Chairman]; to be printed. [No. 502.]

2. Closure of Debate (Standing Order No. 26),—Return relative thereto [ordered 3rd February; The Deputy-Chairman]; to be printed. [No. 503.]

3. Public Bills,—Return relative thereto [ordered 3rd February; The Deputy-Chairman]

4. Public Petitions,—Return relative thereto [ordered 3rd February; The Deputy-Chairman]

5. Select Committees,—Return relative thereto [ordered 3rd February; The Deputy-Chairman]

6. Standing Committees,—Return relative thereto [ordered 3rd February; The Deputy-Chairman]

7. Sittings of the House,—Return relative thereto [ordered 3rd February; The Deputy-Chairman].

8. Business of the House (Days Occupied by Government and by Private Members),—Return relative thereto [ordered 3rd February; The Deputy-Chairman]. [No. 504.]

9. Private Bills and Private Business,—Return relative thereto [ordered 3rd February; The Deputy-Chairman].

TRADE AND NAVIGATION.
Accounts ordered, "relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1913."—[Mr. Sydney Buxton.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  International Conference (Fisheries).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the instructions of the British Government to the British delegates attending an international Conference at Christiania in 1901 with respect to fisheries stated that the consideration of the subject would admit of no delay and directed the British delegates to press on their foreign colleagues the importance of entering at once upon the pursuit of investigations calculated to lead to an international agreement; and whether, having regard to the lapse of twelve years and the acquisition during that period of fuller knowledge, he will consider the desirability of convening an international conference to consider the subject of fishery regulation and to settle the general principles governing the international questions of maritime dominion in time of peace?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): The matter which the British delegates were instructed to press upon the notice of the conference at Christiania in 1901 was the investigation of the question whether the supply of fish in the North Sea was decreasing. The international council which was subsequently established for the investigation of the facts bearing on this question, is still actively engaged. A reference to the various reports published by that body will show that a large amount of valuable information has been accumulated. I am advised, however, that these investigations have not yet reached a stage at which an international agreement would be rendered possible.

  Lake Nyassa (Murder of Rev. A. J. Douglas).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has now received a report of the trial of a corporal of the Portuguese Army for the murder of the Rev. A. J. Douglas on
  1962
  Lake Nyassa; if His Majesty's Government were represented at the trial; if there were any provocative or extenuating circumstances justifying the sentence; and whether the Portuguese Government have offered, or have been asked, to pay adequate compensation to the relatives of the victim?
  Sir E. GREY: A report of the trial has just been received and is now under consideration. I have repeatedly informed the hon. Member that His Majesty's Government were represented at the trial. The Court in giving judgment referred to the circumstances which preceded the death of Mr. Douglas, and took these circumstances into consideration in deciding the sentence to be passed. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. I cannot make a fuller statement until the report has been considered in detail.
  Mr. STANIER: Is there any warrant for the use of force by these Portuguese officials; can the right hon. Gentleman give us an official explanation?
  Sir E. GREY: I have said that I cannot make a fuller statement till the report has been considered in detail. It has just been received; I have not even seen it yet.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: Will that report be laid upon the Table of the House?
  Sir E. GREY: It must be considered first; it must be seen before a promise can be made. I have no reason to suppose that it cannot be laid. But I must see it and consider it with the Colonial Office.

  Putumayo Rubber District.
  Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to say if any, and, if so, how many, of those responsible for the atrocities on the Putumayo have been punished?
  Sir E. GREY: We have not heard that any have yet been punished; some were arrested, but their trials were not proceeded with pending further arrests of more important persons. Orders for arrest have recently been issued against Señores Arana and Vega.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL:Is it not a fact that 157 warrants have been issued and only nine arrests made, and that not one of these men have been brought to justice?
  Sir HILDRED CARLILE: Has the warrant for the arrest of Senior Arana been served?
  Sir E. GREY: I must ask for notice of that. I do not know whether I should be able to answer that even in this country.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Am I not correct in the statement I have made that only nine arrests have been made, and that not one was brought to punishment?
  Sir E. GREY: The first sentence of my answer is that we have not heard that anyone has yet been punished.
  Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Senior Arana is stated to be on his way to this country; if he arrives here will a warrant be issued for his apprehension here?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not think that is a very discreet question.

  Congo State (Judicial System).
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he will be able to publish reports received from the Consular staff in the Congo State; and, if so, whether these re ports will include information as to the judicial system?
  Sir E. GREY: The Papers will be laid as soon as possible, I hope this month, and will, as I informed the hon. Member for Gravesend on 13th January, include such reports as have been received containing references to the judicial system.

  Delhi (Town Planning).
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what instructions have been given to the architects selected to design buildings in the new Delhi in regard to the employment of Indian craftsmen, Indian materials; and Indian traditions?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): No instructions have been given to the architects on the subjects referred to. They have been informed, as stated in the Press, that it is proposed to appoint as their responsible adviser Sir Swinton Jacob, who is specially qualified to advise on the points mentioned by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. KINGasked whether any architects have been appointed to prepare plans
  1964
  for the new Delhi, and for what buildings they are instructed to prepare plans; and whether the report of the Delhi Town-Planning Committee will be published, as promised, before plans are finally settled and accepted?
  Mr. BAKER: As regards both parts of the question, there is nothing to add to the remarks I made on the adjournment on the 30th January.
  Mr. KINGasked whether the report of the Delhi Town-Planning Committee will be published shortly; and, if not, whether Papers will be laid upon the Table showing why the site of the new official city has been removed from the Durbar site?
  Mr. BAKER: It is not proposed to publish the Committee's first report, as it was purely provisional, and its recommendations are under reconsideration. The final report, which is expected shortly, will explain the reasons for selecting whatever site may be proposed. In fulfilment of the undertaking given to the House, a copy of the first report has been placed in the Library.
  Mr. KING: Can we have a definite assurance that the final report will be publicly available?
  Mr. BAKER: No, Sir; I informed my hon. Friend last week I could not give a definite assurance upon that point at present.

  Eastern Bengal.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what steps the Government of Bengal is taking to deal with the lawlessness existing in certain districts of Eastern Bengal?
  Mr. BAKER: A large scheme for re-organising and increasing the subordinate civil police establishment in Eastern Bengal has been sanctioned by the Secretary of State in Council, and is in course of being introduced. In the more disturbed districts additional police have been stationed. As a further measure for increasing the security of life and property a special river police force with launches is being constituted to patrol the waterways of the province. In aid of these reforms the Government of India have granted subventions from Imperial revenues to the Provincial Government.

  Opium Trade.
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether the sale of opium in 1913, for consumption in countries other than China, has been reduced from 13,200 to 9,000 chests; whether normal sales for consumption in China will be resumed at Calcutta after 1st April; and whether the reduction effected in the sale to countries other than China will result in an insufficient quantity being procurable for medicinal and innocuous purposes?
  Mr. BAKER: The reply to the first question is in the affirmative. "With regard to the second question, sales of opium for China at Calcutta will be suspended until further notice after 1st April next. With regard to the third question, any deficiency in this year's supply of uncertificated opium can readily be made good by the diversion of a small portion of the stocks of certificated opium lying in the treaty ports of China to other countries.

  BEITISH ARMY.

    BOYS PROM INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.
    Major STANLEYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Boy T. Hodson, now serving in the 1st Battalion Worcester Regiment, was placed in the Army on the 29th October, 1912, by the school authorities of the industrial home to which he had been sent until he was sixteen years of age; that this was done without the consent of his mother; and that he was then only fifteen years of age; and whether, seeing that his mother has been deserted by her husband and has two small children dependent on her, he will order the boy's discharge so that he may assist her?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for bringing this case to my notice, and inquiry shall be made. It is, however, found to be the case that a lad can often be of more assistance to his parents when serving in the Army and remitting money to them, than when engaged in some ill-paid civil employment.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Is it the practice to send these boys from industrial homes into the Army?
    Colonel SEELY: By the regulations it is not necessary to get the consent of the parents for boys to enlist in the Army from industrial schools, and it is often found from experience that boys who come to the
    1966
    Army from them may often have remarkably good careers, but I will make inquiry into this particular case in order to see that this otherwise admirable plan has not been abused in any way.

    LONGMOOR CAMP (15TH HUSSARS).
    Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSONasked whether on the arrival of the 15th Hussars at Longmoor on their return from the Cape, it was found that sufficient accommodation had not been provided for the married people; whether he is aware that some of the families were sent on to Bordon Camp, where it was found that quarters could only be provided for them by turning out the families of soldiers who had married off the strength; and if he can state whether any attempt has been made to provide accommodation for the families that were displaced?
    Colonel SEELY: Soldiers married off the strength are not entitled to quarters, and are only granted them as an indulgence when they are not required for the accommodation of married soldiers, who are entitled to them.
    Mr. NICHOLSON: Were these people turned out at very short notice on a very wet day?
    Colonel SEELY: I hope that was not the case, but I will inquire. I know some inconvenience was caused, and must be caused, when troops are brought home, and, as in this case, there is not too much accommodation owing to the increase of the garrisons in this country.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman find out if any notice was given to these families that they would be turned out?
    Colonel SEELY: I will certainly inquire.

    WAR OFFICE CLERKS.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked whether it is the practice at the War Office for clerks engaged upon overtime to be required either to forego the usual Saturday half-holiday or to sacrifice the pay for the first three hours of any overtime they may work; and, if so, when this practice was introduced?
    Colonel SEELY: The Saturday half-holiday is, by the regulations of the Civil Service, dependent on the state of the public business in the Department. Payment for overtime is not systematically made to clerks in the War Office; but if payment were made, no deduction would

    1967
    be made in respect of Saturday afternoon from overtime worked on other days of the week.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE (RECRUITS).
    Mr. HUNTasked how many miles, roughly, General Bethune has travelled and how many meetings he has addressed on his tour for obtaining Territorial recruits; and whether he can say how much money the tour cost, and what was the number of recruits obtained?
    Colonel SEELY: General Bethune has visited about sixty places and attended about a hundred meetings, but it is not practicable to estimate the mileage covered. The cost of the tours to the public may be taken as about £125. The number of recruits taken in Great Britain during the period of his tour was 11,069, and the number of re-engagements was 3,639, as compared with 7,929 and 2,088 in the corresponding period of the year 1911.
    Mr. HUNT: Were the increased numbers considered to be the result of General Bethune's tour?
    Colonel SEELY: Well! The facts I have stated coincided with the tour. I cannot say more.

    COMPULSORY TRAINING.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary for War whether his attenttion has been called to the statement of the High Commissioner for Australia, to the effect that since universal naval and military training has been brought about in Australia the recruiting stations for the Navy have had to be closed, because there were more applications than there were vacancies; and whether, in view of these facts, he will reconsider his decision as to his refusal to fill up the deficiencies of the Territorial force by compulsory training?
    Colonel SEELY: I have no official information as to the correctness or otherwise of the statement in this question.
    Mr. HUNT: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?
    Colonel SEELY: The answer is that that would depend upon whether it was a fact or not.

    GENERAL ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ARMY.
    Colonel BURNasked the Secretary for War if he will arrange that the general Annual Report of the British Army is available for hon. Members who apply
    1968
    for it, so that they may have an opportunity of studying it before the Estimates come up?
    Colonel SEELY: I hope that the Report will be ready for circulation by the end of this month.

    SOUTH WALES INFANTRY BRIGADE.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the Secretary for War whether he can now state if the South Wales Infantry Brigade will have the new Maxim tripod mountings issued to it in time for this year's training; and, if not, whether he can state when he will be in a position to reply definitely?
    Colonel SEELY: It is hoped that the brigade will be equipped with tripod mountings in time for the next annual training.

    Navy and Army Pensioners.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make arrangements whereby Naval and Army pensioners, on leaving the Service, may obtain a loan from the Government, on the security of their pensions, in order to assist them in starting civilian life?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I have received no representations on the subject from the Departments primarily responsible, and am not at all satisfied that such a scheme, which would require legislation, would be desirable in the interests either of the State or of the man.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: May I communicate further with the right hon. Gentleman on the subject showing there is a demand?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member's communications might in the first instance be made to the Departments of the Admiralty and the War Office. Whatever representations are made must come first of all through these Departments.

    Mineral Rights Duty.
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under Sections 20 and 24 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, proprietors of minerals and mineral rights in England paid Mineral Rights Duty for the three years 1909–10, 1910–11, and 1911–12, on the net amount only after deduction made for county and parish rates payable in England not by the proprietor but by the

    1969
    tenant; whether, during those three years, proprietors in Scotland had to pay the Mineral Rights Duty on the gross amount without deduction for public burdens which, in England, are by law a charge on the tenants, and in Scotland are charged on the landlords; whether during these three years the proprietors in Scotland have in consequence been taxed relatively higher than proprietors in England; and whether he will take the requisite measures, now that this inequality of taxation for Mineral Rights Duty has been rectified for future years in favour of Scottish proprietors by the Finance Act of 1912 (Section 11), so that he may order a refund for the three years, 1909–10, 1910–11, and 1911–12, of what may be just and reasonable in respect of the inequality of the levy, and so follow the precedent set forth in the Taxes Act (chapter 80) of 1856, passed for granting relief in assessing the Income Tax on lands in Scotland in respect of certain public burdens charged thereon, which Act provides for both abatement from the assessment and repayment of Income Tax by the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue under regulations made by them in that behalf?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answers to the first three parts of my hon. Friend's question are in the affirmative; with regard to the last part, my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension in suggesting that Section 1 of the Taxes Act, 1856, was retrospective in its effect, the provision for repayment in that Section being merely an alternative method of granting relief in future cases where circumstances render that course necessary. Section 11 of the Finance Act, 1912, follows the precedent of Section 1 of the Taxes Act, 1856, and I do not propose to take any steps to render either Section retrospective.
    Mr. J. M. HOGGE: What is the objection to giving back to Scotchmen the money which belongs to them which the Government have now got in their possession?
    Mr. WATT: If the Treasury has got any money erroneously, do they not consider it their duty to pay it back?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not at all agree with my hon. Friend that we got money erroneously. After all, amendments to Finance Acts, Income Tax Acts, and others, have never been followed by a return of the money collected under the unamended Acts. Otherwise the finance of the country would be impossible.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Did the right hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that it was rather hard on Scotland that it had not been remitted?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree, but my answer is still the same. The constant amendment of the Income Tax Acts is reason that they ought to have been amended before, but that is no reason for the return of the money.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sum is a comparatively small one, and should he not consider the desirability of repaying the amount, as there has been a good case made out?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree, but the principle is the same, and if you once acknowledge this principle I am perfectly sure it would be impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer in future not to follow it. The sum is small, but it establishes a very large principle indeed.
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know very well that although the principle is the same the application is not the same?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I did admit I agree, when the case was brought before me, it ought to be amended, and I assisted an Amendment, as the hon. Baronet knows very well, with regard to the Licensing Act, but we could not possibly start the principle of returning the money collected in circumstances of that kind.

    Customs and Excise Services.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked whether, by paragraph 187 of the Report on the amalgamation of the Customs and Excise services, the grade of Excise assistant supervisor was not one of the grades from which the new surveying grade was constituted; and whether officers of Excise origin have as much right to look for promotion to vacancies in the new surveying grade as they formerly had to look for promotion to the position of assistant supervisor?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member is misinformed. The class of Excise assistant supervisor was one of the classes from which the new surveying grade was constituted. Officers of Excise origin who formerly had the prospect of promotion to the class of assistant supervisor at £280 fixed, now have the prospect, with others, of promotion to the larger class of surveyors at £320 to £450.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked whether most of the additional work under the National Insurance Act imposed on the Customs and Excise Department has been performed by the Excise branch; and whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists among officers of Excise origin on account of the fact that promotions to the grade of surveyor since the imposition of this additional work have been made solely from officers of Customs origin; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: When the work of the Customs and Excise Department was increased by the addition of duties under the National Insurance Act, the staff was also increased. I have no grounds for thinking that any one section of the staff has borne more than its fair share of the total work of the Department. As regards promotions to the new surveying grade, I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to a question put to me by the hon. Member for Blackburn on the 5th December last. I see no reason for any action on my part.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain on what principle preference is given in promotion to one branch of the service over the other?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman puts a question which is not an accurate one. There is no preference given. I have answered many questions to that effect.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Did not the right hon. Gentleman admit that more than 104 promotions had been given to one branch of the service and not a single promotion to the other?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is not so. My hon. Friend very ingeniously manages to put a question which extracts one particular form of promotion and refrains from putting a question affecting promotions in another branch of the service.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what promotions have been given in the Excise service?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly. I have already done so. If my hon. Friend will put down a question again I shall be happy to do so. I cannot carry these things in my head, but if I am not much mistaken the answer I gave to-day will bring it out.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the number of unattached surveyors of Customs origin and of Excise origin, respectively, in the Customs and Excise Department; whether it is intended to appoint forty two more officers of Customs origin to the position of unattached surveyors before any officers of Excise origin are appointed thereto; and what steps, if any, are to be taken to ensure the provision of an adequate proportion of unattached surveyors of Excise origin, seeing that the number of officers employed in the Excise branch of the Department is about double the number of the officers employed in the Customs branch?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The numbers of the surveyors who at the present moment are not attached to fixed districts are ninety-four of Customs origin and thirty of Excise origin. Forty-two promotions of ex-Customs clerks will be made as recommended by the Amalgamation Committee. As regards the last part of the question I must point out that there are no longer separate Customs and Excise branches in the department, and that the normal method of filling vacancies in the surveyor grade will be by competitive examination of members of the officer grade.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Do the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has just given not themselves show that the appointments have been unfairly disproportionate — ninety-four to the Customs and thirty-two to the Excise—having regard to the fact that the Excise officers are much greater in number than the officers of Customs origin?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That only shows that the hon. Member has chosen a particular branch of the service in which there is on excess of promotions from the Customs, whereas he has not chosen the other part of the Excise officers to the contrary.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the other part is?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have already answered that question.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked how many officers held the rank of surveyor in the Customs Department prior to the amalgamation of the Customs and Excise services; how many vacancies, formerly filled by surveyors of Customs origin, have occurred since the 3rd May last; and whether he is aware that the fact that

    1973
    employment cannot be found in the Customs branch of the amalgamated department for most of the 104 unattached surveyors of Customs origin promoted since that date, indicates that the promotions so made are much in excess of the prospects of promotion of these officers prior to the amalgamation?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The grade of surveyor in the new Customs and Excise service takes the place of a number of classes with various names in the former service. On the constitution of the new surveyor grade there were included 194 men who in the Customs service before amalgamation held the rank of surveyor or analogous rank. Five of the 194 have retired since 3rd May last. As regards the remaining part of the question, I must point out that there is no separate Customs branch in the Customs and Excise service, and I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question of the 16th ultimo on this subject.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Is it not the case that the greater number of the appointments to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, represent practically what was formerly the Excise Department rather than the Customs?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I could not give an answer to that question without notice.

    Property and Income Tax (Notices).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether notices requiring payment of Property and Income Tax within ten days have been issued in Scotland; whether similar notices have been issued in England; if not, will he state on what date it is proposed to issue similar notices; and why pressure is being exercised in Scotland earlier than in England?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am informed that notices such as are indicated in my hon. Friend's question have been issued in the usual course both in England and Scotland. The regulations for the collection of the duty, which is payable on or before the 1st January, are substantially the same in both countries.

    Higher Grade Schools (Scotland).
    Mr. EUGENE WASONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether it is the intention of the Board of Education (Scotland) to drop the study of science in the third year of the intermediate course
    1974
    in Scottish higher grade and secondary schools in the case of pupils who wish to take up the study of Greek; and whether, before any such change is made, he will consult the general opinion of teachers and educationalists in Scotland on the subject?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The answer is in the negative. It is not proposed to drop the study of science in the intermediate course. All that is intended is to deal with special cases where it is thought desirable that the student should specialise in Greek or some other subject, in which case a modification of the course of study may be allowed.

    National Galleries, Edinburgh (Art Teachers).
    Mr. J. M. HOGGEasked whether, in addition to numerous other resolutions and requests to arrange a series of lectures on art in the National Galleries, Edinburgh, he has now received a unanimous resolution from the Edinburgh Town Council; and whether, in view of this and previous representations, he can see his way to arrange for such a course on Saturday afternoons in the summer of this year as a commencement?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have not received any resolution from the Edinburgh Town Council. The question of art lectures (not necessarily on summer Saturday afternoons) is receiving attention, and I am in communication with the Treasury on the subject.

    Smallholders (Scotland) Act.
    Mr. HOGGEasked how many applicants there are for holdings of over twenty-five acres, according to counties, under the Smallholders (Scotland) Act?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I regret I do not see my way to ask the Board of Agriculture to spend the considerable time which would be necessary to work out these figures, in view of the pressure of work upon their staff, and also in view of the fact that, on account of the form of many of the applications, it would not be possible to give exactly the information desired. I have recently given my hon. Friend a number of statistics and further information will be contained in the Report now in preparation.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the Return about to be issued contain that information?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Not precisely in that form, for the reason I have given, that a great many of the applicants do not state the acreage.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Why is there such a great difficulty in giving that Return now, when the right hon. Gentleman is able to give a Return in a very short time to supplement another question he had to deal with not long ago?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have just given the reason in answer to the question put to me.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the county of Ross-shire over 50,000 acres have been applied for and the Board of Agriculture so far have not acquired a single acre?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is possible, but to obtain suitable land for a suitable purpose is not a thing you can do in a few weeks.

    Loans for Fishermen (Report of Commission).
    Mr. MUNROasked whether the Report of the Commission which is inquiring, inter alia, into the question of loans for fishermen will be presented before the Parliamentary Recess?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Every effort is being made by the Committee to expedite the issue of their Report, but I do not think that it can be presented before the Parliamentary Recess. As my hon. Friend recognises, the question of loans to fishermen is only one of those with which the Committee have to deal, and some of the others necessitate correspondence with foreign countries, which takes a considerable amount of time.
    Mr. MUNRO: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great dissatisfaction exists in fishing circles in Scotland with regard to the delay, and will he use his good offices with the Commission to speed up their Report?
    Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT: Owing to the fact that this Commission has now been sitting for sixteen months does the right hon. Gentleman not think it advisable to issue an interim Report?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I think the Commission are so forward with their Report that it is not necessary to have an interim Report.

    Tuberculous Cattle (Scotland).
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked if the right hon. Gentleman realises that, after the passing next Session of the Milk and Dairies Bill, which applies only to England and Wales, and in the absence of any similar measure applicable to Scotland, there will be a serious risk of tuberculous cattle being sold into Scotland to avoid their slaughter in England and prove a source of disease to those supplied with milk from Scottish dairies; and whether, to avoid such risk, he will, on behalf of the Scottish Board of Agriculture, consent to the English Bill being made applicable to Scotland or, alternatively, introduce a Bill next Session containing the same or similar provisions.
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I hope to take such steps as will obviate the risks to which the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Does that mean that a Scottish Milk and Dairies Bill will be introduced next Session?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The question of what will be introduced next Session is not a question for me to answer.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is there not a serious risk of tuberculous cattle being sent across the border to evade the English Act?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The English Act is not passed yet.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: It is going to be passed.

    Temperance (Scotland) Bill.
    Mr. EUGENE WASONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman will have the Temperance (Scotland) Bill reprinted in such a form as to show the Amendments made in it by the House of Lords?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to my right hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative. I have been making arrangements for the preparation of such a reprint, and hope that it will be obtainable at the Vote Office to-morrow.

    Scottish Education.
    Major HOPEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that Section 2 (d) of the Minute of the Scotch Education Department, dated 28th June,

    1977
    1912, has caused inconvenience to school boards, since it arbitrarily reduces the Grant which county education committees have been paying to school boards in aid of secondary education, and as the Minute was not issued until six weeks after school boards had framed their estimates for the year based on previous Grants, and had intimated to parish councils the sum required to be raised by a school rate, many school boards are faced with a deficit of varying amounts for the current year; and whether he will explain why there has been this interference by this Minute with the discretionary power granted to the local authority by Parliament under Section 17 (2) of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Section 2 (d) of the Minute refers only to those districts which receive a sum in excess of what they would be entitled to under the general scheme of distribution indicated in Section 1 of the Minute. It would be very undesirable that the excess sum awarded to these districts at the expense of districts which receive no special concession should be subject to the accident of the rate which the district committee has determined in previous years. To secure equality of treatment, the maximum rate of 2d. allowed by that Section has been assumed to be fixed in calculating the excess Grant. The Minute, which was the outcome of prolonged negotiations with secondary education committees, was laid before Parliament at the earliest possible moment, and, while it could not be published before school boards had framed their estimates for the current year, very few school boards are in point of fact affected by Section 2 (d) of the Minute, and still fewer to an extent which seriously affects their estimates.
    Major HOPEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman can undertake that in the future the Scottish Education Department shall not issue Regulations affecting the annual estimates framed by school boards without giving reasonable notice of their intention to do so, and thereby avoid the hardships of ratepayers of a given year being chargeable with the deficit of a previous year?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Except in the case referred to in the preceding question, which I have explained in the answer to that question, I am not aware that the Scotch Education Department has issued
    1978
    any Regulations which have the effect stated. The Department will endeavour wherever possible to give ample notice of any proposed change in Regulations.
    Major HOPE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Scottish Education Department wrote on 6th January this year to say that this was owing to an unavoidable shrinkage in the Scottish Education Fund, and will he take steps to see that the Scottish Education Fund in future is brought up to the amount of previous years?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is a very argumentative question. I admit the shortage in the fund. The point is that the money for teachers' superannuation ought to have been deducted from the fund before, but owing to certain circumstances, which I cannot go into now, it took some, and therefore the first year or two it was larger than it would have been if the teachers' superannuation had been deducted, as it ought to have been.

    Small Holdings (Lanarkshire).
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked whether the right hon. Gentleman can arrange for the Commissioner, or one of the Sub-commissioners, for small holdings to make a further visit to Harthill district, Lanarkshire, with a view to securing land for the purpose of providing small holdings, and to considering further the applications which have been already received?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am communicating further with the Commissioner on this subject.
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care to see that pressure by private Members of Parliament in favour of priority for their own districts is not taken notice of?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Such pressure is, of course, to be deprecated, and I quite agree with the hon. Baronet on that point. We must, however, have consideration for the class of applicant, and our preference must be given to those who are agriculturists. It would not be right to give agricultural small holdings to persons who have no knowledge of agriculture.
    Mr. MILLAR: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard it as pressure to ask that consideration should be given to applications lodged in May last?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes. The Commissioner has been in the district, but he has not been able to find suitable land. Many of these applicants are not agriculturists, but people who wish to get land upon which to erect houses.
    Mr. MILLAR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain applications were made in perfectly good faith for land for agricultural purposes?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not deny that for a moment, but there was not suitable land available. We cannot meet every case by giving it priority, because that is absolutely impossible.

    Bee Disease.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Secretary for Scotland if Scottish bee-keepers are manifesting concern at the delay in passing a measure dealing with bee disease; whether the Highlands of Scotland are quickly being denuded of bees; and when does he propose to deal with the matter?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No recent representations on the subject have reached me, but I understand that Scottish beekeepers are anxious to see powers obtained for dealing with bee disease. No evidence has been brought before me to show that the Highlands are being denuded of bees. As regards the last part of the question, I am in communication with the President of the Board of Agriculture.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I really ask the right hon. Gentleman if he does not know there has been a tremendous cry in Scotland about this matter for years, that the industry in parts has been nearly ruined, and that we have had the matter brought up here over and over again; and may I also ask him if he does not know this, what is the good of his being Secretary for Scotland?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I quite admit, and I said Scottish bee-keepers are anxious to see powers obtained for dealing with bee disease, but no recent representations have been made to me on the subject.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Scotland is very rapidly being denuded of people?

    Site Values (Minus Quantities).
    Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether the case of Herbert's Trustees
    1980
    v. the Inland Revenue, which deals with minus quantities in the values of sites, is to be appealed to the House of Lords from the Court of Session?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The answer is in the affirmative.

    Court of Session (Scotland).
    Mr. WATTasked whether it is in contemplation to abandon the blank week of the Court of Session which occurs in February; if so, when it is proposed to initiate the new system of going on continuously with the work of the Courts without this break; and, if not, whether the rent collecting for which the blank week was originally instituted still goes on, where, and to what extent?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is in the negative; the second part is superseded; with regard to the third part I am not aware that the blank week was originally instituted for the purpose stated in the question.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to what happens in the Sheriff Court of Lanark?
    Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a diagram of that answer?

    Sheriff Court (Scotland) Amendment Bill.
    Mr. WATTasked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the practice in the larger sheriffdoms in Scotland of agents preferring their cases to be called before certain of the sheriffs-substitute, with the result that the sheriffs-substitute thus preferred get more than their share of the work, and that inconvenience and delay result to the litigants; if so, can he see his way to remedy this by giving the sheriff-principal the power to transfer cases from one substitute to another; and will he do this by means of an Amendment in the Sheriff Court (Scotland) Amendment Bill at present before the House?
    Mr. URE: The sheriff already has power to transfer cases from one sheriff-substitute to another, and exercises it when necessary.

    Contagious Diseases of Animals (Argentine).
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if any

    1981
    arrangement has yet been made with the Argentine Government for the reduction of the period of the embargo upon British live stock to less than six months in the event of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth or other seriously contagious animal disease in this country, and for the discrimination between various parts of England in the event of such an embargo being imposed?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): I appreciate the urgent importance of this question. Negotiations are proceeding as rapidly as possible, and I hope that I may very soon be in a position to make a definite announcement.

    Official Seed Testing (England).
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the serious adulteration of clover and other farm seeds, generally of foreign origin, purchased by British farmers, he will consider the desirability of applying a part of the Grant to the Board from the Development Commissioners towards the establishment of a national seed-testing station?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The question of providing an official seed-testing station in England is under consideration, but the Board do not propose to apply for a Grant from the Development Fund for this purpose in the immediate future.

    Wood Pigeons.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether exceptionally large flocks of wood pigeons, evidently of foreign origin, have lately made their appearance in the South and West of England; and whether the Board can take any steps to bring about organised and simultaneous efforts for their destruction over large areas prior to their committing depredations upon clover, rape, and other like crops, such as occurred in the spring of 1911?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Although no complaints have yet been made to the Board this year, I am aware that great numbers of wood pigeons are coming into certain parts of the country, and I propose to issue a notice at once, as in March, 1911, calling the attention of farmers to the fact and suggesting that combined efforts should be made to reduce their numbers.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: Do they come under the Aliens Act?
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the right hon. Gentleman issue that document as soon as possible, as it was rather late in 1911?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Oh, yes; I will get it out at once.
    Mr. LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea where the pigeons come from?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No; we do not do that.

    Public Veterinary Service.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he proposes to take any steps, in accordance with the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Supply of Veterinary Officers, to secure improvement in the method of notifying vacancies in the public veterinary service?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have studied with care the Report of the Committee to which the hon. Member refers, but I must ask for more time in which to consider their recommendations before I can commit myself to any definite statement.

    Agricultural Education.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the twelve provinces into which the Board proposes to divide the country for the purposes of agricultural education have yet been delimited; and, if so, whether he will state in a written reply what counties are comprised in such provinces, respectively?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The formation of provincial councils has made favourable progress, but the areas have not yet been settled in all cases. It is proposed to issue a memorandum giving full particulars as soon as possible.

    Electoral Reform.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister (1) whether, having regard to the intention of the Government to proceed, if and when opportunity should occur, with the question of electoral reform, he will say whether electoral reform includes a reform or readjustment of the method known as the single vote, whereby Members are under present conditions elected to serve in this House; and (2) whether the intention of the Government to deal with the subject of electoral reform may be taken to include any reform or alteration in the method of election of Members of this House?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): It would be premature to make any statement on this subject at present.

    Cost of Living.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the sentence of a child of nine and a half years in Glasgow to be sent to an industrial school till he reaches the age of sixteen for begging on Christmas Day; whether, according to the police evidence, the father was a decent hard working man trying to support a family of ten persons on 22s. a week; whether there are many other families in Glasgow and elsewhere which have a total income of less than 22s. a week; and whether, in view of the fact that the sentence was, in the circumstances, in the best interest of the child, and that nothing has been done in the interest of the other children in this and similar families who have not been convicted of begging, he will appoint a Committee or Commission to inquire into the minimum cost of living in various parts of the country, with special reference to the maintenance of a family in good health and physical efficiency?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have seen the account of this case given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland on Tuesday last. As regards the appointment of a Committee or Commission, I would remind my hon. Friend that an Inquiry into the cost of living is now in progress, and, although it does not cover quite the same ground as that now suggested, it is proposed to await the publication of the results of the present Inquiry before considering what further information may be necessary.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to which Inquiry he refers?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Inquiry being made by the Board of Trade.

    Feeble-Minded Persons (Control) Bill.
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the additional time now available under the altered Parliamentary situation, he will reconsider his previous decision and give the necessary time for the passing into Law of the Feeble-minded Persons (Control) Bill this Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot give facilities for the Bill referred to.
    Mr. STEWART: May I ask if the Prime Minister is aware there are rumours in the Press and in the Lobby that the Mental Deficiency legislation is going to be dropped for next year, and if we may accept his answer as an assurance that it will not be crowded out of next Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I know nothing of the rumours either in the Press or in the Lobby. I have already stated it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Bill next Session.

    Railways (No. 2) Bill.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked when the Committee, Report, and Third Reading stages, respectively, of the Railways (No. 2) Bill will be taken in this House, and how much time it is proposed to allocate to each of such stages?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We propose to take the Committee stage of the Railways Bill as second Order on Monday, and the Report and Third Reading on Tuesday. I should hope that the time required for these stages would not be very long.

    Farm Institutes.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether any and, if any, how many farm institutes have so far been established, and in what counties; and to what extent the Board has experienced difficulty in establishing such institutes in consequence of the conditions imposed by the Development Commissioners to the effect that 25 per cent, of the capital outlay and 50 per cent, of the cost of maintenance must be borne by the local authorities, and that Grants from the Development Fund must be restricted to entirely new educational work?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board have under consideration detailed proposals for the establishment of farm institutes in Carnarvon, Hampshire, and Herefordshire, and there have been preliminary discussions with many other counties. The Regulations under which Grants from the Development Fund will be payable have not yet been approved in every particular by the Treasury, and the local authorities have therefore not yet had an opportunity of considering them in their final form.

    British East Africa.
    Captain GILMOURasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how long he anticipates it will take to secure a

    1985
    settlement of the conditions under which settlers in British East Africa can secure farms and grazing lands; and if he will take steps to accelerate this decision, in view of the fact that applicants have been in certain cases already kept waiting for over a year for a settlement of their application?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): Pending the preparation of a Crown Land Ordinance for the East Africa Protectorate, I have approved of the Governor's proposal to publish in the "Government Gazette" of the 15th of February a notice of sale of farms to be held at Nairobi on the 19th of May. One hundred farms will be put forward, of which fifty are in the trans-Nzoia district, averaging 3,000 acres. The rest are scattered through highlands varying from 320 to 5,000 acres. The conditions of sale will be advertised in the "Gazette," and will be generally as follows: A non-transferable occupation licence for three years, subject to conditions as to development and personal occupation or in special circumstances occupation by European manager, to be followed by lease for ninety-nine years, with revision of rent every thirty-three years. Rent to be fixed at 10 cents of a Rupee per acre per annum, the sale, which will be by auction, being intended to determine the premium to be paid in respect of the licence. An upset price will be fixed for each farm. Bidding at this special rate will be restricted to those who have never acquired grant from Government direct, and each purchaser will be limited to one farm. Attendance at the sale must be personal save in very exceptional cases—for example, where an applicant who has already been to the Protectorate to inspect the land is prevented by unavoidable circumstances from going out again at the time of the auction.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Secretary for the Colonies whether he has consented to an arrangement by which country land in British East Africa shall be granted on lease at a rent in no case to exceed 10 cents per acre, until the reassessment in the thirty-third and sixty-sixth year of the lease; and whether this will apply to the Laikipia lands or other valuable lands suitable for stock grazing?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have agreed to the inclusion in the draft Land Ordinance of provision for fixed rents of 10 cents per acre for agricultural and 5 cents per
    1986
    acre for grazing land, with minimum rents of Rupees 15 and Rupees 20, respectively. It is intended that these rates shall be of general application, as the fact that grants will be subject to a premium to be determined by auction makes it unnecessary to differentiate rents according to the value of land.

    Levers Pacific Plantations, Limited.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary for the Colonies whether Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited, or any associated firm, have applied for concessions in any Colonies other than Sierra Leone, Southern Nigeria, and the Gold Coast Colony?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Levers Pacific Plantations, Limited, were granted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, a lease of ten islands in the Pacific in 1902, in succession to the Pacific Islands Company, but in 1911 three of these islands were transferred to another company. Levers Pacific Plantations, Limited, were also granted leases of land (about 12,000 acres, in the Solomons Islands Protectorate in 1905; in the same year the Secretary of State the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, was prepared to agree to the transfer of 190,000 acres of land in the same Protectorate, which had previously been leased to the Pacific Islands Company, Limited, in which Messrs. Lever were interested, to a syndicate in which Mr. Lever was to have had the controlling interest. The negotiations were concluded with Levers Pacific Plantations, Limited, by the end of 1906.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the previous holdings or monopolies which any firm has had before; does he take that into consideration when granting them further monopolies?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I take into consideration the answer to the question which is on the Paper.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Before making those further grants does he take into consideration the fact that the same firm has already obtained large concessions or grants?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I took into consideration all the grants made to Messrs. Lever Brothers by right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand that continuity of policy is always followed by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to Colonial matters?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir; there has been some limitation of area since the change of Government.
    Mr. FLAVIN: If Messrs. Lever Brothers had been supporting the Unionist party would those questions have been asked?
    Mr. TOUCHE: Do I understand the answer of the right hon. Gentleman is in reply to the inquiry as to whether the firm has applied for further concessions in other Colonies; do I understand that they have applied for any beyond those which have been enumerated?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I think not. I think the answer is exactly in accordance with the question put to me.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary for the Colonies if, for the convenience and information of Members of the House, he will give a summary, free from the complexities of a correspondence extending from 6th July, 1908, to 18th December, 1912, setting forth all the concessions and privileges in any Colony or Protectorate in West Africa asked for by Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited, or any associated firm or firms, distinguishing those granted in whole or part, those under consideration, and those withdrawn or refused?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the Table of Contents prefixed to the printed correspondence, which contains a précis of each letter. I do not think any further summary is required.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Is there any special reason for keeping this veil of obscurity over these transactions?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The veil of obscurity is represented by the publication of the whole of the correspondence.

    Shops Act.
    Sir JOHN RANDLESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the operation of the Shops Act is causing such in convenience and loss to retail traders as to make desirable an inquiry by a Depart mental Committee or otherwise as to its improvement, especially in reference to choice of days for closing; and will he receive a deputation on this subject?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): No, Sir, I have no reason to think that the Act is causing any general inconvenience or loss to retail traders. Here and there there may be cases where traders find some initial difficulty in adjusting their arrangements to the new conditions; but the general testimony is that the Act is beneficial and is working well. I am not clear in what respect it is suggested that the Act needs amendment as regards the choice of days for closing. If the hon. Member will communicate with me further, indicating the point which he had in mind, I will consider whether a deputation would be likely to prove of advantage.
    Sir J. RANDLES: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that certain areas are urban areas and other areas are suburban, and that it is quite possible that the arrangements which would suit one might not be convenient for the other, and would it not be desirable to make an inquiry, not with a view to evading the half-holiday, or anything of that kind, or of altering the number of hours per week, but with a view to adjusting and making elastic the working of the Act?
    Mr. McKENNA: As I suggested in my answer, the hon. Gentleman might communicate with me further; I did not mean by putting a question. It is quite impossible for me to reply to these questions just now.

    Taxi-Cabs (Rates).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Home Secretary what rate is charged by taxi-cabs in Liverpool, Brighton, Birmingham, Glasgow, and Edinburgh; and if he will consider if the present rate of 2d. per quarter of a mile in London affords reasonable profit to the companies and fair wages to the drivers?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have ascertained that the following rates are charged in the towns named in the question:—

    Liverpool and Birmingham—6d. for the first half-mile; 2d. for each succeeding one-sixth of a mile.

    Brighton—1s. for one mile; 6d. for each succeeding half-mile.

    Edinburgh—1s. for the first mile; 2d. for each succeeding quarter of a mile.

    Glasgow—1s. for the first mile; 3d. for each succeeding quarter of a mile.

    The whole question of fares was carefully considered in 1911 by the Depart-

    1989
    mental Committee on Taxi-cab Fares, which reported against alteration of the tariff.

    Mr. CATHCART WASON: In view of the great public inconvenience arising from the strike, which has now lasted a long time, will the right hon. Gentleman direct the attention of the Board of Trade to the matter?
    Mr. McKENNA: I will certainly consult with my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. C. DUNCAN: Are there not grounds for revision of the charges in connection with the alteration of the conditions which exist and the increasing price of petrol?
    Mr. McKENNA: It is a difficult question to argue now. Of course, there are points which have to be taken into account on the other side.
    Mr. DUNCAN: Will that be taken into consideration?
    Mr. MCKENNA: Certainly.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is not the principal grievance the exorbitant price attempted to be charged by the petrol combine?
    Mr. McKENNA: I believe that is so, but there are other considerations.

    Slate Quarries (Sawing Machines Unfenced).
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that slate-sawing machines used in slate quarries are still unfenced; and will he again draw the attention of the inspectors to the non-observance of the law in the matter?
    Mr. McKENNA: Instructions have been given to the inspector to enforce the fencing of slate dressing machines, but I understand that, though suitable guards have been invented, they have not yet been placed on the market, and it is therefore necessary to give owners a reasonable period of grace. As regards slate-sawing machines, I am informed that the shafts, pulleys and straps, are fenced, but not the saw itself, as no practicable method of guarding it has yet been devised.

    Road Board (County Cork).
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has received an application from the Cork County
    1990
    Council for a Grant from the Road Board of one-half the estimated cost of £21,648 to repair and steam-roll the main road from Lismore to Killarney where such road lies in the county; whether it has been brought to his attention that the above-mentioned road is of importance to tourist and motor traffic in the South of Ireland, and that owing to its present surface this main road is unsuitable to such traffic; and whether, in the event of the sum applied for being granted, the different district councils have undertaken to furnish the residue?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Road Board have now under consideration an application by the Cork County Council, received on the 30th January, 1913, for a Grant of 50 per cent, of the cost of reconstructing part of the Lismore-Killarney road, estimated at £23,492. The application states that the district council affected have approved of the scheme proposed. I am unable to anticipate what the decision of the Road Board will be.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Has not the district council promised to make up a considerable sum if it can get a corresponding Grant from the Government?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not sure about that. In any case, I have no control over the Road Board. The application is before the Road Board.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been directed to the fact that there were 138,222 applicants for unemployed benefit from workmen in the insured trades; do these trades include only about one-sixth of the industrial population, and that therefore the number of unemployed must be probably six times the number given in a period of unexampled trade prosperity; and, in view of the increase and probable trouble arising therefrom when trade declines, if any and, if so, what steps are being taken to provide employment?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): The number 138,222 referred to by my hon. Friend represents all the applications for unemployment benefit received for a period of nearly three weeks and does not represent the numbers unemployed at the present time, or at any

    1991
    one time, considerable numbers of the applicants having again obtained employment since applying. The total number of unemployment books remaining lodged at the Local Offices of the Unemployment Fund on 24th January was about 112,000. Over 70 per cent, of these belonged to workpeople in the building trade in which there is naturally at the present time a seasonal depression. The trades that were selected for inclusion under Part II. of the National Insurance Act were so selected on the ground that they were specially liable to unemployment. In view of this I cannot assent to the suggestion that the proportion of unemployment in all trades is likely to be nearly as great as that in these particular trades. The benefits of Unemployment Insurance are just commencing, and it would be premature at the present time to consider whether and how far the Act shall be extended.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether these figures do not seriously conflict with the statement made by His Majesty's Ministers in their speeches in the country with regard to unemployment?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Not in the least degree.
    Mr. BARNES: Does the right hon. Gentleman not regard the fact of 112,000 being out of work as a very serious condition of things, and may I ask what steps, if any, are being taken to provide for a rainy day?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member can easily work out the percentage of the total number of insured persons, and he will find it is not very high. With regard to the provision for a rainy day, I said at the end of my answer it would be premature to consider the extension of the Act at present.

    HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (SPECIAL CHARGES).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that doctors in the Highlands and Islands are under liability to attend insured persons without receiving any adequate compensation for journeys by land and sea which may often occupy twenty-four hours or more; and, in view of the fact that doctors only accepted service under the National Insurance Act believing that they would receive reasonable consideration, if he will take an early opportunity of stating what provision will be made?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Supplementary Estimates include provision of £10,000 for mileage and other special charges in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland in connection with the medical attendance and treatment of insured persons.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is that the full sum which is going to this service, or is there to be a larger sum later on for those other points which are not strictly under the Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The whole report is now under consideration.

    DOMESTIC SERVANTS (MEDICAL TRANSFERS).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary to the Treasury if a domestic servant gets ill and goes to his or her home, how his or her transfer is arranged from one to another panel practitioner?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Any insured person who changes his residence, on giving notice to the insurance committee of the area to which he is going, will be able to obtain treatment from a doctor on the panel in that area.
    Mr. GRETTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of the amount of time that will be occupied in these transfers?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No; I do not think I can. I think a Regulation has been issued on the subject.
    Mr. MILDMAY: In the case of servants moving back and forward in the course of a year, does it apply to them?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Certainly, if they are a really long period of time away from one place to another, it will. If they are continually moving from one place to another I think they will find it more convenient to take advantage of the special arrangements.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Is a separate ticket necessary in each case?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think so. Of course they will require a ticket.
    Mr. GWYNNE: How will they have one to show to the second doctor if they have already given their pink ticket to their original doctor?

    LACE WORKERS (NOTTINGHAM).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that

    1993
    the earnings of lace outworkers are so small that they cannot complete sufficient units during the year to entitle them to receive benefits under the National Insurance Act, that the low rates of remuneration are unavoidable and due to the fluctuations of trade and to the short time most of the outworkers can give to this work; whether he is aware that only about 500 insurance cards have been returned in Nottingham out of about 7,000 lace outworkers; what proportion of such returned cards show a sufficient number of payments to entitle the insured persons to the benefits of the scale of wages paid to the outworkers as fixed by the Wages Board; and whether the Insurance Commissioners will, in consideration of the exceptional conditions of the lace outworkers, agree to their exemption or so revise the Regulations as to arrears as to enable a greater proportion of workers to receive benefits under the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Member would appear to be under a misapprehension, either as to the average earnings of outworkers engaged in the lace-finishing trade or as to the benefits which persons whose cards are only partially stamped may expect to receive. The latter point is dealt with fully on pages 14 and 15 of the Report which was laid on the Table of the House on 30th January and will be circulated this afternoon. I am not aware of the number of cards that have been returned in respect of outworkers in Nottingham, but no doubt a certain proportion of the married women have not been insured pending the result of the recent inquiry. At that inquiry, as the hon. Member is aware, special attention was given to the conditions in Nottingham. The Commissioners have accepted the recommendation of the presiding officer that the recent special Order should be maintained, and that no class of outworker should be excluded from the scope of the National Insurance Act, while at the same time adopting certain recommendations for the readjustment of methods of payment.
    Sir J. D. REES: Has the right hon. Gentleman been able to make any inquiries with the object of confirming or refuting the reports I have had the honour to make about the distress in Nottingham?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman will find very full treatment of the Nottingham problem in the Report.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. WHELERasked whether insured persons suffering from tuberculosis can claim sanatorium treatment as a right; and, if not, what arrangements have been made for the treatment of those insured persons for whom doctors have stated that sanatorium treatment is absolutely necessary?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: An insured person is entitled to such sanatorium benefit as the insurance committee recommends. The nature of the treatment is determined by the committee, acting on the advice of the tuberculosis officer or other consulting medical man.
    Mr. WHELER: Is there not a large number of insured persons urgently in need of sanatorium treatment who have paid for it thinking they were going to get it?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the hon. Gentleman can give me any case of people recommended for sanatorium benefit who have not received that benefit, I will have immediate inquiry made.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that I gave the President of the Local Government Board several cases?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not aware of any insured man or woman who has been recommended for sanatorium benefit who is not receiving some sanatorium benefit.

    SICKNESS BENEFIT.
    Sir H. CRAIKasked whether a domestic servant, being an insured person, who receives medical attendance from the family doctor at the cost of her employer, may be deprived of sickness benefit be cause that doctor is not on the panel and therefore his certificate may not be accepted by the local insurance committee?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As I have stated many times in answer to similar questions, the local insurance committees have nothing whatever to do with sickness benefit for members of approved societies. The question of requiring satisfactory evidence of sickness, whether by certificates or otherwise is entirely a matter for the committee of management of the approved society, subject to appeal to the insurance committee under Section 67 cf the Act.
    Sir H. CRAIKasked whether, considering that it is a breach of medical etiquette for doctors to divulge the ailments of their patients, and that patients often object to any specific statement in regard to this being made public, it is sufficient to enter on the sickness certificate that the insured person is disabled by illness or accident, as the case may be, leaving any specific statement which may be required for statistical purposes to be entered in the doctor's private day book?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As I stated in my answer to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for North Somerset on the 13th January the arrangements for the keeping and furnishing of records by doctors secure that information which would connect the name of a patient with an entry as to a particular kind of disease, could not be obtained by the Commissioners, committee, or society. The nature of the evidence which a society accepts in support of a claim to sickness benefit (which has no connection with the form of record kept by the doctor for the purposes of the Medical Benefit Regulations) is primarily a matter for the society. If any question arises between such a claimant and his society as to the sufficiency of any certificate tendered by the claimant for this purpose, that question will have to be determined by the Commission under Section 67 of the Act.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Do we understand that these private statistics will not be attached to any name?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Statistics which are taken for general statistical purposes are records which will be altogether independent of the names, and cannot be attached to them.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is it not a fact that the part of the record which goes to the committee has the name upon it, and the part of the record that goes to the Commissioners has the disease upon it, so that the committee gets the name and the Commissioners get the disease?

    DISPENSERS.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked whether a per son qualified to dispense medicines solely by virtue of having acted as a dispenser to a duly qualified medical practitioner, or a public institution, for three years immediately prior to the passing of the Act is entitled to dispense medicines containing poisons to insured persons?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, Sir; persons who are not themselves registered pharmacists have been held under the Pharmacy Acts to be precluded from dispensing such medicines, and the position of such of them as are referred to by the hon. Member is not affected by the National Insurance Act.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. WRIGHTasked whether doctors in rural districts who undertake both medical attendance and the supply of drugs to insured persons on their lists are entitled to the whole of the 2s. allowed for such person for drugs; if not, to what, if any, share of the floating 6d.; and whether any and, if so, what regulations have been drawn up in this respect?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes, Sir. A doctor in a rural district who does his own dispensing under the conditions laid down in Sectons 45 and 47 of the Medical Benefit Regulations will receive on the capitation system the total capitation sum for medical treatment and drugs, namely, 7s. (which includes the so-called floating 6d.) for general attendance, 6d. for attendance on tuberculosis patients, and 1s. 6d. for drugs, making a total of 9s. in all.
    Mr. WRIGHT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some counties the local insurance committees are allowing only 1s. 6d. and not the 2s.?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the hon. Gentleman will bring any case before my notice, I will see that it is immediately put right.

    MANAGEMENT EXPENSES.
    Mr. NEWMANasked whether management expenses under the National Insurance Act includes rent of premises occupied by an approved society; and whether, when the same premises are occupied by an organisation which conducts operations both as an approved society and as a political order, steps will be taken to secure that such political order is not subsidised out of national moneys in respect of rent of premises it may occupy?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative. The payment of a reasonable proportion of the expenditure on rent of premises occupied for joint purposes is not a subsidy; and steps will be taken to secure that no more than this reasonable proportion is paid out of the funds of the approved society.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Have not the Commissioners taken action already? Why is it not done now?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The question of administrative expenses comes before the Government auditors for audit, and any item will be disallowed which is in excess of the reasonable amount for expenses which can be charged to the National Insurance Fund.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT (IRELAND).
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he is now in a position to make any statement with reference to the promise that he made to appoint a Committee to inquire into the question of medical benefits under the National Insurance Act in Ireland?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Committee which has been appointed to-day consists of Lord Ashby St. Ledgers, as Chairman; Mr. Hugh T. Barrie, Mr. Joseph Devlin and Mr. J. C. R. Lardner, Members of this House; Mr. J. Bradbury of the Treasury; Mr. T. J. Stafford, medical member of the Local Government Board for Ireland; Mr. J. A. Glynn and Dr. W. J. Maguire, Chairman and medical member, respectively, of the National Health Insurance Commission for Ireland; and Mr. W. L. Micks, a member of the Congested Districts Board for Ireland. The Terms of Reference are as follows:—"To consider and report as to the advisability of applying to Ireland the provisions of the National Insurance Act, 1911, with respect to medical benefit and as to the alterations, legislative or otherwise, which in the event of such provisions being applied would be desirable in the systems for affording medical relief at the present existing."
    Mr. FORSTER: Are not Nationalist Members for Ireland quite incompetent to give an opinion upon the subject?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not sure what the hon. Member means. There are two Nationalist Members for Ireland on the Committee.
    Mr. FORSTER: I refer to the eighty Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway.
    Mr. BOOTH: Do I understand that this Committee will simply have to report whether the medical benefit system in
    1998
    operation in England should be applied to Ireland, or have they power to suggest some alternative system, if found better?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: They have to consider the Irish position, which is very different from ours. It is not for me to express an opinion as to whether the system in England will apply to Ireland, but I should say it will probably have to be adapted in some way or other to the conditions existing there.

    Dog Licences (Wiltshire).
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether the Wiltshire County Council refuse to grant permission for dog licences to be issued in the joint names of husband and wife; and whether such refusal has the sanction of the Treasury?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am making inquiries into this matter, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

    Edinburgh and Glasgow Typographical Associations.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the threatened lock-out of the members of the Edinburgh and Glasgow Typographical Associations on the 15th February; whether he has been invited to arbitrate; and, if not, whether he will keep in close touch with the dispute and prevent, if possible, such lock out?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I am aware of the threatened dispute mentioned in the question, and I understand that a joint conference of the parties is being held to-day. No application for the appointment of an arbitrator to deal with the matter has been received by the. Board of Trade. The progress of the dispute will be carefully watched by the Chief Industrial Commissioner's Department, and, as my hon. Friend is aware, the good offices of the Board of Trade are at all times available should the parties to a dispute desire to take advantage of them.

    Scottish Islands (Postal Communications).
    Mr. AINSWORTHasked the Post-master-General whether, in view of the continued complaints of the delays and interruptions to the postal and telegraphic communication between the mainland and the islands of Islay, Jura, Colonsay, Mull, Coll, Tiree, Muck, Eigg, and Canna, he

    1999
    will call for a special report on the present state of those services with a view to their improvement?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The recent interruptions of postal communication with these islands have been due almost entirely to the exceptionally severe weather. The working of the steamer services will continue to receive close attention. During the past four years the number of times that cables have needed repair have been: Cable to Islay, one; cable to Jura, three; cable to Colonsay, one; cable to Coll, three; cable to Tiree, one; cable to Eigg (including Muck), none; cable to Canna, none. Considering the remoteness of these islands, the roughness of the seas, and the rocky bottoms on which the cables are laid, I regard the service as a good one.
    Mr. AINSWORTH: Will the right hon. Gentleman order a special report on the mail services to these islands, especially bearing in mind that when a contractor puts an inferior boat on the service it stands to reason that in bad weather the service cannot be done?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There is another inquiry proceeding with regard to the use of a slow boat in place of the ordinary one during the time the ordinary one was under repair recently.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONARLAW: May I ask the Prime Minister what Supplementary Estimates will be taken on Thursday and Friday, and can he also state the Government business that will be taken after 10.30 tonight and to-morrow night?
  The PRIME MINISTER: To-night, after half-past ten, we propose to take the Second Reading of the Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland) Bill which, I understand, is a non-contentious measure.
  To-morrow night, at the same time, we hope to take the Report stage of the Pilotage Bill.
  The first Supplementary Vote taken on Thursday will be the Board of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), and on Friday National Health Insurance (Special Grant).
  Perhaps I may add that if the right hon. Gentleman, as I understand, wishes for a day to discuss Indian finance we propose Thursday, 13th instant, after the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bill.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he promised a day for this, and the promise will not be fulfilled if he puts it as second order.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Committee stage of the Appropriation Bill is purely formal.

  FABRICS (MISDESCRIPTION).
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: I beg to move, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to deal with misdescription of fabrics."
  Public attention is more and more being drawn to the terrible death-roll from casualties by fire, for which the wearing of flannelette is largely responsible. Let me say at once this is not a Bill to prevent the use of flannelette, which though inflammable, and therefore a dangerous fabric, is undoubtedly a benefit to the poor. It is warm and cheap, but many forms of it are very dangerous and very liable to catch fire. What is flannelette? It is a moderately thick, cotton fabric which has gone through a process known as "raising," by which the fibres which compose it
  2012
  are more or less raised and a state of fluffiness produced, which state of fluffiness is not merely the reason why it is warm, but is also the cause of this great inflammability. In some types of flannelette so great is this inflammability that if a person dressed in it stands near the fire a single spark touching the dress will set the whole garment on fire with a great sheet of flame in less than half a minute. Unfortunately, the number of deaths from fire appears to be increasing, and this in spite of the fact that the Children Act of 1908 prescribed fire-guards for children. But sparks will fly through fire-guards, and we should remember that this, above all other countries, is the country of open fire-places which are a special source of danger of clothing taking fire. I could give a large number of painful instances. Suffice it to say that deaths occasioned by sparks coming on to flannelette seem to be increasing at a rapid rate, and some are of a very sad nature. I have a cutting from a Manchester newspaper, about a fortnight ago, about a deaf-and-dumb cripple, aged twenty-two, who was tied in a chair and could not move, and who, owing to a spark falling on his clothing, was burnt to a very sad death in a very short time. Members of Parliament will probably have received to-day a statement of deaths for the last month—January, 1913—which is of itself a great indictment of flannelette as at present worn. Fortunately, in future the Home Office is going to require coroners to say when these deaths have resulted from this cause. The statement to which I refer is necessarily a partial account of what happened last month, and, to put it shortly, eighty-seven deaths are recorded in newspapers in a general way from setting fire to clothing, which is at the rate of 1,044 a year. Of these, forty are distinctly attributable to flannelette, at a rate of 480 a year. Probably flannelette plays a large part in the death of others not so recorded. When we consider that this is only a partial statement and that there is only one case from Scotland and none from Ireland in it, it is not at all an understatement to say that in all probability the deaths from fire owing to flannelette alone are at the rate of a thousand a year or more. These are only the cases where death results; there are many more casualties where there is not a death at all. Let it be remembered, too, how agonising death by fire is, and I am sure the House will be willing to do all it can to lessen that hideous total.

  2013
  In December, 1908, the Home Secretary-appointed a Coroners' Committee which in August, 1910, reported that flannelette has been used since 1885, that the death rate from clothing catching fire has greatly increased since then, and that flannelette is specially dangerous, and they recommended that it should be made penal to describe as non-inflammable material which will really not stand certain prescribed tests, for unfortunately, since it has become known how dangerous some sorts of flannelette are, some dealers have actually advertised and declared to be safe fabrics which are highly dangerous. I have a list of a great number of advertisements of this kind of thing. I will read the title of some qualifications attached to some of these articles which the National League for the Physical Education of Children, with the late Bishop of Ripon, Dr. Boyd Carpenter and other eminent men at its head, has examined and found to be highly inflammable and dangerous. These are different descriptions—trade advertisements—of articles which are dangerous: "Will not flare," "safety," "will not blaze," "new safety," "safest substitute for flannel," "as safe as woollen," "safe to wear," "the only safe flannelette which will not flash or burn." All these are false statements, and some are hypocritically associated with appeals to mothers for the safety of their children. This Bill is simply to stop that practice and nothing else. It empowers the Home Office to set up a standard of safety and penalises those who sell as "safe" fabrics which do not comply with such a standard. It is a very modest and moderate measure to which surely no one can object. It does not, as many would desire, prohibit entirely the sale of this dangerous fabric. It does not, as many others would desire, require even that dangerous fabrics should be ticketed or marked as dangerous. It merely demands that dangerous fabrics shall not be advertised, ticketed, stamped, or marked as safe. I hope the House, seeing that I have only taken six minutes out of the ten, will pardon this small digression for the sake of a very great evil which can be partially remedied by a little, innocuous Bill of this kind, recommended unanimously by a Departmental Committee which reported three years ago.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Theodore Taylor, Dr. Addison, Mr.
  2014
  Boland, Colonel Brocklehurst, Sir Frederick Cawley, Sir Henry Craik, Mr. Ferens, Mr. Hills, Mr. Joynson-Hieks, Sir John M'Callum, and Mr. Albert Smith. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 359.]

  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
  As Amended, further Considered.
  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
    SECOND ALLOTTED DAY.

      CLAUSE 8.—(Distribution of Property by Welsh Commissioners.)
      (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Welsh Commissioners shall by order transfer the property vested in them by this Act, as follows:—

      (a) they shall transfer to the representative body—

      (i) all churches;

      (ii) all ecclesiastical residences, together with any moveable chattels held and enjoyed with or as incident to the occupation of any such residence, by the incumbent for the time being of the office to which the residence is attached;

      (iii) all funds or endowments specially allocated to the repair, restoration, or improvement of the fabric of any such church or ecclesiastical residence;

      (iv) all property which consists of or is the produce of or is or has been derived from Grants made by Queen Anne's Bounty out of moneys provided by Parliament;

      (v) all property which consists of Or is the produce of or is or has been derived from Grants made by Queen Anne's Bounty out of the Royal Bounty Fund;

      (vi) all glebes: subject to the payment by the representative body to the Welsh Commissioners of a sum equal to the value of such part of the glebes so transferred to them as does not consist of private benefactions, such value to be determined by the Welsh Commissioners, regard being had to the tenancies, charges, incumbrances, interests, and rights subject to which the glebes are transferred to the representative body;

      (vii) all private benefactions;

      2015

      (viii) if so requested by the representative body, any burial grounds which before the date of Disestablishment have been closed under or in pursuance of the provisions of any Act of Parliament or of any Order in Council made thereunder;

      (b) of the property not so transferred to the representative body they shall transfer the burial ground of any ecclesiastical parish so as to vest the same in the existing incumbent during his incumbency and on the determination thereof—

      (i) where the burial ground is situate in an area in which the Burial Acts, 1852 to 1906, are in force or in which a burial ground has been provided under the Public Health (Interments) Act, 1879, or a local Act, in the burial authority, or where the burial authority is a joint committee, in such one or more of the authorities represented on that committee, or in trustees on their behalf, as the Welsh Commissioners think fit;

      (ii) where the burial ground is situate in a rural parish, or in a part of a rural parish in which the Burial Acts, 1852 to 1906, are not in force, in the council of that parish, or, if there is no council, in the chairman of the parish meeting and overseers of that parish; and

      (iii) in any other case, in the council of the borough or urban district in which the burial ground is situate:

      (c) of the property not so transferred to the representative body they shall transfer any tithe rent-charge which was formerly appropriated to the use of any parochial benefice to the council of the county in which the land out of which the tithe rent-charge issues is situate:

      Provided that where such land is not situate in Wales or Monmouthshire they shall transfer the tithe rent-charge to the council of such county in Wales and Monmouthshire as the Welsh Commissioners think fit;

      (d) of the property not so transferred to the representative body they shall transfer any other property which was formerly appropriated to the use of any parochial benefice (including the money paid tinder this
      2016
      Section by the representative body in respect of glebes) to the council of the county in which the ecclesiastical parish to the use of which the property was so appropriated is situate: Provided that if such ecclesiastical parish is situate in more than one county the property shall be transferred to such one or more of those councils or be divided between them as the Welsh Commissioners may think fit;

      (e) they shall transfer all other property vested in them to the University of Wales.

      (2) Save as otherwise provided by this Act, all property transferred under this Section shall be held subject to all existing public and private rights with respect thereto, and all tenancies, charges, and incumbrances which may at the date of transfer be subsisting therein, and in the case of all such property, except tithe rent-charge transferred to a county council, to the existing interests of all persons who at the passing of this Act hold ecclesiastical offices in the Church in Wales, and in the case of such tithe rent-charge to the obligation to make such provision as is hereinafter mentioned in lieu of such existing interests.
      (3) Where property of any such class as aforesaid has before the date of Disestablishment been sold, redeemed, or otherwise converted, or where any moneys are at that date held upon trust to be applied in the building purchase or repair of, or to make good dilapidations in, property of any such class as aforesaid, the proceeds of sale, redemption, or other conversion, and such moneys as aforesaid or the securities in which such proceeds or moneys are for the time being invested, shall be dealt with in like manner as if they were property of that class:
      Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply to money (not being a private benefaction) which is the proceeds of sale or is held on trust to be applied in the purchase of glebe or to the securities in which any such money is for the time being invested.
      Captain TRYON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (a), after the word "body" ["they shall transfer to the representative body"], to insert the words "(i) all glebes."
      4.0 P.M.
      The effect of this Amendment will be that all glebes will be transferred to the representative body—that is to say, all

      2017
      glebes will be retained by the Church. This is perhaps one of the oldest forms of Church property connected with obligation in this country, and these glebes have their origin in personal gifts to the Church. Parliament has not given these glebes. It has confirmed the Church in its possession of them, but Parliament has not given them, and we submit that before the glebes should be taken away from the Church the Government ought to prove their claim, as anyone else has to prove their claim before taking property away from those who hold it. We hold that the Government has not proved its claim. Clearly the income from these glebes is, in the first place, not a tax; and, in the second place, the Irish Church Bill affords no precedent whatever for seizing these glebes. The justification visually put forward in that case was that the Irish Church had more money than she needed, and that she was not applying it well. Whatever may be the merits of these two contentions, no one can put them forward against the Church and against the retention of these glebes by the Church. I would also plead that the House should, in considering whether the Church is to retain these glebes, apply to the Church that modern eye which the Government found so extremely convenient when considering the case of Ireland under the Home Rule Bill. There were no doubt good reasons why anybody considering the Irish Bill should only have a very modern eye, but if that is their principle, let them apply it all round and consider the merits of the Church to-day. What has been done has been not to apply the modern eye, but rather the eye of some spiteful research into distant ages, and to try to rake up some story about what the Church did in the seventeenth century. We say that the Church ought to be judged on its merits to-day, and by its undoubted claim to hold this property.
      I have listened to the Debates on this Bill, and I have refreshed my memory by reading them. Therefore, I would like to deal with the arguments put forward for the Government. The first seems to be an objection to Endowments of any kind. There are hon. Members opposite who object to religious work being carried out through income which comes from Endowments, but on looking further into the question, I find that the Liberation Society has actually prepared a form of will or bequest urging people, if they cannot see
      2018
      their way to contribute to their funds during life, to leave something for the "Liberation Society." Therefore, I say you have this extraordinary situation that they do not object to Endowments so long as they are held to attack a Church, though they object to Endowments to carry on religious services. Another objection is that income from glebes comes, as an hon. Member expressed it, from the sweat of the Nonconformist brow. It is a most dangerous doctrine to set up in this country that a Church, or religious body of any kind, is not entitled to receive its income from land which is situated in a particular district where the majority of the people are not adherents of that particular Church. If that is a sound doctrine, it should be applied all round, and if it is applied all round, there is no Church which would not suffer from it. Some hon. Member asked whether Nonconformists would work any less if this Bill were passed, and replying to the question he said, "No, but the result of their toil would go to national purposes." It seems to me a Socialistic doctrine that the results of the efforts of workers should go not to individuals but to the nation. I am not going to discuss the question of Socialism, but I would ask, how can anybody apply this form of Socialistic doctrine to one form of property only, in one part of the country alone, and in that part of the country only to what is held by one particular Church? That is an absolutely untenable position. I think the history of these glebes is a history of continuous effort made through many centuries by the people of Wales to help the religious life of Wales. We had quoted to us by the Leader of the Welsh party a very beautiful passage as to one of the first grants of land made to St. Dubricius in the sixth century for religious purposes. The particulars are contained in an old book "Llan Dav." The curiously worded account says:—
      "Be it known that Pepian, King, son of 1b. gave the maenor of Garth benui up to the black marsh, with wood, field, and water, and the casting a net of King Constantine, his father-in-law, across the river Wye to God and Dubricius, Archbishop of Llan Dav, and to Junapeius, his cousin, for his soul and for the writing of his name in the Book of Life with all its liberty, without any earthly census and sovereignity, greater or smaller, except to God and St. Dubricius and the servants of the Church of Llan Dav for ever."
      Therefore, for fourteen hundred years that Endowment has gone on for the service of God, and now we, the House of Commons, are asked suddenly to stop that, and to divert it to some purpose other than that to which it should be for ever sacred.

      2019
      Some suggestions have been made to the effect that there should be a time limit. I do not see any reason why there should be any time limit to the honesty of the English nation. Some Liberals have supported our claim with respect to the right of the Church to these Endowments. They have been attacked, I think unjustifiably, in a violent manner by their colleagues on their own benches. They are spoken of as though they were not Liberals at all. I am not sure that they are not a good deal better Liberals than those who have brought in this Bill. It is a little difficult now-a-days to decide what it is that constitutes a Liberal. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or a Tory."] I should like to call attention to the position of this particular land under this Clause. There are, it is well known, a section of the Liberal party who propose to confiscate all land by taxation. That is their policy, stated shortly. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I do not wish to intervene in the disputes of hon. Members opposite, but what I have stated is true. What do they do by this Bill? They first of all take away land which we think belongs as a matter of absolute right to the Church, and then they proceed to try to sell back to the Church land which we hold to be the Church's own land. Then when the new taxes have been imposed in a few years they will be enabled to confiscate again this land which they have sold to the Church. I do not think a more dishonest proposal has ever been put forward than this. I must remind Members opposite that when these advanced Liberals win a by-election they are hailed by the Prime Minister as victors in the progressive cause. My point is this: Those Liberals who are supporting us in this matter of Church property are more true to Liberal traditions than those who are attacking the Church. When we hear so many appeals made on the subject of friendship and the desire for unity and concord among the Churches, I would suggest that those Liberals who are supporting us are better friends of peace than those who are opposing us. I think we and all members of the Church will remember that, although there have been bitter attacks upon us, and although this Bill will inflict a grievous injury, there are some men on the Liberal benches who by the stand they have made for the Church have done something which will in the future tend to that concord of which their colleagues speak so much, and for which they do so little.
      Mr. MOUNT: I beg to second the Amendment. My hon. Friend has said that if this Amendment were accepted by the House it would retain for the representative body the glebes which the Church now enjoys. I am perfectly well aware that there is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the Home Secretary which proposes to make an alteration in the Bill as it now stands, and which would, if carried, no doubt do away with perhaps one of the greatest hardships which the Bill, as it stands, inflicts in regard to the question of glebes. In taking away the glebes you are taking away from the Church property which we say rightly and properly belongs to us, and which has been undoubtedly given to the Church in the past. It is rather interesting, I think, to see what has become of the arguments on which hon. Members opposite based their support of the original proposals with regard to the Disen-dowment part of this Bill. We do not hear any longer of the tax theory of the Home Secretary. We are told no doubt that this property—glebe and tithe—is national property, given originally to the community. We on this side say that that statement is untrue, and that there is no foundation in fact for it. But if there is one kind of property which it is proposed to take away from the Church of which this statement is untrue, it is the glebes, which undoubtedly do belong to the Church, because they were given to the Church, and not to the community. Glebe undoubtedly was not given to the Church as a whole, but was given for the maintenance of a minister, and for the services of a church in a particular parish. I think it is a little interesting to refer to what took place on the Committee stage of this Bill when the question of taking away glebe from the Church was discussed. Like my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Tryon), I have refreshed my memory in regard to the Debates, and I was interested, on reading again the speech of the Under-Secretary for the Home Department, in which he made an excursion into the ancient and primal history of Wales. Coming to the time when individual ownership of land was part of the law of the land, he said:—
      "After individual ownership was established as part of the law of the country, the private donor gave land to the Church. He gave it to God, the saints, and the incumbents."
      I quite agree with him. Hon. Members are taking it away from God, the saints, and the incumbents, and giving it to the

      2021
      county councils for other purposes. I am aware that hon. Members opposite still say that at the time these glebes were given to the Church there was only one Church in the country, but I would ask them whether, if they base their argument on the fact that there are now more than one denomination, they ought not to take this glebe which was given to God, the saints, and the incumbents, for the cause of religion, and divide it among the religious denominations serving that great purpose. If there is any consistency whatever on the part of hon. Members opposite, surely, at any rate, we ought to be entitled to retain from part of these glebes—some part of these Endowments—for the Church. It is perfectly true that private benefactions and other parts of Church Endowments are retained to the Church, but it is proposed to take away from the Church the whole of the glebe and give it to the county councils for other purposes. I say that hon. Members opposite when they base their argument on the fact that at that time glebe was given there was only one Church, ought now, when there are more than one Church, to say that that property ought not to be retained only by one Church. I say we are justified in keeping it, because the Church of England to which this property was originally given, as has been admitted by the Prime Minister in more than one speech, has maintained spiritual continuity, and that it is only as regards those reasonable changes of evolution, which I think every hon. Member opposite will admit are signs of growth rather than anything else in a Church or religious body, that it has changed. I cannot help asking hon. Members opposite whether they believe that other denominations but that of the Church would be able to maintain a really sound title to all their property if no change of evolution were allowed in their doctrine or growth. I support the Amendment, because I believe that if there is one form of property which was originally given to the Church, to which the title of the Church is sound and good, to keep as its own now it is glebe.
      The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): This is the second time that the House has considered this question of glebes. After very lengthy debate some time ago this House decided that glebe was portion of the property of the Church that should be devoted to public purposes. I listened with great attention to the
      2022
      speeches of the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded this Amendment. I think the proposer spoke under a misapprehension in thinking that we are opposed to Endowments of all kinds, because under this Bill the Church retains every penny of the Endowments which it has received during the last 250 years. I mention that not that I expect hon. Members opposite to agree with me, but in order that there may be no misapprehension on the point. Rightly or wrongly—we think rightly—we hold that the property given to the Church before 1662 stands on an entirely different footing from the property given to the Church after that date. It is idle for anyone to say that we object to any Endowment in any form for the Church of England. With regard to this question, I noticed that the two hon. Members who moved and seconded this Amendment were able to keep away from the sacred word "frankalmoign" during the whole of their speeches. I congratulate them upon their reticence in that respect, and I shall follow their example. What I have to say on that question was said on a previous occasion, and I do not wish to repeat it, except to say this: What I submitted to the Committee then was that the greater part of the property by way of glebe was given as frankalmoign, and frankalmoign meant prayers for the dead. The Bishop of St. Asaph, in referring to this subject, says in his book, "Landmarks in the History of the Welsh Church":—
      "These donations were given by powerful chieftains in atonement for crime, and one of the Church's most potent weapons seems to have been a species of excommunication so that these guilty chieftains should offer substantial atonement for their crimes."
      That seems a long way off from the pious ancestors that we heard so much about in these Debates from time to time, but I can understand that one must not go too meticulously in the origin of these gifts except that when we are referred to these pious ancestors, and when we are asked in their sacred names to leave these gifts, it is just as well that the House should know their origin. The motive of the gifts was personal and selfish. They were given by men who wanted a return for their money. They were not free gifts. They were given for a consideration, and the consideration was prayers to be said for the donor. The donor was, of course, the best judge whether these prayers were necessary or not. It seems to me going a long way in regard to a personal selfish gift of that kind to say that in its origin it I is a religious gift or a gift for some

      2023
      religious purpose. It is quite true that in carrying out the trust a religious service was necessary, because that was the condition of the gift, but the motive was not religious. It was personal and selfish. What became of these gifts? Hon. Members on both sides are agreed that Parliament can take away any property from anyone, but that is not the question. The question that we who support this Bill must satisfy ourselves and the country on is not that we have a legal right to do this, but that we have an ethical right—that is to say, that our proposals are based upon justice. Going away from the time when these gifts were originally given, and coming to the Reformation, at the Reformation there was no dispute that it became impossible for the organisation which had the property to fulfil the trust on which it is given. I do not suppose that the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University will deny that it is illegal at the present moment for the Church to say prayers for the dead. If that be so—
      Lord HUGH CECIL: If the hon. Member had been in many churches during the South African war he would have heard prayers for the dead in all these churches.
      Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Then I understand the view of the Noble Lord is that it is legal for the Church of England to say prayers for the dead?
      Lord HUGH CECIL: Yes.
      Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: That is the Noble Lord's view, but I would like to hear some of the hon. Members from Liverpool to see what they would say about that. At any rate at the date of the Reformation the Noble Lord will admit that the Church of England looked upon the previous organisation of the whole of this property as idolatrous and superstitious, and it is a curious thing, which I do not allude to except by way of reference, that the monastic property held by this trust, the chantries were devoted by the King to his own purposes, and the purposes of the noblemen who were his friends. Why? Because, I presume, they knew that the reformed Church of England could not perform the original purposes of the trust, and therefore the property must go to someone, so he gave it to himself and to his friends, and I am sure there are descendants of these men who still have the property, and I do not blame, them for that, but a great deal of these chantry
      2024
      properties are now owned by the descendants of men who then got them. The parochial glebe was held upon similar trust. Our submission to the House is that all those properties were given in order to benefit the soul of the donor. The property went to the general fund of the Church for the time being. Therefore what we have got to consider now in readjusting the trust is, To what general purposes did the property of the Church at that time go? And we say it was not given for religious purposes in the special sense referred to by hon. Members on the other side of the House. It was given for the assistance of strangers and wayfarers and for looking after the sick and the needy.
      These were the general purposes at that time, and our view is that you cannot apply this property in more near accordance with the original trust than in applying them for a similar purpose at the present day. I do not want to repeat the old argument which we have heard so often. Our view is that the beneficiaries were the nation as a whole. The Church was the nation on its religious side, and therefore it is impossible now to give it to a Church which is only the nation on its very partial side. It is quite right that these glebes, given for the purposes enumerated, should now be restored to the services of the people as a whole, and that is quite consistent with the purposes of this Bill. We have always held that property which has been given to the Church since 1662 should be retained, but with regard to this property, which is one of the oldest forms of property the Church has, and was given to the Church not as a Church, but as representing the nation as a whole, the Church no longer represents the nation as a whole. It represents only a small section of the Welsh people. In those circumstances, when you have this property given for the nation as a whole, you cannot give it for its original purpose unless you set it aside for general purposes. We are asked to look at this with a modern eye, and we are doing our best. Our view is that we should best consult the original purposes of the trust and do full justice to the Church and the wishes of the pious donor or the guilty chieftain, whichever it may be, by saying that in future this property should not be retained for the purposes of a small fraction of the population, but devoted to the purposes of the people as a whole.
      Sir A. CRIPPS: Without seeking to raise again a question which was debated very fully in Committee, I would like to

      2025
      answer what has been said by the Under-Secretary for the Home Department, because I think he has not learned much from the Debates which have taken place on this point. Take the first fallacy. He draws a distinction between the Church before and after the Reformation period, or 1662. He means by that one of the dates of the Reformation period. Surely we pointed out often enough that that is a view which is absolutely denied by the Prime Minister and by the right hon. Gentleman, who is recognised as one of the ablest advocates on his side who have spoken on this question, the Solicitor-General. They have both repudiated from top to bottom this view which is again put forward. Their view is so different that I may state it in order to show the extreme contrast. They say there is a difference as regards glebe Endowments, whether you have an Established or a Disestablished Church, and it is on that point they put what we call the confiscation of Endowments, either as regards glebe or tithe rent-charge. Of course, that is poles asunder from the view put forward by the Under-Secretary, and I beg at the outset to repudiate wholly on behalf of Churchmen that there is any truth whatever in the suggestion that you have a different Church or a different body or a different religious community, whether you are dealing with the Church before or after the Reformation. I do not want to emphasise that further. I adopt the words of the Prime Minister, and no one has spoken more clearly and more satisfactorily on that point than he has. Leaving that point, let me come to the other argument, the impossible argument which the Under-Secretary has addressed to the House. First, as regards the origin of these glebe Endowments, it is perfectly well known that they were given, as stated by Archbishop Anselm and Bishop Gibson, because unless you dedicated a glebe you could not get a Church consecrated at all. I may refer to the words of Bishop Gibson, as he is an authority on whom historians rely:—
      "…such absolute necessity for glebes. Without them no church could be regularly consecrated."
      The Under-Secretary for the Home Department is absolutely inaccurate in suggesting that glebes were given for such purposes, for instance, as the chantry funds. I would point out that we are dealing with the chantry funds, and there again I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken both as a matter of history and a matter of law. What frankal-
      2026
      moign means is this: It has no reference to the purposes for which it was given at all; it is the first form of freehold tenure, absolutely free from all feudal duty—in fact, a form of tenure wholly based on religious grounds, and wholly dissociated from all secular duties of any sort or kind. It is an absolute fallacy to quote frankalmoign when, at the same time, you admit that the whole purpose of frankalmoign was religious in its purpose, and not feudal or secular. This is an important point, and I should have thought that it was quite clear and was essential that, in order to consecrate a church, you should have any frankalmoign free from all secular or feudal duties, and therefore not liable to confiscation or escheat. That is an historical legal proposition which no one in any way can find fault with. It is the simple fact. When feudal tenure was abolished in the time of Charles II., frankalmoign was preserved and exists to the present day, because it was the only feudal tenure to which no feudal duty was attached. It was a religious tenure of the Church, and there was no feudal duty at all.
      Let me point out the error the Under-Secretary makes in regard to the Chantry Act and what he calls superstitious duties. The Chantry Act only refers to land already confiscated before the date of the Act of Edward VI., and what it really did—it is rather like a Budget Bill, if I may use that illustration—was to give to the King, who then represented the Government, for his use, land already confiscated under previous provisions of the Act of Henry VIII. We are not dealing with that at present. At that date, let me point out, any trust property devoted, for instance, to what was called nonconformity purposes at the present time, would have been, in the eye of the law, a superstitious use. In that day any property devoted to any religious purpose except a particular religious purpose—that is, the religious purpose of the Church—was regarded as ipso facto trust property devoted to superstitious uses. Therefore it is quite idle to quote to-day what was applicable at that day—a day, by the by, of the most brutal tyranny as regards Church matters or as regards superstitious uses. Exactly the same argument would invalidate every Nonconformist trust held by every Nonconformist community at the present time. I hope hon. Members will recognise that I have duly followed what I understood was

      2027
      the last exhortation of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Home Office—to deal with this subject with what he called the "modern eye." That is what we desire to do as regards all religious trust Endowments, whether in the hands of the Church or in the hands of other religious denominations. It is a monstrous thing to say that you are to test all religious Endowments for religious purposes by adopting the test which was applied in the days of Edward VI. If you were to make it general, there is not a single trust fund applied to any religious purpose of either a Roman Catholic or any Nonconformist body in this country which would stand the test. I protest against that. I think to apply a test of that kind is utterly immoral and utterly inequitable. I am not attacking Nonconformist Endowments; on the contrary, I think it is admirable that they should have Endowments and trust funds to be used for religious purposes.
      But what I am finding fault with is this applying to our Endowments a test which, if applied generally, would invalidate every religious Endowment or religious trust fund at the present time held by Nonconformist bodies for religious purposes. If we appeal to equity, then let all religious bodies be dealt with on one footing and in the same way, and leave us our glebe lands, which come from no State Grant or anything of that kind, but have come to us in the same way as the property of all other religious bodies—whether religious Endowments or trust funds—has come from benefactors or other members of any religious communion. In regard to glebes, you cannot draw any distinction which differentiates their position from that of any other trust of any other religious community in the country at the present time. I must give one further answer to the hon. and learned Under-Secretary. He said that the using of these funds for county council purposes or for university purposes was using them in accordance with the cy prés doctrine—that is, according to his interpretation, near to the original dedication. That is wholly and absolutely untrue. I am not going into the question of tithe rent-charges. We know that there is a great difference between the two sides of the House on that point. But there can be no difference as regards glebes. Glebes were in their essence dedicated to religious purposes
      2028
      only, and you cannot select them out for confiscation without falling into two mistakes—first, confiscating property which is being used for Church funds at the present time, and, secondly, alienating for purely secular purposes what was dedicated originally to devotional and religious purposes. I do not think the Under-Secretary has introduced a single new argument, and I have only risen to say in reference to the arguments he has put forward that they have no foundation either in history or in law, and the challenge which we have thrown out to show that they have any such foundation has never yet been answered in any of our numerous Debates upon this subject.
      Mr. BOOTH: I did not take part in this Debate in Committee, and I admit it was one of the subjects introduced in the Bill on which I had not come to a definite conclusion in my own mind. I always held that from the Liberal standpoint tithe clearly must be dealt with in the manner proposed by the Bill, but that Queen Anne's Bounty should be left to the Church, whilst the question of Parliamentary Grants and glebes, it appeared to me, occupied a middle position. I am not now giving my views on the question of Parliamentary Grants, except to say, in passing, that I think the House erred on the side of the Church in yielding up those Grants, and I was rather surprised that the Welsh Members did not fight for them more. With regard to the question of glebes, I have very carefully considered it from my own independent standpoint before coming to a conclusion. Unfortunately, the speech of the hon. Member for Morley (Mr. France), who introduced his famous Amendment, did not at all go to the root of the matter. I do not challenge the hon. Member's good faith, or his motives and sincerity, but, at the same time, I learned nothing at all from his speech in reference to the merits of the question. The Debate which followed was more or less confused. This afternoon I listened very carefully to the speeches of the Mover and Seconder, with a sincere desire to find out what was their view of the origin of this property, and who had the best legal and also moral claim to it. They threw no light on that subject, but they referred to tithes, Parliamentary Grants and Queen Anne's Bounty, and the miscellaneous funds or undefined funds which, in their opinion, were better given to the Church than given to the Welsh county councils.

      2029
      I quite agree that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bucks (Sir A. Cripps) has made a speech of rather a different kind; I think he did go to the root of the matter. But taking the speech of the Mover of this Amendment, he commenced on the false ground that everyone on this side of the House holds the views that Endowments are undesirable. If the hon. Member will not take the trouble to find out what our views are, it is very difficult to come to close quarters in an argument, or to find a solution. The fact of the Endowments, after 1662, remaining in the hands of the Church shows that we are not against all Endowments for religious purposes. If we had held that view, logically we might have formulated a proposal to take away all the Endowments of the Church in Wales on the ground that they did her harm. But no such position is taken up on this side of the House, and therefore what is the use of dealing with the question as if we were in favour of taking all Endowments? As to what one might do privately on the subject is another question. There are differences of opinion. A considerable section in the country believe that Endowments do harm to a church, just as wealth leads to the deterioration of the character of its possessor. There is a good deal to be said for that point of view. But it has not been put forward by the Liberal party. The Independent Methodists do not believe in a paid ministry; they believe in voluntary service, and clearly they could not have Endowments or glebes for the purpose of supporting a pastor, or minister, or priest. If they considered Endowments at all, it would be purely for the public. They do not mind meeting in board schoolrooms, town halls, or mechanics' institutes, or, very frequently, in the open air.
      If a political party, especially the party which is represented on the Government Bench, were, in this House, to take up that extreme position, then the speech of the Mover of the Amendment would have been pertinent; but, unfortunately, he seemed to me to confuse certain definite views which are held by some religious bodies, called Nonconformist, with the general position of the Liberal party. The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment apparently suggested that if these glebes were taken away from the Church of England they should be handed over to the religious bodies. Surely he ought to remember that most of those religious
      2030
      bodies would repudiate those gifts. I do not know whether he remembers the famous article written about a generation ago by a distinguished Wesleyan, one of the leading ministers of that body, the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes, who always maintained that the policy of Constantine had injured the Church. It is useless to talk of concurrent Endowment, and there fore I ask hon. Members opposite not to make that suggestion. It cannot be entertained by the other religious bodies—
      Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: On a point of Order, Sir. Is the hon. Gentleman in order in speaking about concurrent Endowments?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The question of concurrent Endowments can be properly-raised on a later Amendment to-day.
      Mr. BOOTH: I was replying to the remarks of the Seconder, who gave concurrent Endowment as a reason why we should adopt the Amendment. I have, however, concluded those observations, and I am not going to pursue the point. The hon. Member for South Bucks complained that the Under-Secretary had not gone fully into the matter. The Under-Secretary said he did not want to repeat his former speech, and I do not think it is quite fair criticism to complain that he did not reproduce the arguments which he used in the Committee stage. I would like to challenge the hon. and learned Gentleman upon one very definite point. He claimed that at the time these glebes were given they could not have been given to support any other doctrine, because at that time a tyrannical State held that all other doctrines were superstitious. Surely that grants our whole case. If it was the case that any person religiously disposed must leave the funds to this particular Church, and if they left them to any other body they would be supporting superstition, surely that supports the case that the moneys left at that time were subject to State supervision and to State correction. May I point out that the hon. and learned Gentleman entirely ignored the position of the Roman Catholic Church? It is all very well to talk about spiritual continuity. I am not going to say that those who worship in the Church of England are any less attached to her ministrations because of her ancient lineage; but, at the same time, surely an ecclesiastical lawyer of the eminence of the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot come to the House of Commons and to

      2031
      Parliament, which has again and again imposed its will, its varying will, upon the Church and upon its funds, and then talk as if there had been no interference whatever by this House or by the State with a Church and its funds. Really, the hon. and learned Member has so imbibed the High Church, the high clerical and high Anglican view, that it colours history and his law. I should have thought that any common-sense man in the country would remember that many of those gifts were given when the Church was distinctly Roman Catholic and other gifts were given to it when it was a fighting Protestant Church, burning Roman Catholics. I do rejoice that the hon. and learned Member in the midst of his
      somewhat biassed law and history should have given us one solid fact on which we can depend, namely, that these Endowments were given to the Church by the direction and command of the State, which said, "If you want to employ them in a religious way this, and this only, is the means of grace that you shall recognise." Under those circumstances I thank the hon. and learned Member for having proved the whole case of the Government, not merely upon glebes, but upon the Disendowment proposals generally.
      Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
      The House divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 248.

      Division No. 569.]

      AYES.

      [4.50 p.m.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Ingleby, Holcombe

      Amery, L. C. M. S.

      Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

      Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

      Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Jessel, Captain H. M.

      Anstruther-Gray, Major William

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

      Archer-Shee, Major Martin

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Ashley, W. W.

      Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

      Kerry, Earl of

      Astor, Waldorf

      Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

      Keswick, Henry

      Baird, J. L.

      Croft, Henry Page

      Kimber, Sir Henry

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

      Dairymple, Viscount

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

      Doughty, Sir George

      Knight, Captain E. A.

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

      Kyffin-Taylor, G.

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

      Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Falle, Bertram Godfray

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Barnston, Harry

      Fell, Arthur

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

      Barrie, H. T.

      Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

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

      Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)

      Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

      Lee, Arthur H.

      Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

      Fleming, Valentine

      Lewisham, Viscount

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

      Fletcher, John Samuel

      Lloyd, G. A.

      Beauchamp, Sir Edward

      Forster, Henry William

      Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Gibbs, G. A.

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

      Bennett-Goldney, Francis

      Gilmour, Captain John

      Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

      Beresford, Lord C.

      Goldsmith, Frank

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

      Bigland, Alfred

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

      Bird, A.

      Grant, J, A.

      Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)

      Blair, Reginald

      Greene, W. R.

      MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

      Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

      Gretton, John

      Mackinder, H. J.

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

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

      Macmaster, Donald

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

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

      M'Mordie, Robert James

      Boyton, James

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

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

      Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

      Haddock, George Bahr

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

      Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

      Bull, Sir William James

      Hamersley, Alfred St. George

      Middlemore, John Throgmorton

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      Butcher, J. G.

      Harris, Henry Percy

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

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

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

      Campion, W. R.

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Newdegate, F. A.

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

      Newman, John R. P.

      Cassel, Felix

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

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      Castlereagh, Viscount

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Nicholson, William G. (Petersfleld)

      Cator, John

      Hickman, Colonel T. E.

      Nield, Herbert

      Cautley, H. S.

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Norton-Griffiths, John

      Cave, George

      Hills, John Waller

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

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Hill-Wood, Samuel

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

      Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

      Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

      Hope, Harry (Bute)

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

      Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender

      Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

      Peel, Captain R. F.

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

      Perkins, Walter F.

      Clyde, J. Avon

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

      Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

      Pole-Carew, Sir R.

      Cooper, Richard Ashmole

      Hunt, Rowland

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Courthope, G. Loyd

      Hunter, Sir C. R.

      Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

      Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      Randles, Sir John S.

      Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

      Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Starkey, John R.

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

      Rawson, Col. R. H.

      Staveley-Hill, Henry

      Wheler, Granville C. H.

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Steel-Maitland, A. D.

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

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Stewart, Gershom

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

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Rolleston, Sir John

      Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

      Wills, Sir Gilbert

      Rothschild, Lionel de

      Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

      Winterton, Earl

      Royds, Edmund

      Talbot, Lord E.

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

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

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

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

      Sanders, Robert A.

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

      Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

      Sanderson, Lancelot

      Thynne, Lord Alexander

      Yate, Col. Charles Edward

      Sandys, G. J.

      Touche, George Alexander

      Yerburgh, Robert A.

      Sassoon, Sir Philip

      Tryon, Captain George Clement

      Younger, Sir George

      Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Tullibardine, Marquess of

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

      Valentia, Viscount

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Mount and Mr. Pollock.

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Walker, Col. William Hall

      Stanier, Beville

      NOES.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      King, J.

      Adamson, William

      Essex, Sir Richard Walter

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

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Alden, Percy

      Falconer, J.

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

      Arnold, Sydney

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Leach, Charles

      Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

      Finench, Peter

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

      Field, William

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Lundon, Thomas

      Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Lynch, A. A.

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Gill, A. H.

      McGhee, Richard

      Barnes, G. N.

      Ginnell, L.

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

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Glanville, Harold James

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

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Macpherson. James Ian

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

      Goldstone, Frank

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Bentham, G. J.

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Boland, John Plus

      Greig, Colonel J. W.

      M'Micking, Major Gilbert

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

      Griffith, Ellis J.

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

      Brace, William

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

      Meagher, Michael

      Brady, P. J.

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leltrim, N.)

      Brunner, John F. L.

      Hackett, J.

      Millar, James Duncan

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

      Molloy, M.

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Hancock, John George

      Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

      Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

      Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

      Mooney, J. J.

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

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Morgan, George Hay

      Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

      Morrell, Philip

      Cawley, Harold T. (Lanes., Heywood)

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Morison, Hector

      Chancellor, H. G.

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Chapple, Dr. William Allen

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      Muldoon, John

      Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Munro, R.

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Needham, Christopher T.

      Clough, William

      Hazleton, Richard

      Neilson, Francis

      Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Nolan, Joseph

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Henry, Sir Charles

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Compten-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

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

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Cornwall. Sir Edwin A.

      Higham, John Sharp

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Cotton, William Francis

      Hinds, John

      O'Brien, William (Cork)

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Crawshay-Williams, Eilot

      Hodge, John

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Crumley, Patrick

      Hogge, James Myles

      O'Dowd, John

      Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      O'Grady, James

      Davies, E. William (Eifion)

      Holt, Richard Durning

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

      Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      O'Malley, William

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

      Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

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

      Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      O'Shee, James John

      De Forest, Baron

      Hudson, Walter

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Delany, William

      Hughes, S. L.

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Devlin, Joseph

      Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

      Parry, Thomas H.

      Dillon, John

      John, Edward Thomas

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

      Donelan, Captain A.

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

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Doris, w.

      Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvll)

      Pointer, Joseph

      Duffy, William J.

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

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

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Joyce, Michael

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

      Keating, Matthew

      Radford, G. H.

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      2034

      2035

      Reddy, M.

      Sheehy, David

      Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Shortt, Edward

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

      Watt, Henry A.

      [Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clithcroe)

      Webb, H.

      Richards, Thomas

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Wedgwood, Joslah C.

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Snowden, Philip

      White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Whitehouse, John Howard

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Sutton, John E.

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P

      Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Wiles, Thomas

      Robinson, Sidney

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Roch, Walter F.

      Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

      Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Roche, John (Galway, E.)

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Winfrey, Richard

      Rowlands, James

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Verney, Sir Harry

      Young, William (Perth, East)

      Russell, Rt. Hon Thomas W.

      Wadsworth, J.

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Walters, Sir John Tudor

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

      Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

      Wardle, George J.

      Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

      Mr. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "churches" ["(i) all churches"], to insert the words "and the churchyards adjoining or in use with the same."
      5.0 p.m.
      Clause 8 transfers the churchyards to the local authority—that is to say, to a non-ecclesiastical body, the burial authority, or the parish council, or the urban district council, or other council as the case may be. My Amendment proposes to retain for the Church representative body churchyards which are adjacent to the churches or in use with the same. On 21st January the Home Secretary made the assumption that we had agreed to the proposal in the Bill that the churchyards should be handed over to the Welsh Commissioners. We had no opportunity of doing anything of the kind. This Clause was closured without discussion, and we had not the chance, and we have only now for the first time a chance, of unfettered discussion upon this topic. Under the Irish Act, when churchyards adjoined the churches, they were retained for the Church body. I admit that the Irish Act is not quite on all fours with the present proposals of the Government, but in this matter it seems to me that the House might reasonably follow the provision in the Irish Church Act, and allow the churchyards to be under the same undivided ownership as the churches themselves. I have added the words, "or in use with the same" because it seems reasonable that in a case where a churchyard is just over the road it should be equally under the same ownership as the church itself. The argument of the Home Secretary, in opposition to my proposal, so far as one could gather it, is that all parishioners have existing rights in the
      2036
      churchyards, and that therefore the local authority is the proper body to represent them. That is a very poor argument. It is one which, if the Home Secretary chose, he could easily push much further with about as convincing logic. If he says that existing rights in the churchyards belong to all parishioners in such a way that the local authority ought to own the churchyards, he might just as well apply a similar argument to the edifice of the Church itself, and say that because the parishioners have existing rights to sit in a church, therefore the local authority is the proper body to control the whole of the church building.
      I should like the Government to apply themselves to this aspect of the matter, and to say whether they consider that the existing rights of parishioners to sit in the parish church will be retained after this Bill is passed, and whether, if they are so retained, they push their argument to the extent of saying that the church buildings ought therefore to belong to the local authority. I shall be glad to hear that the Government draw any satisfactory distinction between the two, and, if they do not propose to adopt the outrageous position of handing over the buildings of the church itself to the local authority, why they think it necessary to hand over the churchyard. In all these Debates the Home Secretary is very sedulous to enforce the existing rights of parishioners, but he is very ready to ignore, and indeed very remiss in enforcing, the existing rights of the Church to her Endowments. Looking at the matter from a practical common sense point of view, there is surely a great administrative disadvantage in the separation of church and churchyard into separate ownerships. It is impossible to

      2037
      hand them over to different ownerships—to the representative Church body in one case, and to the local authority in the other—without great danger of friction. Hostile local authorities may make themselves most disagreeable. I wish I could believe that in all cases the Welsh local authorities will not be hostile; but I am afraid that history does not teach us that that would be the case. It is only too certain that in some districts, at any rate, the local authorities will do their utmost to spite the owners of church property. They can do so with ease in many small matters. Supposing a church has to be repaired and scaffolding erected with its base on the churchyard, all sorts of objections might be raised by the local authority if the churchyard belonged to them. Similarly, the local authority might cut down trees in the churchyard in order to spite the owners of the church building itself. They might remove fences or forbid Sunday school processions in the churchyard. In numerous similar small, irritating ways they might make themselves extremely disagreeable to the Church representative body. I cannot believe that it is the object of the Government to enable such a state of things to obtain, and, if it is not so, they will surely be disposed to accept my Amendment.
      There is another point upon which I should like an answer from the Government. What about modern additions to churchyards? One might naturally have supposed that such modern additions would in all cases be private benefactions under Clause 7, and therefore would belong to the Church representative body. But that is not what in fact will occur. Modern additions will be in two classes; either they may have been made before the date of Disestablishment, or they may be made hereafter. What will occur after the death of the present incumbent, supposing they are made before the date of Disestablishment? As I read the Bill, they will be handed over, lock, stock, and barrel, to the local authority, although it may be the very fact of these modern additions having been made which has prevented the churchyards from being closed, and in consequence, under the provisions of this Bill, transferred to the representative body at its request. That surely is a very hard case, because if there had been no modern additions the churchyard would have gone to the Church representative body. Take the other possibility. Assume that modern additions to the churchyard are made after the date of Disestablish-
      2038
      ment. What occurs then? I presume that they are private benefactions since 1662, under Clause 7, and therefore will remain in the hands of the representative Church body. So that the old part of the churchyard in such a case will be under the local authority, and the newer part will belong to the representative Church body. Could anything be more incongruous or unreasonable, or more calculated to provoke friction between the two controlling authorities? Such an arrangement cannot do otherwise than cause friction and bitterness to all concerned. We on these benches take this opportunity of calling the attention of the Government to the extremely awkward situation that will arise if they persist in maintaining this Clause as it stands. I am very anxious that they should fully realise the serious position that will arise in many Welsh parishes if they leave the Bill unamended in this respect, and on that ground I would ask them to accept my Amendment without further demur. I would ask them to accept it equally on more general grounds. After all, what I am proposing is not a matter of the principle of the Bill at all. There is not even a question of money in it, to quote the words of the Under-Secretary for the Home Department. Therefore, I think that the Government might accede to my request. There is no principle of the Bill at the bottom of it. There is a great deal of practical cause why the churchyards should remain entirely in the hands of the Church representative body. There is a further reason—that of sentiment. Many people feel keenly and earnestly that where their ancestors have been buried they should be buried themselves, and that where the churchyards have for centuries belonged to the Church where they worship and with which they have intimate associations, they should remain in the hands of the Church. All those reasons appeal keenly to many members whose relatives and friends lie in the churchyards. On that ground, on the ground of sentiment, I cannot but think that the Government will be willing to give way in this matter. My Amendment would meet the feelings and sentiment of those who feel as I have endeavoured to describe, and would remove at least one cause of friction and difference which would otherwise be provoked by this Bill.
      Mr. CATOR: I beg formally to second this Amendment as my hon. Friend has dealt very fully with most of the points

      2039
      raised upon this question. It does seem an extraordinary proposal under the Bill that the Churches should be retained by the representative body, while in various circumstances the churchyards will be handed over to the local councils. That cannot in my opinion, and I think in that of everybody who have considered the subject, fail to lead to endless confusion. There is nothing that has a tendency to cause more bitterness than any dual control over any portion of land. The grievance on that ground would be intensified ten-fold if the thing applied to the parish churchyard or the burial ground. Since the Government have thought right to allow the Church itself to be placed under the control of the representative body, it seems impossible to withhold from that body control also of the churchyards. The weak position in which the Church will be under this Bill seems to me that, whereas you are going to take away all her rights, you are, under this Bill, making her retain a great many of her obligations. For instance, with regard to burial, and with regard to marriages—but as we are not going into that this afternoon or into other sacred rites I will refrain—while you are destroying all her Endowments, you are still insisting upon her being compelled to administer the rites of the Church in the same sense as she was compelled to do while she was Established and in connection with the State. But that opens up a very large question, and I shall not detain the House any longer, but merely second the Amendment.
      The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Hobhouse): The hon. Member who initiated this discussion based the whole of his arguments, so far as I have been able to follow, upon the contention that the churchyard was the freehold of the incumbent, of those who attend the church for the purpose of worship, and who adhere to her beliefs and creeds. If that was the argument of the hon. Member it was founded upon an entirely mistaken idea of the rights of the parishioners in the churchyard—quite apart from their adherence to the Church as a denomination, and quite apart from their immemorial rights in the churchyard, to whatever creed or denomination they may belong.
      Lord HUGHCECIL: The right of burial?
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: After all it is the use of the churchyard to be saved for the purpose of burial. There is no other use,
      2040
      save that, I think, of the right of cropping which the incumbent has; there is no other use to which the churchyard can be put. I am quite certain that the particular right of the incumbent to which I have referred is not a right to which the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) would look with very favourable eyes. It is very necessary to ascertain what is the exact position of the parishioners as to the church and the churchyard. The Clause that we are discussing, together with Clause 23, transfers the burial ground—putting to one side disused burial grounds altogether—to the various local authorities after the determination of the present incumbent's tenure, but it transfers them subject "to any existing public and private rights of burial therein"—these are the exact words of Clause 23, Sub-section (2). It is therefore important to ascertain what is the exact position of the parishioners in regard to their rights of burial in the churchyard. Every parishioner, no matter to what denomination he may belong, every person, even whether a parishioner or not, who dies in the parish, and even any person who in a parish bordering upon the sea, happens to be washed ashore, has the right of burial in the churchyard. Against this there is no possibility of refusal. I think that may be taken as beyond controversy. It goes further than that, because in 1880 there was an Act passed by this House which gave even stronger rights of burial to the parishioner of a parish. I am not familiar with the controversy which led up to the passage of that Act, but it may be assumed that up to that time the Church of England had refused burial unless the rites of the Church of England were observed. In 1880 an Act was passed which gave, after due notice being given to be buried, any person a right of burial, either with Church of England rites, or with the rites of the denomination to which the body belonged or without any rites at all. I think that the passage of that Act enormously strengthens, if it were possible to do so, the rights of the parishioners as against any rights inherent in the Church as a religious body. It enormously weakens the position held by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and strengthens that held by my hon. Friends and myself.
      There is another point. Supposing the representatives of a non-parishioner go and claim for that body burial in a particular churchyard. The consent or refusal of inter depends not upon the incumbent

      2041
      —as generally supposed—but upon the incumbent and churchwardens. I mention that point for this reason, that the churchwardens need not be members of the Church of England at all. As a matter of fact, they are generally so—certainly the vicar's warden is so.
      Mr. BOOTH: Not always.
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: Very often it happens that the churchwarden representing the vestry is not a Churchman at all. Therefore the right to bury, the consent to bury, in a case of a person who has no legal claim to be buried in the churchyard depends not upon an official of the Church of England, but upon the consent of the rector and of the churchwardens, two of whom need not necessarily be members of the Church at all. All these facts enormously strengthen the position of those who hold that the churchyard is not in any way the appanage of the Church of England as such, but that it is the property of the parishioners as a local community, composed of whatever denomination the people may belong to, or to no denomination, as the case may be. I am perfectly willing to admit that the freehold of the churchyard is commonly vested, though not necessarily, in the incumbent for the time being, if he happens to be a rector. If he happens to be a vicar, and there is a lay rector, it seems to be exceedingly doubtful whether the freehold rests in the incumbent or not. I am informed by those who know that the better legal opinion is that it does not vest in the incumbent, but in the lay rector. The interest, therefore, of the parishioner is immemorial. The position which is now sought to be taken up by those who represent the Church of England has, as I think, no sound legal basis. It is merely a claim by those who, having through their officials for a long time administered the affairs of the churchyard, desire when the change comes to make the churchyard freehold property. The question has been asked me, "What would happen in the case of recent additions?" The intention of the Government is that recent additions should go over to the representative body.
      Mr. EVELYN CECIL: Before the date of Disestablishment?
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: Before the date of Disestablishment. That is the intention.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate the Amendment in which that occurs?
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: I will ask my hon. Friend beside me to be good enough to look it up so that I may give it shortly. That is the intention of the Government, that recent additions should go over to the representative body. The hon. Gentleman who opened this Debate talked about spiteful and malicious acts which might be done by the local authority who desired to quarrel with the new Church body. He spoke of them refusing to give ground for the purpose of repairing the church, I think his mind must have dwelt upon the original provisions of Clause 33, because that particular phase has been met by the Amendment which was adopted on that Clause 33. He talked about the difficulty of cutting down trees and that that might be done to the annoyance of the congregation, but at the present moment as the hon. Member is well aware the incumbent cannot cut down trees except for the purpose of the repair of the church, and so far as I know the power of controlling the cutting down of trees, say for exercise, or cutting them down maliciously, would rest in the hands of an authority, the members of which would be elected by the Church people in the parish. The hon. Gentleman then quoted the Irish Act. I agree there is a distinction between the position taken up in this Bill and that pursued under the Irish Act, but that does not obtain only with respect to the churchyard, but in the case of the parsonage houses also. In the one case we have given more—I do not wish to use any term or phrase to which objection might be taken—we have given more in the one case and in the other we have given less. The reason we have given more is not only a vital but is a sound objection to the one part of which I have given expression in the last few minutes, that is the inherent right of the people to be interred in the churchyard.
      There is this further distinction. In the case of Ireland you had the general population of the country divided into two classes of religion which really did not approximate in any way to each other. There is no repugnance; on the contrary there is a desire on the part of Nonconformists to be buried in the churchyard of the Church. On the part of Roman Catholics there is not, and has not been for a long time past, any such desire. There was no wish on the part of the general population of Ireland to be buried in ground which in many cases would be for them unconsecrated ground, and from

      2043
      that point of view, would not be merely undesirable but would often be to them repulsive. That seems to me to mark a vast difference between the two cases. The hon. Gentleman first asks us, not to give something to the Church, but to take away something from the parishioners in Welsh parishes. He asks them to forego rights there in connection with the churchyard of the Church which are theirs from time immemorial, and the Government cannot consent to the abandonment of those rights.
      Mr. WALTER LONG: The right hon. Gentleman, in his reply to my hon. Friends, has entirely mistaken the ground upon which they support this Amendment. My hon. Friend, the Member for Ashton, Manor, was very careful to avoid saying anything about the question of the rights of the parishioners in these churchyards, for this obvious reason, that we attached the greatest possible importance to those rights; we regard them as sacred rights, and would do nothing to interfere with them. The whole speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy seemed to me to strengthen the case already made with great force in favour of the acceptance of this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman told us with, I believe, great accuracy and considerable fullness what these are at the present moment. He reminded us of the fact that while parishioners had always enjoyed the right to be buried in their own churchyard, that right has been supposed to be unaccompanied with the right of the service to which they belonged, and that in some cases where that service was refused bitter controversy resulted, culminating in the Act of Parliament to which he referred. But surely that strengthens ten-fold the case of my hon. Friends for this Amendment. At the end of his remarks the right hon. Gentleman completely mis-stated the attitude of my hon. Friend and of anybody on this side of the House, for he told us our object is to take away the rights of the people in parishes over their churchyards and to confer them upon the Church. It is quite evident that if we wanted to do that we could not do it by this Amendment, because the right hon. Gentleman told us that these rights were preserved to the parishioners by the legislation to which he referred. Therefore, it is begging the question to suggest that this is a proposal to take away something from the people.
      2044
      During these Debates it has been frequently suggested upon the other side of the House, and I am sure with complete sincerity, that there is no desire to injure the Church or to arouse bitter feeling or to do anything which would cause injustice. Times out of number Amendments have been moved from this side in the direction of lessening the bitterness and injury. You cannot carry a Bill of this kind without creating great bitterness and doing great injury, and Amendments have been moved to lessen that bitterness as this would do. I venture to say that this is an Amendment of a most reasonable character, and I fail altogether to understand why the Government should refuse to accept it. They have said from the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman that one of their reasons is that they will not take away from people rights which they possess. There is no suggestion that any rights should be taken away. What is the proposal? It is that the churchyard, from time immemorial, formed part and parcel of the churches themselves. The most enthusiastic advocates of Disestablishment or Disendowment will not attempt to deny this, I am sure. They have not been under the sole control of the incumbent, but are under the control of the incumbent and the churchwardens, and the right hon. Gentleman went so far as to remind us of the fact that the wardens of the Church have not of necessity to be members of the congregation. What more protection could you give to people that their rights should be safeguarded than you have in the law, which the right hon. Gentleman expounded and explained, than the fact that this property is in the hands of the incumbent and the wardens, and that these wardens need not, and frequently are not, members of that denomination. I cannot conceive more complete protection for the rights of the parishioners. It was not upon the question of rights or conferring the freehold of the churchyard upon the Church that my hon. Friend moved his Amendment, or that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon recommended it to the House.
      My hon. Friend made it perfectly clear that he moved his Amendment on two grounds: one was that you are deliberately trampling by this needless change upon the sentiment of the people. He told us what the sentiment of the people is— how strong it is, how closely it is connected with the Church, and it was on that, to a large extent, he based his claim. Then we come to the authority to which you

      2045
      propose to transfer it. I confess that I was much amazed that the Chancellor of the Duchy—unintentionally, I suppose—made no defence of the new authorities. Who are the new authorities? In the case of boroughs, they are to be the borough council, and in urban districts, the urban council; but in the majority of cases in towns it will be the borough council; and in the case of rural parishes the parish council; and in small parishes, I gather, that the vicar will be the chairman of a parish meeting.
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: The parish council must be the burial authority.
      Mr. LONG: I cannot conceive a proposal more calculated to promote controversy and to arouse bitterness than the one you are making here. It is not a great question; it is not a question of money or conferring property. What you are really asked to do is to abandon your project of separating the Church from the churchyard, and not to hand the real control over to others because the incumbent and the churchwardens work together almost invariably with the utmost harmony in safeguarding and looking after such property. You propose to put an end to that, and to say in future that the churchyard must be under the domination of one body which has no control over the incumbent. I venture to say that is a proposal which cannot be justified either upon historical grounds or upon any grounds of sound local government. I believe, quite apart from the unnecessary injustice you inflict upon the Church, that you are doing something which is mischievous to local government. You do not want controversy of this kind introduced into your local authorities, and your borough councils, and above all into small bodies that have not had very much to do, but which have after all worked very peacefully and harmoniously. You are going out of your way to ask them, without any demand on their part, to accept a duty which could easily be made a difficult one, and must end in most cases in controversy leading to bitterness and ill-feeling. I profoundly regret the Government have not seen fit to make the concession asked for in this Amendment. It is not a great one, but it would afford some evidence of their desire to do as little mischief as possible. It is by these acts, small as well as great, that they will be judged when they ask us to believe in the sincerity of their protes-
      2046
      tations that they mean no harm and have no desire to hurt or injure the Church.
      Sir HERBERT ROBERTS: The right hon. Gentleman has knowledge of the conditions which prevail in connection with the churchyards in England. I think it is probably the case that the condition of Nonconformity in England is different from that in Wales, and does not in the same degree affect the situation. If the right hon. Gentleman had any real personal knowledge of what has taken place during the last fifty years in regard to this matter in Wales, he would understand that this is a point which is considered to be of essential importance by the general body of Nonconformists in Wales, and the object of the Sub-section in the Bill is to lessen, at all events, the area of controversy in Wales in regard to a matter which ought to be lifted completely out of the region of controversy of any kind. I hope hon. Members will understand that in expressing our very strong feeling in favour of the continuance of the inclusion of this provision in the Bill we are, as Welsh Members, representing, not only our own personal feeling, but the feeling of all Nonconformists in Wales who have any knowledge of the case, and who are anxious that the difficulty which has in the past done so much to embitter religious life in many parishes in Wales in regard to this matter, should be gradually, at all events, done away with. For these reasons I hope that the Government will adhere to this Clause.
      Mr. RAWLINSON: The hon. Member who has just sat down has not given us the slightest solid reason for the statement he has made. In what does the Welsh Nonconformist differ from the English Nonconformist in this matter? I am familiar with both, and I assert that the practice is the same in England as it is in Wales. The full rights of burial are kept under Section 23 of this Bill, and the Welsh Nonconformist or anybody else will have exactly the same rights of burial as they have in England or Wales. All we are asking for is that the people who have had charge of these ancient churchyards from time immemorial should continue to have that charge. No one suggests that they have abused that trust. Can any hon. Member opposite give me the slightest instance where the churchyards have been injured or defaced by those who are at present in charge of them? I know there has been some controversy about the

      2047
      rights of people being buried there, but it has never been suggested that the owners and incumbents have not kept the churchyards in a way consonant with the feelings of those who have relatives buried there. Look at the power you are putting in the hands of the chairman of the parish council, for instance. Supposing in a country parish in England such a matter as this was brought up. I am thinking of one parish where people are buried who are very dear to me. Suppose there is a lich-gate with certain inscriptions upon it which somebody might object to. Suppose there was a cross or something of that sort. In the days in which I was brought up there was not the same unanimity between Catholics and Nonconformists. Let us suppose that a Nonconformist of the old days is chairman of that particular parish council. In that case it would be his duty to demolish the lich-gate erected by my friends.
      Mr. BOOTH: Why?
      Mr. RAWLINSON: Evidently the hon. Member has not been brought up among Nonconformists at all. At any rate what is proposed in this Bill leaves the matter open to that risk, and you are putting the control of these matters into the hands of people who have never before had charge of a churchyard, who might exercise their rights conscientiously according to their views, but not in accordance with the vews of those who have erected those symbols. You are placing these matters entirely in their hands. As regards a question such as that the difficulty would be very great. Who is to have control over any memorial to be put up in the churchyard? Has the chairman of the parish council to say whether I am to be permitted to put a particular epitaph over the grave of some beloved one? Is there to be any control or no control over that matter? You say that you wish this Act to work smoothly, and that you are giving the fullest rights to every parishioner, but we ask you to allow the surveillance to remain with the existing owners of the property, so that they may keep it for the common benefit. I was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman made a pledge on behalf of the Government that all recent additions to churchyards are to be handed over to the representative body, for that is a very important concession. How far those recent additions are to go back I do not know, because we have not been given the details.
      2048
      The only Amendment upon this point is that of the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare), which goes back 100 or 200 years, and that would be most satisfactory. No doubt that concession is an advantage, and we fully appreciate the importance of it, but what does it lead one to? Take the case of a churchyard existing now where an addition has been made twenty or ten years ago. I will assume in this case that there is a division between the old and the new part of the churchyard, and under this Bill you will have the position that the old churchyard where the line will have to be drawn will be under the control of the chairman of the parish council and the other part will remain under the control of the representative body, and probably the present incumbent of the church. You would have this peculiarity, that the part of the churchyard where burying had ceased would be under the control of the parish council and the newer part would be under the incumbent, and would be dealt with in that way. Although I am grateful for this concession, it seems to have been granted in the wrong direction, and if the whole of the churchyards cannot be dealt with, I should have preferred leaving the old churchyard in the hands of the incumbent and the new addition in the hands of the local authority. I hope the Government will go further than the pledge they have given and adopt this Amendment because I am certain no harm will be done, and it will remove a great deal of apprehension amongst those who may have been frightened in regard to the authority which in the future will have the control of churchyards.
      Mr. H. T. CAWLEY: I am afraid the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite is under a misapprehension on this point. I understand my right hon. Friend to say that the intention of the Government was that new additions to burial grounds should come under the control of the representative body.
      Mr. RAWLINSON: Recent additions.
      Mr. CAWLEY: If the hon. and learned Member will look at Clause 8, paragraph (b) he will see that it provides:—
      "of the property not so transferred to the representative body they shall transfer the burial ground of any ecclesiastical parish."
      The whole of that paragraph deals with burial grounds. Then paragraph (c) says:—

      2049
      "of the property not so transferred to the representative body they shall transfer any tithe rent-charge which was formerly appropriated to the use of any parochial benefits to the council of the county in which the land out of which the tithe rent-charge issues is situate."
      Obviously those words convey the meaning that there are some burial grounds transferred to the representative body. Then there is Clause 7, which deals with private benefactions, and Sub-section (1) provides as follows:—
      "Any property which consists of, or is the produce of, or is or has been derived from, property given by any person out of his private resources since the year 1662."
      Recent additions to burial grounds of course will not go over to the representative body if they are made ancient Endowments. I do not think my right hon. Friend made any pledge that recent additions to burial grounds would be dealt with in this way. Recent additions made out of recent benefactions are taken over by the representative body under the Bill as it stands.
      Mr. RAWLINSON: The hon. Member says that private benefactions under Subsection (7) include burial grounds, and he refers me to Sub-section (1). Supposing in the year 1800 a person gave an addition to a churchyard, is it intended that that should fall under the burial ground to be transferred?
      Mr. CAWLEY: That portion of it, and that is the intention. On the last two occasions when burial grounds were discussed, that was distinctly assumed to be so by several hon. Members opposite, and this is not a new point.
      Mr. RAWLINSON: I think the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare), to insert after the word "ground" the words "except such burial grounds or parts of burial grounds as have been given by private persons since 1662," would meet the case.
      Mr. CAWLEY: I do not think those are the right words, and no doubt my right hon. Friend will consider whether other words can be put in. My submission is that the Bill as it stands carries out the intention of the Government to carry over all burial grounds derived from private benefactions. As to the control of monuments and graves within the churchyard
      2050
      Clause 23, which deals with burial grounds, provides under Sub-section (4):—
      "Subject as aforesaid, every such burial ground shall, after the determination of the incumbency of the existing incumbent, be held for the same purposes and subject to the same rules and regulations as if the Burial Acts, 1852 to 1906, were in force."
      That places these burial grounds in exactly the same position as the consecrated part, and they are in exactly the same position as consecrated parts of burial grounds under burial boards. If that be so the control of the monuments and epitaphs is in the hands in the first place of the rector. Under the Burial Acts that right is vested in the rector of the parish subject to an appeal to the bishop or archbishop. Whatever that right is it will be the same in the case of those burial grounds, so that there need be no anxiety about any inappropriate epitaphs being put in graveyards which would be offensive to the Church.
      6.0 P.M.
      On the general points as to the taking over of these burial grounds, my right hon. Friend has, I think, shown conclusively that they are not in any real sense at the present time the absolute property of the Church, or of the rector, or of the churchwardens, or of anybody. There is at the present time that which was deprecated so much by the Seconder of the Amendment, dual control or ownership; but, even if that were not so, and they were absolutely the property of the Church, the arguments which we have applied to other Church property apply equally to this. Our contention is that this property, like all other property, was given to the Church at the time when it was representative of the whole nation. It has ceased to be representative of the whole nation and therefore the benefactors' object is no longer attained. The Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) said that was a mistaken view of history; the donor did not think he was giving to the community, but to the Church; the Church represented the building he loved and the ritual he loved. If that be true—and I think it is substantially true—the Church was not simply a body to receive benefactions, but it was a body which had duties and obligations to perform. It was, in other words a trustee. There is no doubt it was given to a body which was a trustee for the whole community; it was a trustee of this property for the benefit of every

      2051
      single member of the parish. It was given to be used for the benefit of the community as a whole. The beneficiaries were the people as a whole, no matter who the actual trustee is imagined to be, and our contention is that the State has by force changed the beneficiaries. At the Reformation the State, against the will of the members of the Church, changed the ritual, changed several rules of the Church, and said, "Only those people who conform to our State-made rules are to be members of the Church." That was carried out against the wish in many cases of Convocation. The Lower House of Convocation voted against the main doctrines of Queen Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity, and there is no doubt the Reformation was carried out against the wishes of a very large number of the lay members of the Church.
      Those changes were largely carried out against the wishes of the constituted authorities of the Church, and against the wishes of the lay members of the Church. The State limited property which was to be used for the benefit of the community as a whole to one section, to those who were not anxious enough to maintain the exact usages to which they had been brought up, and that process was completed in 1662, when one-fifth of the clergy were driven out by the Act of Uniformity of Charles II. By those two Acts the State limited to a certain section of the people that which was meant for the benefit of the people as a whole. They changed the original beneficiaries. This Bill goes back to the original beneficiaries. This property is property given by the ancestors of Nonconformists and Churchmen alike, and it has been limited to a certain extent to the descendants of only one section of the donors. This view has been, to a certain extent, realised by the State; it has realised that parishioners have some right to it. The Church has maintained certain rights, but it has really been on the whole and in the main simply the guardian or caretaker of the ancient burial grounds, and it has been so because it has been the Established Church. Now it ceases to be the Established Church, our contention is that this property should be put into the hands of other public authorities to be used for the public as a whole, preserving, as best we can and as much as we can, all rights to the Church to enable her to carry on her services, and doing all we can to see that none of her
      2052
      legitimate desires or feelings are refused or taken away by anything that may be done in this Bill.
      Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: The hon. Member has spoken, as he usually does, with learning and much acceptance to the House, but I am not sure that what he has said does not serve, after all, to accentuate the fact that in the case of these burial grounds, if in no other case, there has been no other change in the beneficiaries, or in the trustee, or in the nature of the trust, or, least of all, in the fidelity with which the trust has been performed. It is very significant that the Chancellor of the Duchy in his reply to my hon. Friend had to attribute to him the use of narrow and technical arguments which he had not employed, and attacks on popular rights in the parishioners which he had not attacked, and which indeed, far from being attacked by us, are the very foundation and groundwork of our case. They justify us in saying the Church is co-extensive with the nation, even in Wales, and in saying the Church of England, in virtue of the great duties to which it is subject, and which it continues to discharge faithfully, is a Church standing in a position in which no other denomination in this country stands. It is true that the nature of the trust in the case of these burial grounds and the nature of the rights of the parishioners which were the object of this trust did require by modern legislation to be more effectually secured than they stood secured before that legislation; but, as an earnest of the sort of spirit in which these matters are administered by the Church, I may remind the House that the Burial Act of 1880 was passed by the House of Lords before it was ever passed by this House.
      It was passed with the consent of the majority of the bishops present and voting upon it. It was supplemented in a subsequent year—I think 1889—by another Act still further protecting the rights of Nonconformists in respect of matters of burial. That was an Act of Parliament inspired by the findings of a Select Committee which was presided over—let hon. Gentlemen opposite take particular notice—by one of the University Members for England, no less a person than that very distinguished man, Sir Richard Jebb, who will not be charged with any shortcomings in his Church proclivities, and it was passed by the Unionist Government then in power. You have all these securities for the full satisfaction of the parishioners'

      2053
      rights, the non-requirement that the churchwarden should be a member of the Church, and the requirement of his consent, as well as that of the incumbent, for anything being done which could possibly give offence to Nonconformist prejudices. You have the fact that these sort of general securities and a saving Clause keeping them alive have been considered by the Government itself as quite sufficient in the case of the fabrics which are to be handed over to the representative body, with no further protection for Nonconformists, and we say that general saving Clause is quite, and ought to be quite, sufficient in the case of the burial grounds. All this minutiae gone into by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down only serves to show you cannot get rid of all those technical difficulties as regards modern conditions, new burial grounds, and detached pieces, and the simplest and safest way is to accept this Amendment and let things go on as before.
      I do not shut my eyes to the fact that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbighshire has tried to terrorise us by some very vague and learned observations, in support of which he gave very few particulars, as to the existence of this terrible state of mind in the case of some worthy persons in the Principality of Wales. We should have liked it better if he had condescended to give us more particulars. If there be this general state of apprehension in Wales, I cannot help having my suspicion that it is probably due not so much to the misdoings of those who have the management of the churchyards as to the suggestions of politicians, itinerant and others, in Wales. The one thing which the right hon. Gentleman representing the Government ignored in the whole of his speech was the hopeless administrative inconvenience of separating from the fabric of the church the churchyard, which necessarily forms a principal part of the parishioners' church. It is obvious the churchyard is the most ancient and valuable of what you may call the amenities of the church. It is more than that; it is the most sacred of them all. It is the most sacred of all the attributes of the Church, excepting only the holy things in the Church itself. The joint ownership of the two and the contiguity of the two stand, and ought to continue to stand, as the type and symbol of the fact that this ancient religious community, far from being a sect, is not an exclusive community at all, but is one which
      2054
      opens it doors at all times of trouble, right up to the very latest and most terrible hour, to the humblest; there are none who are not admitted to it.
      Mr. KING: I hope the House will listen to me before deciding upon this question, because I have had practical experience of it. For twenty years I occupied a good deal of my energies in being chairman of the burial board in one of the largest parishes of England, and ever since then I have had a special interest in the question raised by this Amendment. Moreover, I gave evidence before the Select Committee to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield has referred just now. It is typical of the ignorance displayed upon the subject. He ante-dated it by just ten years.
      Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: 1899.
      Mr. KING: You said 1889.
      Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Yes, it is 1889.
      Mr. JOSEPH KING: You are right at last. I venture to say that anybody who really understands these things will know, first of all, that in connection with these ancient burial grounds there is a great deal of expense incurred for upkeep. There are ancient fences and walls. There are generally pathways through them. There are old tombs that have to be kept tidy or they will become unsightly. There is generally a certain amount of gardening and other care which is necessary, and all of this costs money. Why does the Disestablished Church want to take upon itself that cost? Why cannot it leave that cost to the public authority? Then here is another point. So long as the churchyard is used for the people of the parish generally I say it ought to be under the control of the parochial authority. It is not merely a question of getting permission and paying the fees. There is also the question that the churchyard may be closed against the public use, and a public burial ground may have to be provided. If you give these churchyards over to the Church, it will be their object to close them as early as possible. On the other hand, if they are under the control of a public authority, that authority will have the general interests of the community to look after. I think that is a very important point. Anyone who knows what public authorities have gone through in the matter of providing burial grounds for the

      2055
      public use will know that it is better to have all the power if possible in the hands of the local authority.
      There is also the question of putting up inscriptions in the churchyards. That has been a matter even lately of continual difficulty to all persons who are connected with the administration of graveyards. I could give a good many instances, but I will just give one. I know a rural parish in England where there was a very benevolent gentleman who had great detestation of the Game Laws, and who used to pay the fines of all the poachers in the county. He left money in his will for his tombstone, on which was to be put this inscription, "The friend of poachers." He regarded that as his highest honour, and wished to be remembered for years to come in that capacity. And would you believe it, the rector of the parish refused to allow that inscription. At last, after a petition from the whole parish to the rector, he permitted the inscription to be placed upon the stone, provided it was put in an unknown language. And I could take you, Sir, to the graveyard where that holy man lies buried, and where you may read, L'ami du braconnier. That refers to a typical condition of affairs that is likely to arise when you allow one person or one ecclesiastical authority to control what respectable people ought to have placed upon their tombs or on the tombs of their friends. One other point is this. That undoubtedly the difficulties arising out of the Burial Laws have been more accentuated in Wales than in any other part of the United Kingdom. I have myself brought up at Question Time one or two matters of that kind in quite recent times, showing the religious and denominational jealousy and friction in connection with burials in Wales. I hope the Government will maintain the position they have taken up, and give confidence to the people in Wales whose views have been very well represented by the Member for West Denbighshire (Sir Herbert Roberts). He really does know the people in Wales. Hon. Members opposite do not know the people of Wales, and I have very little doubt that if the House decides this question on its merits, it will negative the Amendment.
      Mr. DUKE: Although I have had the advantage of hearing the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Government, and the very interesting
      2056
      speech which came from the bench behind him from the Member for Heywood (Mr. Cawley) I have found it impossible to learn what ground of reason or good feeling there is for refusing this Amendment or for insisting upon the change which it is desired to make. The churchyard stands to every Churchman and to every Christian man, and I think to every humane person, in a position of sanctity, and it arouses considerations which, I suppose, no other area of land in the world could arouse. If, as I think it is, it is right to leave the churches to the parishioners and to the Church which is to be reconstituted in Wales, surely it is right also to leave them the churchyards, and I fail to see why the churchyards should be secularised, so far as that can be done, by putting them under secular control. It seems to me to be one of the most maladroit performances that could be conceived. I will refer presently to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, which was full of accurate statements of the law and reasons so far as it went. The only ground that has been stated for this proceeding is the ground stated in a few vague sentences by the hon. Member for Denbigh, who referred to some bitterness of feeling which has had its origin among people in Wales whom he knows. That bitterness of feeling is not alleged in regard to Churchmen. It is not on behalf of Churchmen. But it is that jealousy and bitter feeling which has given rise to the proposal to put the churchyards under secular control. What excuse is there for that bitterness of feeling with regard to the churchyard? Every man's hereditary right of burial is secured as much by public opinion as it is by Acts of Parliament, and the ancient scandals to which one or two Members have referred are scandals which arose rather in spite of the law than by reason of the law, and which are quite as likely to find their counterpart in a secularly controlled churchyard as they were to find their origin in a churchyard which, at any rate, was under the control of a person who owed religious duties somewhere.
      It is not pretended, and the right hon. Gentleman does not say that it is, that it is necessary to secure the rights of burial to Nonconformists. These rights were long ago secured. An explanation pour rire was given by the Member for Somerset (Mr. King), who wants to take care that a man who wished to stigmatise himself as the friend of

      2057
      poachers should be able to hand himself down to posterity in that way. The only other explanation is that there is in the possession of the churchyards some badge of superiority in the position of the Church. Really, if the Nonconformists of Wales are going to get satisfaction by disestablishing the Church in Wales, cannot they leave the churchyard with its present decencies of surroundings? But no; the precincts of the church are to be violated and to be placed in strange hands so far as the church is concerned. The consecrated land, so far as that can be done by legislative contrivance, is to be desecrated. The place of burial is to be made a place under the control of the parish council, instead of under the control of a man whose life should be devoted to religion in the common interest. Can it be necessary to do this on any rational ground? Is it not a gratuitous concession to that bitterness of feeling to which the Member for Denbigh referred?
      This proposal sets up three classes of churchyards. First, there is the churchyard which has been closed, and in lieu of which a burial ground has been provided elsewhere. You leave that churchyard, the God's acre of the parish, vested in the incumbent of the parish or in the Church body. It will remain Church land. There is another class where the ancient burial grounds are completely occupied, and from land provided by a modern benefactor in recent times there has been an addition to the churchyard. That churchyard is to be cut into two. You put the older part on which the church stands, and which is around the church, and which is the most hallowed of all by its associations, under the parish council or some other municipal body, and the modern portion, which is detached from the church, you leave under the control of the incumbent, and you will vest it in the representative body. There is a third class where the churchyard, by reason of its size, is sufficient for all purposes, past, present and probably a long future, and that churchyard, which represents in the most constant way the life of the parish, its religious as well as its communal life, you are going to detach from religious control and hand it over to some municipal or secular authority, and you are to inflict this upon Churchmen who have been from generation to generation, in the vast majority of cases, the trusted and conscientious trustees of ground such as that. I hear some laughter. It is not worth while to take
      2058
      notice of it. I have said nothing to provoke derision on the part of the hon. Member for Pontefract. I have referred to this matter seriously.
      Mr. BOOTH: As the hon. Member has referred to me, let me say that I am listening with perfect attention in silence.
      Mr. DUKE: I apologise to the hon. Member for Pontefract, but it came from that quarter, probably from a Member more directly interested in the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales. What I was saying with regard to the subject was, why should you change the control of the churchyard, which represents the common life of the parish for so many generations. It is nothing more than a gratuitous wrong to the Churchmen and, I believe, to all the parishioners, to hand the churchyards over to the parish councils.
      Mr. EDGAR JONES: It seems to us Welsh Members from Wales, very interesting to listen to hon. Members opposite. We come from the hills and valleys of Wales where these problems come from. We have listened to the stories of our parents and grandparents, and we have a knowledge of the conditions which actually exist, and of matters within our own memory and during very recent times. It is very interesting for us to come here and hear hon. Members from England talking in an abstract way about what is the legal position. The reason why I felt inclined to scoff the hon. Member opposite was that he referred to those matters which we know exist in an abstract and academic way which is absolutely remote of the facts and of the everyday conditions that we know exist in Wales. We come with the knowledge of complete facts of daily life, and we do not speak from the books of legal right or wrong, and hon. Members for England must believe in our sincerity when we say, that of all the grievances associated with the Church of England in Wales this one of the burial ground has been always far and away, and remain still, the most serious. To the Welshman who is not a communicant of the Church, who does not desire the service of its clergyman, this remains the most serious grievance of all attached to the Establishment in Wales. Hon. Members must believe us because we know. The hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke) probably has never in his mind been able to connect this question of the burial grounds with the iniquity, the injustice, and the intolerance

      2059
      of the land system in Wales. Unfortunately for the Church, it has been brought home to the Welsh people more poignantly in connection with the burial grounds than anything else, not excepting the leasehold system in South Wales, which is the worst instance of land tenure in the whole country. The difficulty we have had throughout the centuries down to the present moment is that the whole of the land in many of these Welsh parishes is in the hands of a few landlords, keen partisan Churchpeople, who refuse on any terms to give an inch of ground to a Nonconformist for a burial ground or for a cemetery. That is the problem. All through the years Nonconformists, from time to time, have been trying to get burial grounds of their own in many part's of Wales, and there are many parishes where it has been impossible for Nonconformists to obtain land for the burial of their own dead in their own way.
      There are many instances where extensions were necessary, and we have even now instances that could be given where a landlord, instead of acceding to the request of the people to set up a burial board since the Act of 1880, proceeds to give an extension of the land to the Church. He had no land suitable for the parishioners in general or for Nonconformists, but he could give a piece of land to extend the churchyard already in existence, so that the parishioners, Nonconformists and others, in that area were absolutely compelled to bury in the churchyard under the conditions imposed upon them by the incumbent for the time being, subject, of course, to the Act that controlled him. Let us see how it works out, and why this matter has sunk so deep into the hearts of the Welsh people. In passing, I may say T was very grateful to the hon. and learned Member for making the House understand quite clearly that the Government, unfortunately, has dealt with these churchyards in three different ways. I think the Welsh people have a claim to ail the churchyards, to the closed ones almost more than to the open ones, for the reason I am going to mention. The illustration given by the hon. Member for North' Somerset (Mr. King) was not merely pour rire. It was typical of examples that are not humorous, and it was an instance of matters which are very painful and which will remain as a deplorable record on the history of the relations of the Welsh people
      2060
      to the Establishment. It will hardly be believed by the House, yet it is unfortunately the fact, that the names that are to-day accepted by Welsh Churchmen as well as by Nonconformists as the names of men who did more during the eighteenth century and the early part of the nineteenth century for the uplifting of the Welsh people in every respect, remain on the tombstones in the parish churchyards dishonoured and stigmatised. The Welsh people, even now, with the new spirit that the hon. and learned Member has talked about, have no right and would not be allowed to go in and put upon those tombstones the mark of respect that should be given to the greatest and dearest names in our history.
      The name of one of the greatest evangelists in Wales stands to-day on a tombstone in one of these churchyards of which the hon. Member spoke in such glowing terms. They have not allowed us to describe him as a "reverend" gentle man. They will not allow us even to describe him as a minister of the Gospel. For all that his tombstone may show he might have been only a friend of poachers and nothing higher than that, and not as his name stands to-day, one of the greatest figures in our history. One of the finest religious poets who has ever written in any tongue has met with the same treatment in the constituency of the hon. Member for West Denbighshire (Sir Herbert Roberts). I am not surprised that he, whom no one will accuse of being a firebrand, as I have* often been accused of being, should stand up here and put upon record the deep feeling there is around this question of burial grounds. I hope hon. Members opposite will allow the Welsh people at least to have an opportunity of removing one of the most ever-ready causes of friction. Hon. Members opposite will be interested to know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself as a young man was carried into Parliament over a battle for the burial of Nonconformists and the smashing down of the gates of a churchyard. Many and many a time have we Welsh people had to take the law into our own hands, over-rule the incumbent, and break down by force the gates that were keeping our dead unburied outside. That was at the whim of the incumbent who was a man with power to impose conditions upon us. Those conditions are imposed now. Hon. Members opposite will say these are small, petty-fogging things, but in that time, in the hour of darkness which comes upon everyone, it is the small

      2061
      things that stab deepest. They may be things trivial to hon. Members. We have in all these churchyards various little conditions imposed upon us. When we go in —I have gone often myself—we are not allowed to hold a service in our own way as Nonconformists, even in the open air around the open graves. These conditions are constantly imposed upon us. We are told do not do this or do not do the other. We have had enough of it. We say that these churchyards, which nobody on the other side now denies to be churchyards for the general use of the parishioners, should be under some body administering them for all the parishioners, Churchmen and Nonconformists alike, so as to end all these indignities which have so embittered our relationship in the past.
      Sir A. CRIPPS: I do not find any fault whatever with the tone of the hon. Member who has just sat down, because he emphasises, what is undoubtedly true, that there are strong feelings, particularly as regards churchyards adjoining the church. The mistake he makes is that the strong feeling is all on one side. There is a strong feeling on our side that these churchyards adjoining churches ought not to be handed over to a merely secular government. If he could show that the maintenance of these adjoining churchyards under existing conditions necessitated in any way any of the injustices to which he has referred, I hope Churchmen would be willing to meet him and recognise the feeling to -which he has called attention. But directly we look into the matter a little deeper as between Churchmen and Nonconformists—if they are to have different views upon this point—every argument, both of sympathy and religious feeling, and deep feeling, is in favour of the attitude which Churchmen are taking up as regards the particular churchyards which adjoin their churches. Let me deal with a particular matter to which the hon. Member referred, and then I will deal with one or two points on which the Chancellor of the Duchy made a mistake as regards the position of these churchyards. I hope we are not going to determine a point of this kind by what the hon. Member (Mr. Edgar Jones) calls the intolerance of landlords. We may have different views as regards the attitude of landlords, but when we come to a religious question of this kind, the burial of the dead, and the best way of preserving the solemn feelings we all have in regard to the churchyards, surely we are not going to
      2062
      be actuated by our feelings towards landlords, whether they be feelings of favour or disfavour. We are dealing with an entirely different matter altogether. Surely the hon. Member knows there are powers now under which you can have burial boards where it is desirable, and if he has found an obstructive attitude on the part of the landlord which he could not get over, the answer is not to deprive the Churchmen of a right dear to them, but to get the necessary powers in order to do what is right and just as regards the Nonconformist community.
      Surely it is better that you should seek to get in a lawful manner the powers you want. We desire you should have them; every Churchman desires that, rather than you should attack us on a point of feeling. It is a point in regard to which we desire to meet you in every possible way. There is not a Churchman at the present time who would not desire to meet Nonconformist communities in every possible way in regard to equality of right in churchyards for the purposes of burial. I am satisfied that is the attitude Churchmen take up at the present moment. Take one matter to which the hon. Member referred; it is a very useful illustration. He has said that as regards people who are held in high honour—I do not differ foam him—that there has been some difficulty as regards the use of the word "reverend" upon their tombstones. He knows that that very question was raised, and can be raised. You could not raise it in future under the Bill, but you can raise it at the present time and carry it to a tribunal, namely, the Privy Council, not the Judicial Committee, but on appeal to the Chancellor. What did the Privy Council say? They held in terms that everyone who was a Nonconformist minister had the right to use the word "reverend" upon his tombstone. This is just the kind of way in which you get unfair prejudice. I dare say the hon. Member has often used the same argument outside that he has just used in this House.
      Mr. E.JONES: No.
      Sir A. CRIPPS: Then it is an argument he has used for the first time, and, I hope, it is for the last time. I would point out to him that the suggested hardship is absolutely imaginary. Every Nonconformist minister has the right, and it has been laid down by the Privy Council, to have the term "reverend" upon his tombstone, if I it is so desired. I should like to say in

      2063
      answer to what was said by the hon. Member for the Hey wood Division of Lancashire (Mr. H. T. Cawley) that you have very proper and careful control as regards churchyards in the way of memorials and inscriptions. The hon. Member will admit that you must have some control. Would he rather have principles of this kind which, I agree, appeal strongly to our feelings, decided by such a body as the Privy Council, or would he rather have the ipse dixit of the chairman of the parish council, or someone of that kind, to be final? Surely that is a very serious matter. We all desire that these burial grounds should be preserved under the conditions of solemnity which we all feel, irrespective of our denominations, as regards graveyards. At present you have the best possible guarantees that they shall be decently kept. Does the hon. Member desire to alter that? I cannot imagine any better system in the interests of the parishioners at large than to have a body of that kind in which we all have confidence.
      I wish to say one or two words in answer to what was said by the Chancellor of the Duchy in addition to what I have said in answer to the hon. Member opposite, whom I desire to assure again in the very strongest terms that Churchmen desire in this matter to meet all Nonconformists views in every way that they can. I want to say a word or two on what was said by the Chancellor of the Duchy, because I think he did not realise it. Of course, it is quite true that the incumbent holds the churchyard as a trustee. No one denies that for a moment. As a trustee for whom? For the parishioners at large. That trust, as we know, was carefully safeguarded under Clause 23, Sub-section (2), and it ought to be properly safeguarded. No one denies that at all. But what was the other safeguard he referred to and of which I think he misunderstood the meaning? He said the churchwarden may be a Nonconformist. Most certainly. And if you take the Church as it exists at present you have the right in the parishioners both as regards control and burial in the churchyard, quite irrespective of denominational matters altogether, if you like to exercise it. SJ much is that the case that there have been various Acts passed relieving Nonconformists — Nonconformist ministers amongst others—of the burden that is thrown upon them by the office of churchwarden. A churchwarden is not an office of profit. It is what is called an onerous
      2064
      office, and there are various Acts of Parliament under which Nonconformist ministers have got relief from serving in that office if they do not desire to serve there. But apart from the relief which they themselves have got it is quite true that, as regards this office, it is open to every parishioner, quite irrespective of what denomination he belongs to, and what better safeguard could you have?
      Let me come to a question which has not been referred to. Churchmen know perfectly well that there are various ceremonial services part of which take place in the churchyard itself. That was pointed out when we were arguing this matter in the Committee stage, and I think there was sympathy from all sides of the House with that position. It is a very real position. When hon. Members opposite talk about the feelings of Nonconformists, let us meet them in every way. Surely he can realise our feelings at having the adjoining churchyard, which we often use in connection with our Church services, taken out of our control. In fact, if the argument was to be carried out, it applies as much to the Church as to the adjoining churchyard. I hope he realises that Churchmen have feelings as well as Nonconformists. I do not use the word bitter—I do not want to use it—but why cannot they respect our feelings in a matter of this kind? Why are they seeking to deprive us of this old traditional right which we connect with the most solemn of all services, the burial of the dead, and which is not exercised at present in any way either to the detriment of the feelings or of the religion of Nonconformists? That is our view. Let it be clearly understood that we think the Nonconformists have, or ought to have, all equality of use, but leave us the ownership and control, which we now have, because we use these churchyards not only in connection with this solemn ceremony, but also in connection with burial, of our Church ceremonies and services.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: The Government, in resisting this Amendment, are taking up a very inconsistent position. They leave to us the fabrics of the churches, and they do so on two grounds—firstly, the ground of religious sentiment which naturally attaches to these buildings, and, secondly, on the plain and obvious consideration of equity that if you take, as they take, the date 1662 as the date at which the Church, as it were, suddenly developed a right to its own property,

      2065
      the churches would long ago have fallen down if they had not been constantly kept in repair, and sometimes largely restored, by voluntary contributions since 1662; and therefore the actual fabrics must be looked upon as dependent, at any rate, on the modern liberality of Churchmen. All that really applies both to the consideration of sentiment and to the consideration of material upkeep, and it applies to the churchyards as much as to the church—if not in the same degree in the same kind— because it is obvious that the churchyard has always been looked upon, and is to this day looked upon, as part and parcel of the church, as much as a garden is looked upon as part and parcel of the house. It is what naturally surrounds and goes with the building which is situated within it. It is God's acre. It has the atmosphere of sanctity which belongs to ecclesiastical consecration. Also, if since 1662 nothing had been done to the churchyards, and they had been left absolutely derelict, if fences had not been preserved and nothing had been done to keep them in proper order and in a seemly manner, they would have been wildernesses to-day. They would not be places which any decent person would wish to use for the burial of the dead. So that under both heads, both as a matter of sentiment and as a matter of right, acquired by the expenditure of money and care, they belong to the church precisely in the same way as the fabrics which stand in the midst of them.
      Against that case the hon. Member makes a case of grievance in respect to the ill usage which he alleges individual Nonconformists have suffered from intolerant incumbents and intolerant landlords. I do not think this general sort of accusations ought to be made against great classes of the community unless they are supported by particular instances of a sufficiently numerous kind to justify a general accusation. I am informed it is quite untrue that the clergy generally exercise whatever functions they have in respect of churchyards now in an intolerant manner in Wales. I dare say there may be this or that individual case, but as an accusation against a class it is entirely untrue. However that may be, it is not an argument for this Clause or for anything in this Bill. It is perfectly plain that if further protection is needed—of course Parliament has given a very large measure of protection —for the sentiments of those who are burying the dead and naturally desire to avoid any disturbance or possible discussion at such a moment, it ought to be given
      2066
      both in England and Wales. No one can really suggest that it is fair that an English Nonconformist should be insulted at his relative's funeral, and that a Welshman should not be insulted. No Welsh Nationalist has carried the doctrine of nationality as far as that. Therefore, whatever the hon. Member's speech was worth, it was an argument for a new burial ground, so we may set that aside. If protection be needed, let it be given in a proper Bill applied to England and Wales. It does not depend on this Clause or on this Bill. We build on the plain consideration that as the Church is ours, the churchyards also ought to belong to us because they come to us on the same title. They belong to us as a matter of sentiment, as they have been sacred to the use of the Church of England, and they belong to us as a matter of plain material right because the upkeep and care of them has been defrayed at the expense' of members of the Church.
      Mr. BOOTH: I regret exceedingly that in the last three contributions to the Debate from the Conservative side of the House there should have been ignorance not only of the practice, but of the law relating to burial grounds in this country. I was exceedingly astonished at the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Duke) giving us the picture of three different kinds of burial grounds which would obtain in Wales, while he does not seem to have the slightest idea that there are the same three kinds of burial grounds now under the present law in England. It does not seem to have dawned on any lawyer even on the other side of the House, much loss upon the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil), that under the law in England you can give up a burial ground round a church to the public authorities, and that it is frequently done. What becomes of all this case that has been built up, partly on sentiment, but mostly on ignorance? Surely it ought to be known that very frequently incumbents and churchwardens are only too glad to hand over burial grounds, when they have no longer any use for them, to a public authority so that they are saved all cost of repair. Hon. Members opposite seem to think that Churchmen all over the country are prepared to put up a fight that these burial grounds are still to be retained in sacerdotal hands. The Churchmen of England are not prepared to go into any such conflict, and if hon. Members opposite think they can rally this country to

      2067
      such a programme they will find out their mistake in good time. The average member of the Church of England never supported these wayward incumbents who showed prejudice against Nonconformists. That trouble has disappeared, I agree, but at the time the trouble was rampant those vicars had not got the support of the general Church of English worshippers, therefore they will not go out on a crusade of that kind.
      Surely what Churchmen would like to see is that the burial grounds, whether closed or not, whether all the interments are complete, or whether there are still some graves partially filled, shall be treated with respect. Hon. Members opposite may not be democrats as I am, but can they imagine any councillor, even a parish councillor, or a district or town councillor, who would dare to face a popular election saying he was going to annoy and insult Church people and destroy the amenities of the yard simply because he was a member of a certain party? The thing is unthinkable. There are not such problems as that, and it shows a total misconception of the whole position in this country when Members make speeches of that kind. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stuart-Wortley), who is an Ecclesiastical Commissioner, made a speech showing that not only was he entirely ignorant of the real groundwork and sentiment of Nonconformity in Wales, but that
      he himself does not know the responsibilities of his own Department in this country. I did think they did justice to the dead, though I know the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are not doing justice to the living. I thought the right hon. Gentleman would, at any rate, show that he thoroughly understood the burial position. I regret very much that in this Debate the Opposition have favoured us with about half a dozen Members in attendance, and very seldom until the last few moments with more than ten, although more than 200 were in the House, and when the allocation of time was discussed they said this was the most important thing in the Bill, and there would not be any time to discuss it. They came in at the bidding of the Whips in the Snap Division and marched out again to show their contempt for the arguments brought forward.
      It being Seven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders of the House of the 28th November, 1912, and of the 30th January, 1913, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already put from the Chair.
      Question put, "That the words 'the churchyards adjoining or in use with the same,' be there inserted in the Bill."
      The House divided: Ayes, 186; Noes, 297.

      Division No. 570.]

      AYES.

      [7.0 p.m.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Cassel, Felix

      Gilmour, Captain John

      Amery, L. C. M. S.

      Cator, John

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

      Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Anstruther-Gray, Major William

      Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Ashley, W. W.

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

      Grant, J. A.

      Astor, Waldorf

      Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

      Greene, W. R.

      Baird, J. L.

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

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

      Clyde, J. Avon

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

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

      Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Cooper, Richard Ashmole

      Haddock, George Bahr

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

      Courthope, G. Loyd

      Hall, D. B. (isle of Wight)

      Barnston, Harry

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

      Barrie, H. T.

      Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Larence

      Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

      Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

      Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Bigland, Alfred

      Croft, H. P.

      Hickman, Colonel T. E.

      Bird, A.

      Dalrymple, Viscount

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Blair, Reginald

      Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

      Hills, John Waller

      Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Hill-Wood, Samuel

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

      Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

      Boyton, James

      Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

      Hope, Harry (Bute)

      Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

      Falle, Bertram Godfray

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Bridgeman, W. Clivo

      Fell, Arthur

      Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

      Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Fletcher John Samuel

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Butcher, J. G.

      Forster, Henry William

      Hunt, Rowland

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

      Gardner, Ernest

      Ingleby, Holcombe

      Campion, W. R.

      Gibbs, G. A.

      Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

      Jessel, Captain H. M.

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

      Starkey, John R.

      Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

      Steel-Maitland, A. D.

      Kerry, Earl of

      Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

      Stewart, Gershom

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Parkes, Ebenezer

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington)

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

      Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutstord)

      Knight, Captain E. A.

      Peel, Captain R. F.

      Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

      Kyffin-Taylor, G.

      Perkins, Walter

      Talbot, Lord E.

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Peto, Basil Edward

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

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Pole-Carew, Sir R.

      Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

      Lee, Arthur H.

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

      Lewlsham, Viscount

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Thynne, Lord Alexander

      Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

      Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

      Touche, George Alexander

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

      Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

      Valentia, Viscount

      Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Randies, Sir John S.

      Walker, Colonel William Hall

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

      Ratcliff, R. F.

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

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

      Rawson, Col. R. H.

      Wheler, Granville C. H.

      Lyttclton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

      Rees, Sir J. D.

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

      MacCaw, Win. J. MacGeagh)

      Remnant, James Farquharson

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

      Mackinder, H. J.

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

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

      Royds, Edmund

      Wills, Sir Gilbert

      Mlldmay, Francis Bingham

      Rutherford, John (Darwen)

      Winterton, Earl

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

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

      Wood, John (Stalybrldge)

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

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      Mount, William Arthur

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

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

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

      Sanders, Robert A.

      Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

      Newdegate, F. A.

      Sanderson, Lancelot

      Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

      Newman, John R. P.

      Sassoon, Sir Philip

      Yerburgh, Robert A.

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

      Younger, Sir George

      Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Norton-Griffiths, John

      Stanier, Beville

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Evelyn Cecil and Sir H. Carlile.

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

      Stanley, Hon. G. F, (Preston)

      NOES.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

      Griffith, Ellis J.

      Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Cotton, William Francis

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

      Adamson, William

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Addison, Dr. Christopher

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

      Hackett, J.

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

      Crumley, Patrick

      Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

      Agnew, Sir George William

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

      Hancock, John George

      Ainsworth, John Stilrling

      Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

      Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

      Alden, Percy

      Davies, E. William (Eifion)

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Hardie, J. Keir

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

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

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

      Arnold, Sydney

      Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

      Dawes, James Arthur

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

      De Forest, Baron

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

      Delany, William

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

      Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Devlin, Joseph

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Dewar, Sir J. A.

      Hayward, Evan

      Barnes, G. N.

      Dickinson, W. H.

      Hazleton, Richard

      Barton, W.

      Dillon, John

      Healy, Maurice (Cork)

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Donelan, Captain A.

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

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Doris, W.

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)

      Duffy, William J.

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

      Bentham, G. J.

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Henry, Sir Charles

      Bethell, Sir J. H.

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mori., S.)

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Higham, John Sharp

      Roland, John Plus

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

      Hinds, John

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Brace, William

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Hodge, John

      Brady, P. J.

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Hogge, James Mytes

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Essex, Sir Richard Walter

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      Brunner, John F. L.

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Falconer, J.

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      8uckmaster, Stanley 0.

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Firench, Peter

      Hudson, Walter

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Field, William

      Hughes, S. L.

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

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

      John, Edward Thomas

      Cawley, Sir Frederick (prestwich)

      Gill, A. H.

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

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

      Glnnell, L.

      Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Chancellor, H. G.

      Glanville, Harold James

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Chapple, Dr. William Allen

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Goldstone, Frank

      Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushclifle)

      Clough, William

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Clynes, John R.

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

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

      Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

      Greig, Colonel J. W.

      Joyce, Michael

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

      Keating, Matthew

      2070

      2071

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Sheehy, David

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      O'Dowd, John

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Kilbride, Denis

      O'Grady, James

      Shortt, Edward

      King, J.

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

      Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

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

      O'Malley, William

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

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

      Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

      O'Shee, James John

      Snowden, Philip

      Leach, Charles

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Sutton, John E.

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

      Parry, Thomas H.

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Lundon, Thomas

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Tennant, Harold John

      Lynch, A. A.

      Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph (Rotherham)

      Thomas J. H.

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

      Philips, John (Longford, S.)

      Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      McGhee, Richard

      Pointer, Joseph

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Toulmin, Sir George

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

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

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

      Verney, Sir Harry

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Primrose, Hon. Neil James

      Wadsworth, J.

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

      M'Kean, John

      Radford, G. H.

      Walters, Sir John Tudor

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Rattan, Peter Wilson

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Wardle, George J.

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

      Reddy, M.

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

      M'Micking, Major Gilbert

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      Watt, Henry A.

      Meagher, Michael

      Richards, Thomas

      Webb, H.

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Richardson. Albion (Peckham)

      Wedgwood, Josiah C.

      Middlebrook, William

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

      Millar, James Duncan

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Molloy, M.

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Whitehouse, John Howard

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Roberts. Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

      Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

      Robertson, John M, (Tyneside)

      Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Robinson, Sidney

      Wiles, Thomas

      Mooney, J. J.

      Roch, Walter F.

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Morgan, George Hay

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Williams. J. (Glamorgan)

      Morrell, Philip

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Morison, Hector

      Rose, Sir Charles Day

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

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Rowlands, James

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Muldoon, John

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Winfrey, Richard

      Munro, R.

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

      Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

      Russell. Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

      Young, William (Perth, East)

      Needham, Christopher T.

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

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Nolan, Joseph

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

      Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government (of which notice had been given) necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at Seven o'clock at this day's sitting.
      Government Amendments made: Leave out paragraph (vi.). Insert the following paragraph:—
      (viii.) If so requested by the representative body, any glebe or other land, not comprised within any of the above-mentioned categories and not being a burial ground, subject to the payment by the representative body to the Welsh Commissioners of a sum equal to the value thereof, such value to be determined in default of agreement by arbitration, regard being had to the tenancies, charges, incumbrances, interests, and rights subject to which the land is transferred to the representative body.
      In paragraph (b) (i.), after the word "which" ["in which a burial ground has been provided"], insert the words, "not being a rural district."
      Leave out the words, "Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply to money (not being a private benefaction) which is the proceeds of sale or is held on trust to be applied in the purchase of glebe or to the securities in which any such money is for the time being invested."

      CLAUSE 11.—(Powers and Procedure of Commissioners).
      Government Amendment made: In Subsection (1), leave out the word "hereinafter" ["subject to such appeal as is hereinafter mentioned"] and insert instead thereof the words "in this Act."

      CLAUSE 12.—(Appeal to the King in Council).
      Government Amendment made: In Subsection (1), leave out the words "or as to

      2073
      the value of any glebe or any interest therein."

    Part III.—EXISTING INTERESTS: COMPENSATION: APPLICATION OF RESIDUE.

      CLAUSE 14.—(Provisions as to Existing Interests.)
      (1) Any person who at the date of the passing of this Act holds an ecclesiastical office affected by this Act by freehold tenure, or by any tenure which, in the opinion of the Welsh Commissioners, is equal to freehold tenure, shall retain his existing interest in the emoluments of that office so long as he holds that office or any other ecclesiastical office in the Church in Wales to which he may be nominated or appointed after the passing of this Act, whether before or after the date of Disestablishmment:
      Provided that where any such person is nominated or appointed to any ecclesiastical office in the Church in Wales other than that which he held at the passing of this Act—

      (a) he shall (save as otherwise expressly provided by this Act) pay over the net income of the ecclesiastical office held by him at the passing of this Act to the representative body;

      (b) he shall cease to have any existing interest in any burial ground or any ecclesiastical residence attached to the office he held at the passing of the Act.

      (2) On such person as aforesaid ceasing for six months to hold any ecclesiastical office in the Church in Wales, such existing interest as aforesaid shall determine:
      Provided that if he resigned the office which he last held with the consent of the representative body on the ground that he was incapacitated by permanent mental or bodily infirmity for the performance of his duties, he shall be entitled to receive during the remainder of his life an annuity equal to one-third of the average net income of the office which he held at the passing of this Act (exclusive of the annual value of the ecclesiastical residence, if any, attached to the office), during the seven years immediately preceding the date of his resignation, and such annuity shall be charged on the property out of which the emoluments of that office were payable, and shall be payable be the body or authority in which such property in vested, or if such property is vested in more than one body or authority,
      2074
      by those bodies or authorities in proportion to the value of the parts of the property vested in them respectively.
      (3) If any question arises under this Section as to whether a person has been so incapacitated as aforesaid, or as to the amount of the annuity payable to him, or as to the bodies or authorities by whom such annuity is payable, or the proportions they are liable to contribute thereto, or as to the amount to be paid over under this Section as the net income of any ecclesiastical office, the question shall be determined by arbitration.
      (4) For the purposes of this Section "net income" shall have the same meaning as the expression "annual value of a benefice" has in the Incumbents' Resignation Act, 1871.
      (5) Where the emoluments of any ecclesiastical office in the Church in Wales do not consist of an interest in any specific property, but consist of a right to receive a fixed annual sum then—

      (a) if that sum was before the date of Disestablishment payable directly or indirectly out of the common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, such right shall be deemed to be an existing interest in the property on which the payment of such annual sum is charged by this Act; and

      (b) if that sum was before that date pay able othewise than out of such fund as aforesaid, and the property out of which it was paid is by virtue of this Act vested in the Welsh Commissioners, such right shall be deemed to be an existing interest in that property.

      (6) The dissolution by this Act of a corporation aggregate shall not affect the rights of any existing member of that corporation in the emoluments to which as a member of the corporation he was at the passing of this Act entitled.
      Government Amendments made: In Subsection (1) leave out the word "equal" ["is equal to freehold tenure"], and insert instead thereof the words "in practice equivalent."
      In Sub-section (5), after the word "any" ["Where the emoluments of any ecclesiastical office"], insert the word "such."
      Add at the end of the Clause—
      (7) Where before the date of Disestablishment a person has, under the Bishops' Resignation Act, 1869, the

      2075
      Deans' and Canons' Resignation Act, 1872, or the Incumbents' Resignation Act, 1871, as amended by any subsequent enactment, become entitled to a pension, charged on or payable out of the income out of any ecclesiastical office in the Church in Wales, he shall continue entitled to receive the same pension as if this Act had not been passed from the existing holder of the said ecclesiastical office so long as his existing interest in the emoluments of that office continues, and after the cesser of that interest from the body or person in whom the property out of which the emoluments of that office were payable is vested, or, if such property is vested in more than one body or authority, by those bodies or authorities in proportion to the value of the parts of the property vested in them respectively, and if any question arises as to the bodies or authorities by whom the pension is payable or as to the proportion they are to be liable to contribute thereto, the question shall be determined by arbitration.
      (8) Nothing in this Section shall be construed as entitling the holder of any ecclesiastical office to receive the emoluments of that office during any period whilst he may be suspended by order of a Court of competent jurisdiction from exercising the spiritual functions of that office.

      CLAUSE 15.—{Provisions as to Tithe Rent-charge.)
      Government Amendment made: In Subsection (3) leave out the words "emoluments of the benefice," and insert instead thereof the words "amount payable in respect of such tithe rent-charge under this Section."
      CLAUSE 17.—(Compensation to Lay Holders of Freehold Offices.)
      Government Amendment made: Leave out the word "equal" ["is equal to freehold tenure"], and insert instead thereof the words "in practice equivalent."

      CLAUSE 18.—(Application of Residue of Property).>
      (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the property vested in the Welsh Commissioners by this Act, other than the property transferred to the representative body and burial grounds, shall be applied as follows:—

      (a) The property formerly appropriated to the use of parochial benefices and
      2076
      transferred to a county council shall be applied, in accordance with a scheme made by that council and approved by the Secretary of State, to any charitable eleemosynary or public purpose of local or general utility;

      (b) All other property to which this Section relates shall be applied in the first instance towards payment of the expenses of carrying this Act into execution (exclusive of any expenses incurred in the administration of any scheme made by a county council) and, subject thereto, shall be applied by the University of Wales by way of payment either of capital or annual sums, or partly in one such way and partly in the other, for the benefit of the following institutions, that is to say, the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, the University College of North Wales, the University College of South Wales and Monmouthshire, the National Library of Wales, and the National Museum of Wales, so, however, that the ultimate share of each such University College shall be one-fourth, and of each of the other institutions one-eighth, of the total amount so distributable.

      (2) In framing schemes under this Section as to the application of property formerly appropriated to the use of parochial benefices, due regard shall be had to the wants and circumstances of the parish in which the property is situate or from which it is or has been derived, and of the parish comprising the ecclesiastical parish to which any such property was attached, and generally to the circumstances of each particular case.
      (3) A scheme made under this Section may be amended or revoked by a scheme made and confirmed in like manner as the original scheme.
      (4) Every scheme made and confirmed under this Section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is confirmed, and shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.
      Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to move in Sub-section (1), paragraph (a,) after the word "applied," to insert the words,
      "to the support and maintenance of some one or more religious denomination in the parish in which the property was formerly appropriated."

      2077
      This Amendment, which was also moved in Committee, though not in the same words, deals with a point, which to us on this side, is of great importance, namely, the objects to which the residue which is not to be handed back to the representative body is to be devoted. The objects set forth in the Bill are county council schemes, the colleges of the University of Wales, and the National Library. To my mind it is rather peculiar that the Government have dropped one of the objects which was originally in the Bill, namely, the National Museum, which they found unpopular in the country, and have wholly illogically left in the library. We on this side of the House do not think that that is a very great improvement. The objects on which you are going to spend this money—this £150,000 or £200,000 which will eventually come into the secular authorities after all the life-interests have been paid, and you have handed back the money to the representative body—are objects which we regard as excellent in themselves, but wholly subordinate and secondary, and better provided for as a private charity or out of State funds which come up for review on the annual Budget, or out of rates which are under the control of the ratepayers. You are proposing to spend money upon what, after all, are secular objects, administered by the secular authority. They are not devotional or religious objects in the highest and truest sense of the word. The amendment gave rise to one of the most interesting discussions in the whole Committee stage of the Bill. The House was profoundly impressed by the clear line of demarcation drawn by my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University between the objects upon which you propose to spend the money and the objects upon which it would be spent if our Amendment were carried. We put forward in all seriousness one more plea for concurrent Endowment. I always remember one phrase of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon a very important occasion, namely, the Third Reading of the Insurance Bill.
      On that occasion with a small handful of Unionists I voted against the majority of my party and supported the Third Reading, because he used a sentence which to my mind was very remarkable. He said, "he who looks furthest and looks longest is the best judge in this matter," and I voted as I did because on that occasion it did seem to me looking far ahead
      2078
      you could see something beyond it. On this occasion I want the Government and their supporters to look not to the immediate situation, but to look far ahead, to the future position of Wales, of the country to which the Home Secretary and I belong. Looking to the future in Wales, I believe that instead of having this money devoted to county council schemes and universities it would be of far more value in the life of Wales as a nation, and far more value to the Welsh people that this money should be expended upon wholly religious objects, using the word in its highest sense. I believe I can show the House that there is need of these Endowments to-day among all denominations. I know the Nonconformist say, "We do not like to take this money. We shall be accused of taking this money of the Church for ourselves." I would far rather the Nonconformist ministers took the money for themselves than that the Welsh county councils should take it for themselves. I think the dog-in-the-manger attitude, "We must take this money from the Church, but we do not want it ourselves," is a far worse, far lower attitude, than if they came forward and said, as they can say honestly, "We are burdened, every denomination in Wales, with a huge chapel debt. We find that in every denomination in Wales our ministers are very poorly paid. We are struggling to get a higher type and better educated ministers. The proportion of graduates among our ministers is small. Many of our chapels are not served with the fulness that we should like. Much of the pastoral work has to be left to laymen who have not had the training which will fit them to compete in many of the industrial districts with the growing intellectual and moral unrest, as well as the various social conditions around them."
      That would be a position which I should respect far more than the position taken up now, of saying that they refuse this money; and looking far ahead, I consider, in the vital interests of Wales, that the money which has been used for religious purposes should go on being used for religious purposes, and I believe that that money will be needed for those purposes more and more as the years go by. Looking to the tendency of the present day, you will find the universities amply provided for by grants and aid of that kind. You will find hospitals subscribed for by private generosity. You will have libraries and these objects admirably supported by all

      2079
      sections and all shades of political opinion in Wales. What I do see in Wales to-day is the great difficulty of any church getting sufficient money to provide for the ministry and for itself. In support of my argument I may refer to the memorandum of Archdeacon Evans and my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University in the Report of the Royal Commission. I will refer to some of the facts -which they cite, and some of the evidence which they excerpt in this connection. The first point to which I would like to draw the attention of the House is this great question in Wales of chapel debts. They say, on page 129:—
      "The following table shows that the chapel debts of the Calvinistic Methodist denomination have doubled in thirty years, although £871,702 was collected towards their reduction."
      And the table is indeed remarkable. In 1896, the debt on the Calvinistic Methodist denomination in Wales was £330,000 odd. In 1908, it was £668,000, in spite of the great efforts which that denomination had made to collect money to pay off that debt. They say:—
      "The interest paid on chapel debts in 1008 was £19,0"0 odd; nearly twice the amount collected in 1908 towards the Calvinistic Methodist Denominational Fund, out of which grants are made to weak churches and forward movements."
      Those figures are most remarkable. In spite of the great work which is being done in Wales to-day by these denominations, you have this growing burden of debt. In spite of the almost superhuman efforts made to wipe out the debt, you have it increasing. Turn to the other denominations. The chapel debts of the Congregationalists in 1906 were £318,000. It is noteworthy that the chapel debts of the Wesleyan denomination are a comparatively small amount, only £87,000, but then the Wesleyan body have, of course, a well established connection with England, and it is on the whole a wealthy denomination.
      Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: It is much smaller.
      Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes. Pretty nearly every denomination in Wales to-day has this large burden of debt on its chapels. The result is that you have large amounts of seating accommodation unused, and that their ministers are not adequately paid, and you have an ever-increasing demand for further and further subscriptions. In a most interesting paragraph headed "inadequate provision for
      2080
      the ministry," several interesting circumstances are cited. I may quote this:—
      "Under these circumstances it is clear that the adequate maintenance of the ministry is impossible without a strong central sustentation fund. The financial witness of the Calvinistic Methodist denomination said, we have not any sustentation fund as yet. It is a dream of ours to be realised in the future perhaps.'"
      One can see after a statement of that kind that these bodies are in need of money. They are in need of money that these debts may be wiped out, and that further provision shall be made for the ministry. Then it goes on lower down to say:—
      "From the figures given in the county statistics for the receipts towards both maintenance and ministry in the Congregational denomination, it would appear that not far less than one-third of the ministers in the Welsh Congregational Churches, receive less than £80 a year, while more than one-tenth receive less than £60 a year… The inadequacy of this provision for maintainence is generally recognized—"
      and they give references to about ten witnesses—
      "and the difficulty of the position is increased by the growing importance rightly attached by Welsh Nonconformists to higher education for the miuistry. The Calvinistic Methodist diary for 1000 marks about 14 per cent, of their ministers as graduates, a percentage that falls to 9 per cent, for Congregationalists (Congregational Year Book), to 5 per cent, for Baptists, and 5 per cent, for Wesleyans."
      Is it not perfectly clear from that that the ministry of the Nonconformist denomination in Wales is not on the financial footing on which it should be to cope with the growing needs of Wales? And, after all, what is it we have been urging all through against your Disendowment proposals? It is that in our denomination, strive as we will, the Endowments of the Church are inadequate to-day to meet the needs of Wales, the needs of furnishing a religious ministry and religious services in the Principality to a growing population, and not merely to a growing population of the industrial districts of Wales, but among those distant scattered rural parishes, where the poverty is probably greater than in any other part of Great Britain except the Highlands of Scotland. Anybody who knows the rural conditions up in the mountains of Wales must see that in the long run, looking to the forces that are at play to-day a purely voluntary system, an endowed system is bound to fail in those districts. After all, in those mountain districts so remote, where the wealthy people tend more and more to leave, and where many of the best labourers migrate to the towns and mining districts, there are left behind the people who cannot afford to support any minister of any denomination, and it is in their interest, looking to the

      2081
      future of Wales, that I conceive this Amendment to be of vital importance indeed. The ground on which concurrent Endowment has been scoffed at is that it would be unworkable. I admit that it would probably need a religious census, or at any rate it would need an impartial body for its administration. But its difficulties I believe are small indeed compared with the great gain that would be achieved in the future. Take any of the mining districts of Wales—Glamorganshire, Monmouthshire, or any of the mining centres—can anyone say, who knows anything of the Principality, that it will be of greater benefit to religion in Wales that you will have some county council schemes or that you will have money to give to libraries? Surely it would be far more advantageous to the population in Wales if the money were to be spent in paying off chapel debts, in paying ministers of religion, and in founding a central sustentation fund for the maintenance of ministers to the religious needs of the people.
      I do not wish to go at length into the subject which we discussed in Committee upon this Bill. I spoke then of the difference between what we mean by religious objects and what some hon. Members on the other side consider to be sufficiently religious. We may be content, after that Debate, to leave the subject, though surely it must be borne in mind that, if this Bill is passed into law, it is very doubtful whether the hopes of any hon. Members opposite will be realised—I mean the hopes that they have that, after Disestablishment, there will be some uniting of religious forces in Wales, and some further coalescence of religious forces. Of course, after the speech of the hon. Member for Carmarthen District (Mr. Llewelyn Williams) it does not seem to me to be very likely that there will be any such feeling; after the kind of sneers we have had from time to time from the Under-Secretary to the Home Office, sneers about about the bishops and so forth, I do not think it will be likely that there will be any drawing together of the denominations. But if there is one thing that would make for union, one thing that might help to heal the wound which this Bill is causing, and to bridge over the gulf which will be created if this Bill becomes law, separating for generations Churchmen from Nonconformists in Wales, it would be concurrent Endowment; it would be the idea, that we should come
      2082
      together to work for religious purposes. [An HON. MEMBER: "We will never come together."] That is not the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or of many hon. Members opposite. The whole case for Disestablishment is that if you remove the State connection from the Church in Wales there will be a great reunion of Christian bodies. I say that the only thing which would make for that would be that you should not secularise those ancient religious Endowments, but that you should have a central sustentation fund, and begin by a fair and just apportionment of the money for religious purposes among the religious denominations in Wales. Meet the question in a truly religious spirit and see if some arrangement cannot be come to, and then I do not despair of some reunion of the Christian bodies in Wales. But if you include these proposals in your Bill—the libraries, the universities, and the schemes of the county councils— then I do firmly believe that you will create in Wales a permanent barrier against any coming together between the ancient Church and the Nonconformist bodies in Wales.
      I further believe that concurrent Endowment would make for a growing tendency among Nonconformist bodies to come together, and I personally am anxious to see that. After all, our idea of the Church is that you shall have a truly catholic Church, a Christian organisation with true corporate feeling, and I believe that if anything could assist in bringing that about, nothing would do it better than a scheme for concurrent Endowment among the religious denominations in Wales, if you are to take this money away from the Church at all. What are the main points? They are that the Endowments of the Church in Wales are totally inadequate to the needs of her religious objects. But if you take them away, and say that they are more than adequate, then do not spend them upon secular objects, but spend them in such a way as will make for the advancement of religious objects. I have endeavoured to be as conciliatory as possible in tone in speaking to this Amendment, for I wish it to be met by Nonconformists in the spirit in which I put it forward. Let no one think that my opposition to this Bill as a whole is in any way weakened, or that I think the Church is adequately Endowed, or that it is right to take these Endowments away. The whole tendency of these Debates has been generally to the effect that if you are to

      2083
      inflict this injustice on the Church, if you are to take away this money, then there is need of money on the part of the religious bodies in Wales, and that it would be handed over to them instead of doing what Government propose to do, namely, to look round for any decent object they can find on which to spend it. First, it was proposed to give money to museums, and then they dropped the museums. Spend it, I say, as it has been spent for the last 250 years, on doing the highest religious service, namely, maintaining the living exposition of the Gospel of Christ throughout the parishes and the hills of Wales.
      Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART: I beg to second the Amendment.
      I will not attempt to enter upon the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend, and certainly they could not be improved upon. But there is a line of argument of a wider character which might be taken on this question of the secular use of these moneys. We hear continually from Liberal Members representing Wales about their having been sent here by the Welsh people as a whole in order that they may carry out their wishes in this House. The Under-Secretary for the Home Office the other day put the matter very shortly, when he said:—
      "It is the Nonconformists who have sent Welsh Members here to represent their views."
      I deny absolutely that Liberal Welsh Members in this House represent the views of the whole of the Nonconformists in Wales. I deny that Welsh Liberal Members represent the views of the whole of the Nonconformists on this particular part of the Bill, because I myself have perfectly good reason to know that there are thousands and thousands of Nonconformists in Wales who, though in favour of Disestablishment and in favour on the whole of Disendowment of the Church in Wales, are most certainly and most strongly opposed to the application of money which comes from the Church to secular purposes, and to using it against that which is the national characteristic of the Welsh people, the characteristic which is involved in the very point of his Amendment and the very point of the whole question before the House, namely, the innate religious feeling which is a distinguishing feature of their lives. It is for that reason, if for no other, that I consider this Clause in the Bill unutterably bad—bad because it goes against the very
      2084
      idea and the very life of the people who are supposed to have sent hon. Members here to carry out their wishes. The Under-Secretary for the Home Office further on in his speech the other day said, speaking on this Amendment:—
      "It is an Amendment which no doubt may reflect a certain amount of suspicion amongst Churchmen, and not only amongst Churchmen but amongst those Nonconformists who are entirely against the secularisation of this money."
      There is not only that to be considered in regard to this Amendment. Look at the way in which the money is proposed to be divided in Wales. Some of the money is to go to the county councils. Will the House consider whether there is any county council in the whole of this country that would hand over from any surplus or any extra money a single halfpenny if they could keep it for themselves? Look at the results which would follow from this proposal, if it be carried. Take Anglesey, the constituency which the Under-Secretary for the Home Office represents, the amount of money which would go to that constituency from the Church would be somewhere about £8,770 a year, and this in a district which I do not think any hon. Member can honestly say is thickly populated. At the opposite end of Wales, in the South, you get the Rhondda Valley, the most thickly populated part of the whole of the Principality. Under the division to county councils, the amount of money to be spent in the Rhondda Valley is £170. Could anything more ridiculous possibly be imagined in the way of dividing this money among county councils throughout Wales? The Under-Secretary has certainly this to his credit, that he will have a most excellent platform when he goes to address his constituents, for he will be able to say that he has obtained £8,770 for the purposes of the constituents whom he represents in this House. I agree that it would be very convenient if a large number of Members of this House could find themselves in a position to say the same thing; but I do not think that is a very happy or a very laudable thing to be able to say for oneself when it is a question of religion and a question of robbing the Church. Perhaps the House will do me the honour to remember that I belong to a religion whose authorities about thirty years issued a manifesto in which they said that they laid no claim whatsoever to any of the money about which we are speaking at the present moment. Therefore I speak without any possibility of there being any

      2085
      hankering in my mind for any of the spoils of the Church. The whole idea of secularisation is against the purposes and uses to which this money has been put, and is abhorrent to every single man who considers religion to be one of the greatest things in this world, as most men do. The very idea that this money shouldbe taken in this manner to be spent on anything which the Government can find on which they can decently spend it is a disgrace to the Government, to the Gentlemen sent from Wales, and to the Liberal party, who say they are sent here to represent the constituencies of Wales. I am certain that a very large number of the constituents of those hon. Gentlemen do not for one single moment realise, believe or want what this Clause attempts to do.
      Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: This, I think, is the first time the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) and the Noble Lord (Lord Ninian Crichton-Stuart) have acted together as the Proposer and Seconder of an Amendment of this kind. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbigh Boroughs told us he wished to be conciliatory, but I do not think anyone who attempted to be conciliatory would once more refer to the old "banners of the dawn." The Noble Lord said that something or other was disgraceful, and that is not exactly a conciliatory tone either. He referred to a resolution passed by the body to which he belonged thirty years ago. May I commend the exact words of that resolution to the Noble Lord's consideration, and see how far his Church confirms the view that he has taken upon this Amendment? These are the words:—
      "At a general meeting of the Roman Catholic arch, bishops and bishops of Ireland which was held in Dublin on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd of October, 18(17, the following resolution was unanimously passed: 'That notwithstanding—'"
      Lord N. CRICHTON-STUART: It was a manifesto of 1885 to which I was referring, and not that.
      Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: This is a little older, and an older precedent will, I am sure, appeal to the Noble Lord.
      Lord N. CRICHTON-STUART: That is not what I was referring to.
      Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The Noble Lord refers me to one thing, and I would refer him to another. He said his was thirty years ago, and this is 1867, so that we are not very far apart. I will read it, and I
      2086
      am sure he will pay some deference to a resolution like this passed by the Roman Catholic archbishops and bishops of Ireland. It was quoted during the discussion on the Irish Church Bill in the House of Lords in 1869, so that the authority is beyond suspicion. This is the resolution:—
      "That notwithstanding the rightful claim of the Catholic Church in Ireland to have restored to it the property and revenues of which it was unjustly deprived, the Irish Catholic bishops hereby reaffirm the subjoined resolutions of the bishops assembled in the years 1833, 1841 and 1843, and, adhering to the letter and spirit of those resolutions, distinctly declare that they will not accept Endowment from the State of the property and revenues now held by the Protestant Establishment nor any State Endowment whatever.'"
      The Noble Lord, although he belongs to a Church that will receive none of these Protestant revenues, and which will receive no State revenue of any kind, is here suggesting to Nonconformists to do what his own Church will not do. With regard to this Debate, we had had the advantage of having thoroughly gone into the subject on a previous occasion. I had the opportunity of speaking then, and I referred to the Irish precedent, and to the various secular purposes upon which the money was spent then, much more secular, if I may use the phrase, than the purposes in this Bill. I know that that is no justification as far as hon. Members opposite are concerned. I also referred to the purposes for which this money was originally applied. That, of course, is controversial ground between us. The hon. Gentleman who proposed the Amendment in Committee referred to those purposes, and said that the real question was whether we were doing anything in this Bill which applied this money to purposes entirely alien from those for which it was originally given. It is now spent upon religious purposes in this sense, and let me use plain words, although I do not wish to be offensive, that the money is used in paying the stipends of the clergy. No doubt it is spent in paying men for the religious and devotional services which they perform. Our contention is that the word "religion" has a much wider sense than the narrow sense in which the Noble Lord and the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs have referred to it in this controversy. I do not think that they will dispute that the money of the Church was, in the past, spent not merely on devotional purposes, but on other purposes, spent not merely on spiritual and sacramental purposes, in the strict sense of those words, but also used as alms and in hospitality to the poor, and so on. There is no

      2087
      doubt about that, and the only real question, as far as we are concerned, is this: Can this money be used fairly in accordance with the requirements of the original trust, and having regard to the use by the original beneficiaries? We say the purposes of this Bill do that. The hon. Member, I suppose, approves of dropping the museum?
      Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: If you are going to expend it on some other secular object, one is as good or as bad as another.
      Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The moment you get away from devotion, all other things are secular; it does not matter whether it is a museum or a wash-house; all other things are non-spiritual and non-devotional, and are equally secular, and therefore there is no distinction, according to hon. Gentlemen opposite. May I say that that is a point of view which I do not think represents the views of Churchmen in Wales. No doubt that view represents a certain phase of opinion and Church thought which I do not think is very greatly represented in the Principality of Wales. For my own part I think the view will come rather as a shock to a great many Churchmen that the moment you depart from the trust of paying clergymen for services, then every other service is equally secular and equally reprehensible. I do not think that will commend itself to Welsh Churchmen. Whatever purposes this money was given for it was given for the purposes of the people generally, and it is now used upon a particular sect. You come to us and say, as I understand the Conservative position, "We strongly object to taking any of this money away, but you have under this Bill against our wishes taken a certain amount of money. Our opportunity now is, under Clause 18, to discuss the allocation," and the hon. Member tells us that almost worse than the taking away of the money are the objects on which the money is to be spent, and we are told, "The least you can do is to devote all this money taken from the Church to religious purposes amongst other denominations." Let us consider that view. If this Amendment were adopted the Clause "would read:" The property formerly appropriated to the use of parochial benefices and transferred to a county council shall be applied to the support and maintenance of some one or more religious denominations in the parish of
      2088
      which the property was formerly appropriated." I know the hon. Member knows Wales and its local affairs and county councils, and does he really think that the county council is a body to share the money amongst the various denominations of the various parishes in Wales? After a moment's consideration he must see that that is a hopelessly impossible case. What we Nonconformists say is this: In principle as far as we are concerned it is impossible for our acceptance, and in practice it is absolutely unworkable. I do not care to whom you gave the money, how could you do it? You would have the county council to consider claims from the various chapels in the villages of Wales, and suppose you had claims from Baptists and Independents and Calvinistic Methodists, and so on. Of course, there would not be claims from those bodies. The Noble Lord, speaking on behalf of Nonconformists, said that there are a good many of them who want concurrent Endowments. Does he really seriously think that? There may be individual Nonconformists who are selected for the honour of opening bazaars, simply because of their Nonconformity, and not because of their wealth, but can the Noble Lord give me the name of any representative of Nonconformity in Wales, or any kind of resolution passed by any Nonconformist meeting in Wales in favour of that, or has any Nonconformist Member from Wales ever in this House said a word about this? How can the Noble Lord really get up seriously in this House, representing the premier constituency of Wales, and say there is a strong feeling among Nonconformists on this matter when not a single resolution has been passed at any public meeting or at any Nonconformist gathering upon this question although the Bill has been before the House of Commons for months. Does the Noble Lord really think that is the case?
      Lord N. CRICHTON-STUART: I know it is perfectly true.
      Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Will the Noble Lord tell us some of the details upon which he arrives at that conclusion? It would be much more satisfactory. I do not know whether he includes his co-religionists among Nonconformists for this purpose, but will he tell us of any resolution passed at any public or private meeting in Wales by Nonconformists in support of his views? I think his silence is much more eloquent even than his speech.
      Lord N. CRICHTON-STUART: I could tell you names, but I have no right to mention them across the floor of this House without having the permission of the gentlemen concerned.
      Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The Noble Lord may have had private conversations.
      Lord N. CRICHTON-STUART: If you wish to have it, it was at a meeting of Nonconformists in a hall entirely Nonconformists, and they passed a resolution condemning the Disendowment proposals of this Bill.
      8.0.p.m.
      Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: That is a very different thing. The Noble Lord, I think, was not following my argument. I dare say there are a great many who condemn our proposals as to Disendowment, but that is not what we are on now. What we are on now is allocating the money, and I am sure the Noble Lord will see that that is a different question. I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs say that this was the only chance of peace in Wales. The suggestion is an impractical one. He says it is a little unworkable, but that the details will form themselves. He knows the public opinion of Wales as far as Nonconformity and Liberalism are concerned is really practically unanimous against this proposal, and it is a thousand pities that the hon. Gentleman should say that the only hope of peace is upon a certain contingency, which I think, in his heart of hearts, he must realise is impracticable. It may be right, it may be wrong, but that is the Nonconformist point of view. We cannot receive a subsidy from the State. We think that this is national money. That is the only ground of justice for this Bill. We do not propose to take from the Church any money which, in our view, is not national and public money. That being so, when we say that the Church has no right to this money, it would be contrary to all the principles of Nonconformity for Nonconformists to come forward and say, "Give us our share." The hon. Member, who made a very conciliatory speceh, compared Nonconformist ministers to the dog in the manger.
      Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Nonconformist members, not ministers.
      Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The dog in the manger, as I understand it, is supposed to have an opportunity of getting something
      2090
      for himself, but he will neither take it for himself nor allow anybody else to have it. That does not apply here. We do not get anything out of this Bill. And, after all, it is not we who determine this matter; it is the Nonconformists of Wales. I do not believe there are more than two or three ministers in Wales who have ever said a word in favour of concurrent Endowment. As I have said before, this proposal is wrong in principle and impossible in practice. You are offering to give Nonconformists money which they cannot possibly, in accordance with their principles, accept. Under these circumstances I have only to reaffirm our strong belief that this Amendment embodies a suggestion which the Government cannot accept, in that it proposes that county councils should allocate money between denominations who do not want it. The only denomination which could accept it would be the Church itself, and the effect of it would be to Re-endow the Church with every penny taken under this Bill.
      Mr. LANE-FOX: The hon. Gentleman opposite has again taken the objection that the result of this Amendment would be to entrust the county councils with the distribution of money amongst various denominations. It is not the Amendment which gives the county councils this power. It is due to the framework of the Bill, for which the Government are responsible. At this stage we have to take the framework of the Bill as we find it, and the hon. Gentleman might have saved himself the trouble of taking that objection to the Amendment. It is not the form of distribution that we should desire, but it in no way militates against the value of the Amendment. Another objection taken is that the money is national, and that Nonconformists, as a matter of principle, cannot accept it. That seems to me a most extraordinary position to take up. I do not accept the statement that it is national money; but assuming that it is, it means that the money has been given in trust in the past for religious purposes, and the view of Nonconformists is that that trust is now being carried out by a body which no longer represents the whole community, but that one denomination is administering a trust which was intended for all. If that is so, by what right do Nonconformists say that they entirely decline to take their share of administering this fund? If it is so impossible for them to administer their share of the trust, they have no right to

      2091
      interfere with the Church, which is doing her best to administer it.
      No one can pretend that the purposes to which the money is to be devoted in any way approach the original intentions with which the money was given. I do not think that Nonconformist bodies have any right, if they are going to take this money away from the Church, to refuse to assume at once their share of responsibility for carrying into effect the trust which, according to them, was laid upon the whole community, irrespective of any particular denomination. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say, "What are we going to get out of these proposals?" I understand that, under the allocation of this Bill, Anglesey will receive £8,770 a year. Nobody can deny that the purposes to which this money is to be devoted are purposes which can be provided for out of the rates. Is it not obvious that when the hon. Gentleman goes to constituents it will be perfectly possible for this Bill to be commended to them on the ground that it has saved £8,770 on the rates? I do not say that that is the object of the hon. Gentlemen in supporting the Bill, but it will be a good electioneering compliment which can be paid by Gentlemen on that side. At any rate, the hon. Gentleman has no right to say that those in Wales who are going to receive this money are getting nothing out of the Bill. Very hard things have been said about us. I remember a remark about Gentlemen whose hands were dripping with the fat of sacrilege. I will not apply any such language as that to the other side, but such statements which have been applied to us can also be applied to their conduct. We have heard a great deal about money being taken from the poor farmers in Wales. As a matter of fact, it is paid by the landlords; but according to the supporters of the Bill it is taken from the poor farmers and others who have earned it by the sweat of their brow. Now that it is to be given as an actual subvention of the rates, why are these poor farmers and labourers to be rated over and above their fellows? Why are they to be called upon to pay a higher subvention to the rates than others? On this particular Amendment the actual granting of this money to the county councils does not arise; but now that that position has come about, you have no right any longer to take the money from these men if it is not to be applied to the purposes for which it was originally granted. You have no moral right
      2092
      whatever to take this money and devote it in such a way that it represents an extra rate on one particular class.
      The hon. Gentleman alluded to the purposes for which this money was formerly intended, and he stated that it is now being spent in paying the stipends of the clergy. That obviously means that it is being spent on the provision of religious services. No religious service is possible without a properly ordained minister to carry it out. The hon. Gentleman stated that formerly the money was used for the relief of sickness and other purposes of that kind. He must remember that that first charge upon this; fund was always the provision of religious services, and that these eleemosynary purposes came after. We are perfectly prepared to say that if it can be proved that there is more money in the funds of the Church in Wales than is required for the provision of religious services the surplus should be used for eleemosynary purposes. But you have no right whatever to suggest the taking away of the money from religious services when it is obvious that already there is too little money to carry on the work of the Church as effectively as even hon. Gentlemen opposite would like to see it carried on. It has also been objected that a religious census would be required before the fund could be allocated. I do not know why there should not be a religious census. I have never heard an effective argument against it on the other side. If that were to be the result it would be both admirable and useful. Why Nonconformist bodies should think that that is an effective argument against concurrent Endowment I fail to see. The whole matter may be summed up in a sentence. You have no right to take away this money from the Church. Unless you are prepared to find some other body to administer it in the spirit and for the purposes originally intended, you have no moral right whatever to do what you are doing under this Bill, to take the money as you propose and devote it to secular purposes. That is the greatest indictment that can be made against the Bill it is one which will be felt most strongly throughout the country, and will eventually fructify in the strongest opposition to the Government's proposals.
      Mr. J. H. THOMAS: My justification for taking part in this Debate is that I am a Welshman and can claim to know something of the feeling of my fellow countryman on this particular subject. I have

      2093
      been a constituent of the Noble Lord opposite (Lord N. Crichton-Stuart) and can claim to know something of the factors responsible for his return to the House. It is perfectly true, as he said, that Welsh Disestablishment did not play an important part in his election. It is equally true that opposition to Welsh Disestablishment did not play an important part therein. The real explanation is that Cardiff is the least Welsh place in Wales. Anyone familiar with Cardiff knows perfectly well that the cosmopolitan character of the people is such that it separates Cardiff entirely from any other part of the Principality. I have listened throughout these Debates, and there have been occasions, especially a few weeks ago, when one would have concluded that there was a genuine desire on both sides to approach the question with a view to arriving at a compromise. When we suddenly near wrangling about "robbing God" one naturally resents such a statement, because that is not the feeling that actuates Members on this side of the House in their action on this particular question. The proposal that we are considering at this moment is, I admit, a proposal that must of necessity appeal to many people at first hand as being a fair and equitable proposal. It seems such an easy matter to go to an audience, especially, if you like, an English audience, and say that all we have asked the Government to do in this matter is to share equally between the religious bodies the money they have taken from the Church. I submit the answer to that is that the real claim of Wales in this matter is for freedom. The primary object of Nonconformists in this matter is to have religion free and unfettered. They say, "We are not desirous of State interference; we are not desirous of State Endowments; we are prepared to control our religion and our own denominations, and we are prepared to pay for our different denominations."
      If the real object is to obtain peace in this matter, surely the Nonconformists themselves ought to be the best judges of their own position! Everyone speaking from the other side of the House say: "We, as members of the Church of England, believe that we are the best judges of our situation." They say to Nonconformists on this side that, notwithstanding anything you may say, we claim to be the best judges of our position. If we have to admit that fact—and I very frankly admit that hon. Members opposite should be the
      2094
      best judges—they must give credit to the Nonconformists themselves for claiming that they are the best judges of their situation. All the evidence up to now goes to show that, not only would this proposal not obtain peace, not only would it not be popular, not only is it not wanted, but, on the contrary, every Nonconformist body in Wales is strongly and deeply opposed to the suggestion. Let us see how it would work out in practice. The suggestion is to share the money equally or proportionately, I presume, amongst the different religious bodies. Take a large number of people not attached to any particular denomination. What happens? They are to be claimed as Churchmen. There the first friction arises as to these particular people not associated with any particular denomination. As to the second point, What is going to happen in your council elections? You are going to have all religious strife, all religious bickerings, every little Bethel is going to turn out at the county council election, and instead of the best interests of the people being considered, you will have all this religious strife and bickering enter into your contests. The Noble Lord the Member for Cardiff said that one thing is certain— the county councils will stick to the money. Who are the county councils? The county councils are the representatives of the people, duly elected representatives of the Welsh people themselves. Surely if they are democratically elected, and the choice of the people; if they are returned to express the wish of the majority of the people; we can only conclude that they will spend this money in a way that meets with the general needs and wish of those who elected them?
      Lord N. CRICHTON-STUART: My point is this: In Anglesey you have about £8,700 coming from the Church; in the Rhondda Valley you have £171. If the Anglesey County Council sticks to its money there will be very little among a very large population in the "Rhondda Valley, and too much for the smaller population in Anglesey.
      Mr. J. H. THOMAS: That only shows the disparity and the disadvantage—as between Anglesey and the Rhondda Valley —that the latter has been suffering from all these years. That does not alter the situation in the least. Incidentally, if you are going to make it such a parochial question as that would do, you are at a disadvantage, though having it administered

      2095
      by the county council would cover a much wider area, and you would be more likely to get more equality. That, I submit, is the real answer to the Noble Lord. But we have also to approach this question from the standpoint of whether this Bill and whether this proposal does really weaken the religious cause in Wales. Let us forget for a moment Church and Chapel, or any particular denomination. I frankly say—and I think there can be no better judges than the Labour leaders as to the tendency of the times—that there is a materialistic tendency. I can quite conceive of arguments being adduced from the other side of the House to this effect: "If that is admitted, surely this is not the time to separate the State from religion?" They might say that. My answer to that is this, that no religion can stand the test of public opinion unless it is a religion founded upon freedom. Let me put this point: No hon. Member from the opposite side surely will suggest that helping the sick, the orphan, and those in distress, is a purely secular object? I submit that these are the very essence of religion. I submit they are the true greatness of Christianity. If you are going to limit your definition of Christianity to that of purely devotional service, you are justified in calling this a purely secular object.
      You have no right to place such a narrow interpretation as that upon it. If the Nonconformist bodies in Wales were to come forward and say that this, in their opinion, was a real solution, there would be the strongest possible argument for supporting the Amendment. Whilst, however, the fact remains that the Nonconformist bodies say, in spite of our difficulties and our limitations, in spite of the fact that we have been handicapped in the past—and we admit our difficulties—we are yet prepared to go on our own way free and independent. On the other hand, I submit this. Let us assume that this proposal is going through. Whatever the money is devoted to, if in any parish there is a majority of Churchmen their influence upon the county council will be directed to having it spent in accordance with their wishes. If the majority is Nonconformist, the opposite will be the effect. In any case, the fact of its being spent by local bodies responsible to the people will ensure that it will be spent in accordance with the wish of the majority.
      2096
      Whilst it is dfficult to approach this question without strong feeling, I submit that If the result of Welsh Disestablishment will be, as I believe it will, to ensure generous consideration for the Church, which I frankly admit has done real good work, and is to restore good feeling, I do not think the Church will suffer. On the contrary, I believe the Church will benefit; but I am perfectly sure that instead of promoting harmony between Nonconformists and Churchmen, concurrent Endowments would lead to difficulties far greater than those already stated to the House.
      Mr. CAMPION: I agree that the closing portion of the speech of the hon. Member who has just just down was of a conciliatory character, but I cannot agree with him that the action of the Government in this Bill in taking away Endowments from the Church can benefit the Church in the long run. If I may say so with all respect, I think the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken and the speech of the Under-Secretary to the Home Office who spoke before him, constitute the greatest condemnation of the Disendowment proposals in this Bill that I have ever heard in the House. For what do their arguments come to? They say it is quite impossible that this scheme of concurrent Endowments should be carried out; that under no conditions whatever would the Nonconformist bodies accept this money. This Clause 18 is to my mind the one which should be the justification of the Disendowment proposals previously carried out in the Bill. You have taken Endowments from the Church which hon. Members admit are being properly used at the present time, because the Church is carrying out her work efficiently and well. You have taken her Endowments and you can only justify that when you come to this Clause by the objects to which you devote these funds. When we seek to find out what the allocation of this money is, we find that the proposals of the Government are constantly changing. As has been pointed out, at one time they included national museums. Now they are searching high and low to try and find objects to which this money can be properly and suitably devoted. To my mind they have absolutely failed to justify the means they have adopted in allocating this money, and taking away the Endowments of the Church at all. After all, I believe— though I dare say my opinion will not be

      2097
      shared upon the other side of the House, but I have had some opportunity of judging from meetings in a good many parts of the country—that this Bill is increasing in unpopularity throughout the country, and the principal reason of the unpopularity of the Bill is the fact that these funds which are being taken from the Church, which have been enjoyed by the Church for centuries and to which the Church has a prescriptive right recognised in law, are to be devoted, not to purposes of religion, to which they were devoted for years, but to purely secular objects.
      Something was said just now by the Noble Lord who seconded the Amendment with regard to the unequal distribution between the different parts of the country that would result from a division of this money, owing to the fact that the county councils would not distribute the money proportionately to every county throughout Wales. The hon. Member who proposed this Amendment referred to a central sustentation fund, and, to my mind, under concurrent Endowments the difficulties would be easily got over by establishing a central sustentation fund from which the money could be equally distributed to all the different religious denominations throughout the Principality. There is a difference of opinion which apparently it is very difficult to get over between the appreciation by hon. Members on the other side of the House and on this in the description of religious objects. The hon. Member who has just spoken referred in a perfectly conciliatory manner to objects which we all admire— objects of charity, of almsgiving, of helping the poor, and so one. We on this side of the House value these objects as good and excellent in themselves, but they are not in themselves really religious objects, but are the result which flow from religious life and from religion as the source.
      Personally, I cannot help feeling that if by this Bill you dam the source and injure religion itself, you will injure the result of religion, and you will seriously affect the fulfilment of those valuable objects now performed in Wales. We have had one argument freely adduced in this House during the course of this Bill in regard to national property. We have had the argument that when this money was first given to the Church it was given to the Church as a whole, and that the Church and nation at that time were co-extensive, but that as time went on different bodies dissented from the Church and split themselves into
      2098
      other churches, and that consequently the Church is no longer the Church of the nation as a whole and is not entitled to enjoy all these Endowments. I think that is putting the argument used by hon. Members on the other side very fairly. If there is one conclusion more than another to be drawn from that argument it is not that the money should be devoted to secular purposes, but that it should be retained for religious purposes. That is what we suggest. We are making an offer to the other side and to the Nonconformists in Wales in all sincerity—an offer which we perfectly recognise they could not suggest themselves. We admit that we regard it as the second best course to pursue. We believe it is entirely wrong to Disendow the Church at all, but, if you do Disendow the Church, we say we make you this offer in all sincerity in order that religion may be properly upheld in the Principality in the future.
      I was very much struck with the arguments used by the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs in proposing this Amendment. I cannot help feeling that one of the great misfortunes that will result from this Bill is the fact that the work of all religion will be hampered by it. The hon. Member who has just spoken said that there was an amount of apathy and indifference in the world that has to be attacked by religion at the present time. It is quite true, and there is work for all forms of Christianity to fulfil. Differences that did exist years ago, and acute differences unhappily, between different religious denominations are gradually dying down. Christianity is being carried out, and we are certainly getting nearer that unity of religion which all well-thinking men desire. The pity of it is that this proposal in the Bill will postpone and hamper that tendency, and instead of allaying religious strife it will arouse and embitter it. With all sincerity we make this offer to the religious bodies in Wales in the cause of religion, and we believe that if it is accepted those religious bodies will be able to work together for the same cause of Christianity in co-operation with one another, religious strife will be allayed, and this tendency to future unity will go on.
      Mr. LEACH: I quite recognise the sincerity of the hon. Member who has just spoken, and other hon. Members opposite who have spoken during these Debates. I wish the Mover of this Amendment were

      2099
      in his place. I have no desire to discuss with him nor with any hon. Member opposite the objects to which this money is proposed to be put by the Bill, because I know that at once we should disagree as to what are and what are not religious objects. I could not help recalling, when my hon. Friend below the Gangway was speaking about religious objects, the words of the Apostle in the New Testament that religion pure and undefiled before God is to visit the fatherless and the widow, and so on. I do not think there could be any more religious object than that of relieving the sick and the poor. I wish to call attention to this question of concurrent Endowment. No hon. or right hon. Gentleman could have made a more earnest appeal to Nonconformists than the hon. Member who moved this Amendment, but I should like to ask him and other hon. Members who spoke in favour of it if they have consulted the Welsh people, and Welsh Nonconformists especially, upon this subject of concurrent Endowment? During the whole of my public life I have been accustomed to mix with Nonconformists and gather with them at all sorts of conferences and Synods, and I have never in my experience heard any proposal in any of those assemblies in favour of concurrent Endowment. I have been wondering what would have happened if we, on this side of the House, had proposed in this Bill that this money should be devoted to Nonconformist ministers. I can understand there would have been not a little excitement among hon. Members opposite, but Nonconformists do not want, and will not have this money which is taken by this Bill from the Church.
      It is true that Nonconformist ministers are very poor and poorly paid, and so are some of the Episcopalian clergy in Wales; but poor as the Nonconformist ministers are in Wales, they will not have this money on any condition whatever. It is to their credit, notwithstanding their poverty, that they do not wish to have their salaries increased by grants from these funds which are now being taken from the Church of England. A good many statements have been made in this House about the origin of some of the Endowments belonging to the Church. Everybody knows that whatever else may have led to their origin, Nonconformity did not, and therefore to give any of this money to Nonconformists would be to prostitute that money which was never intended for them, because when
      2100
      some of those Endowments were created, Nonconformists had barely been called into existence. I have been accustomed to saying outside this House, and I do not hesitate to say it inside, that the Nonconformist ministers of religion who need Endowments are not the kind of ministers for Nonconformist pulpits. The ministers who are suitable for Nonconformist pulpits will seldom need Endowments, because the voluntary gifts of the people are usually sufficient to support them. I wish, of course, that their salaries were larger, and I have listened with great sympathy to what has been said about the poverty of some denominations, but, on the whole, I think it is greatly to the credit of Nonconformists in Wales that they do not ask for, and will not have, any share in this money.
      Mr. CATOR: The speech which the hon. Member who has just sat down has made shows how impossible it is for those on the opposite side of the House and those on this side to draw any nearer on this question of concurrent Endowment. We believe from first to last that this Bill is doing a grievous wrong. We are against devoting the funds of the Church to secular purposes, because this is the first time that such a thing has been proposed in an Act of Parliament. I know it is said that in the case of the Disestablishment of the Irish Church, the funds of that Church were secularised, but I maintain that the aim and endeavour of the Bill for Disestablishing the Irish Church was that the funds should receive very much the same treatment which we should like to see adopted in this Bill. I am aware that various Grants were made to Maynooth and other bodies, but it is a notorious fact that the Irish Bill did admit the principle of concurrent Endowment, which this Bill does not. It is difficult not to feel the respect which I think is clue to Nonconformists for not desiring to have any share of this money; but, on the other hand, it is difficult to reconcile that with the fact that, although they are not prepared to receive any of the money they are prepared to devote the large sums of money taken from the resources of the Church to secular purposes. It is rather like the Free Trade doctrine which is openly claimed by hon. Gentlemen opposite to be the only possible doctrine with regard to economics, but which says it is perfectly legitimate to protect labour and absolutely wrong to protect the produce of labour. In this

      2101
      case it is wrong for Nonconformists to receive money which comes from Church of England sources, but it is not wrong that large sums coming from the same sources should be handed over to the county councils and go to semi-religious purposes which may and probably will, if the scheme of the Lord Chancellor is carried out, save very large payments out of the rates. I can hardly see the logic of Nonconformists refusing to accept anything which belongs to the Church, and at the same time ignoring the fact that these large sums which will accrue to the Welsh county councils will go to relieve what otherwise would be a very great expense to the Welsh community.
      We are repeatedly told this is a generous Bill. We are told again and again that the terms offered by the Government are generous and liberal. It is difficult to follow that line of argument. We cannot, of course, agree with regard to the national character of the funds. The Liberal party claim they are national, and we say they are not. We say these funds belong to the Church, and that the Church of England in Wales has done nothing whatever to forfeit her right to them. It is surely commonly recognised that if you are going to Disendow a religious body you must be able to prove among other things that the Church administers to a small section of the population, and that it is grossly over Endowed. I do not think any of these conditions apply to the Church of England in Wales, and I do not see that the Liberal party has ever been able to show there is any logical reason why the Church should be Disendowed. The reason often put forward by various Members is that the Church was Endowed with certain funds at a time when it was co-extensive with the whole population of Wales, and that as the Church no longer administers to the needs of the whole of the community she should forego these funds. It seems to me, if the Church has altered in any degree, the community has certainly altered very much more. The Church is still willing to administer to the needs of the community, and it is not her fault if certain members of the community do not care about accepting her ministrations. I do not see that any argument has been adduced to show it is right to Disendow the Church. We are told the Church is different now from what it was before the Reformation.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that we have decided that question in an earlier part of the Bill. We are dealing now with the uses to which the funds should be put, and not with the question or the merits of Disendowment.
      Mr. CATOR: I am sorry if I have gone beyond the purpose for which I originally rose. Once more, I can only say I do not see that any reason has been adduced to show that concurrent Endowment is not a very much better scheme than that proposed in the Bill.
      Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I understand the proposal is that that part of the money which is not going to be handed over to the Church should be applied by Nonconformists to what is called "religious purposes." The Church, in any event, cannot complain that its own share would not still be used for religious purposes, and I suggest to hon. Members opposite that it is for the Nonconformists themselves, through their representatives in this House, to decide what, in their opinion, are the purposes and objects to which this money is to be applied in future. I will also remind them, without going into the origin of the funds with which we are now dealing, that most of the tithe in Wales was by no means payable to the Churches but to the monasteries, and the monasteries were in part educational institutions.
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Where were the monasteries at that time?
      Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I would refer the hon. Member to the opinion of Mr. Willis-Bund, who is probably the highest authority on the history of the Celtic Church living to-day. The hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) based his arguments on what he suggested was the need of Nonconformists for funds, and he spoke about the desirability of cooperation between the Church and Nonconformists in Wales. He said speeches that had been delivered on this side of the House were not calculated to bring about that co-operation. I do not think the tone of the speeches of the hon. Member himself either are calculated to attain the end he professes to have in view. He referred to-day, for instance, to the standard of education among the Nonconformist ministry in Wales and to chapel debts. It is not the first time the hon. Member has dealt with those points. He has dealt

      2103
      with them on several occasions, not with the object of proving there was any need among Nonconformists for the money with which we are dealing to-day. May I repeat what I said on the Second Reading, that the Nonconformist ministry is as well educated and as cultured as the ministry of the Church of England, although the means at our disposal have been considerably less in the past? In case there be any doubt in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite, may I read what was said by Sir Harry Reichel, of Bangor College, himself the son of a bishop? Speaking at the Church Congress in 1908, he said:—
      "When I first came to Wales, Lampeter turned out a better type of man, taking him all round, than the best of the Nonconformist colleges. The position is now reversed. Lampeter men are quite outclassed by the students of the colleges who enjoy the full advantages of the new system."
      Therefore the suggestion of the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs that the Nonconformists need the money for the education of their ministers must of necessity fall to the ground. The hon. Member went on to what he called the debts of Calvinistic Methodists, a denomination with which I am myself associated. The suggestion of the hon. Member was that the debts of that denomination were such that they were unable to perform their work and to maintain their religious services. He forgot to point out that, whilst it is quite correct to say the debts have been doubled in the last twelve years, they have been doubled because new chapels have been put up, schools have been added, parsonages have been provided for the ministers, and libraries have been instituted. Whilst 'he said the total debts amounted to £600,000, he forgot also to add that the income of that denomination alone is over £200,000 a year. Far from being an impediment to the work, far from being a burden, as the hon. Member has suggested, it is perfectly well known that this denomination is probably the richest denomination in Wales to-day, and has not the slightest difficulty in obtaining money on the security of its members at from 3 per cent, to 3½per cent. The hon. Member suggested that the result of these chapel debts was overdue seating accommodation. That is an argument constantly used from the other side. Let me point out that the Commission itself, in its Report, showed that the parish churches in Wales are situated in remote corners, far from the masses of the population, and if anything can be said about
      2104
      seating accommodation being too large, let me give one figure. The seating accommodation of the chapel is 2.77 to each communicant, and that of the churches to the number of communicants is 2.86. Therefore the disparity between the number of communicants and the seating accommodation in the Church in Wales is greater than is found in the Nonconformist chapels.
      The argument underlying the whole discussion on the other side to-night is this: It is suggested that Endowments are essential in the interests of religion. It is suggested that in the Church they are necessary and that in the Nonconformist chapels they are desirable. The hon. Member who has just sat down has suggested that we are attacking the Church in Wales notwithstanding the fact that it is making good use of its Endowments. I have said before, and I repeat, that we are attacking the Church because it is not making a proper use of its Endowments. It is said on the other side that the Church in Wales is progressive and active. So it is, but it is active and progressive where it is not endowed. Figures have been already given in this House to prove that the whole of the Endowments of Newport, Cardiff, and Swansea only amount to £1,000 per year, and it is well known to anyone who has the slightest acquaintance with the religious life of the Principality, that the Church is active and progressive, not in the rural districts, but in those towns. The real position is this, that hon. Members opposite are arguing in favour of Endowments from the success which has attended the Church not where the Endowments are, but where the Church is dependent upon voluntary effort. An hon. Member objects to that, but he can give me his answer when he comes to speak. I will take my own Constituency. That constituency enjoys 1–27th of the Endowments in Wales. The Nonconformists outnumber the communicants of the Church by eight to one. Twelve of the churches have less than twenty communicants, five of them have less than ten, and anyone who is acquainted with religious life in Wales, especially in the rural districts, must admit that Endowments far from assisting the Church have been its curse. Let me give three parishes in Anglesey. The Endowments of these three parishes amount to £2,200 a year besides parsonages and glebes, and they have only 200 communicants. So

      2105
      great a scandal was it, so much was it admitted by the laymen of the Church themselves, that twenty years ago a Bill was drafted—I do not know whether it was introduced into this House—to Disestablish the Church and pool the Endowments. I venture to say that if any effort had ever been made by the Church to pool its Endowments and apply them to where they were most needed, to transfer them as they ought to have been from the rural districts where they were wasted, to the towns whore they were most needed, little would have been heard of the proposal for the Disendowment of the Church at the present day.
      9.0 p.m.
      Then the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs concluded with an appeal for union and co-operation. If there is no co-operation it is not our fault. If the religious life of Wales shows so much bitterness and so much strife it is not due to Nonconformist bitterness or bitterness in the mass of the Church people. It is clue more to men who have been brought into the Church, to men like the Bishop of St. David's who have left Nonconformity for the Church, and have added to their zeal for religion all the bitterness of the convert. The hon. Member said he hoped, and a good many of us share the hope, that there may be a possible reunion in the future. I think it is quite possible, for this reason, that the strongest, if not the largest Nonconformist denomination holds to-day identically the same creed as the Church of England and they left it over a hundred years ago not on the question of doctrine but on a question of Church government. I was sorry that none of the three Welsh Members on the other side were present in the House yesterday when we were discussing the question of Convocation, and when the question of the future constitution of the Welsh Church was under consideration. I venture to say, and this is probably the last thing I shall say in connection with this Bill, that if the Welsh Church is capable of adapting itself to the needs of Wales, to mould its creed and adapt its liturgy to the genius of the Welsh people, a great success awaits it and the time may yet come when it will become a great power in my native land.
      Mr. RAWLINSON: I do not know that I should have risen but for the last two speakers on the other side. Let me bring the House back to what this Amendment means. It is a very much wider and
      2106
      deeper Amendment than either of the hon. Members appear to understand. It is an Amendment moved so as to prevent what I believe to be an unprecedented and wicked action, namely, the diversion of fluids which have been devoted to religious purposes and the turning of them to secular purposes. That is the wider aspect of the question. The hon. Member opposite is very properly proud of belonging to the richest denomination of Welsh Nonconformists and he gave us details. What have they to do with the Amendment? I am glad to hear him say that. I am glad the hon. Member is a member of a denomination which is well off, and I hope all the others may be equally so.
      Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I was answering the point put by the Member for East Denbigh.
      Mr. RAWLINSON: I see the relevancy of it now. These bodies are devoted to religious purposes, and I am glad that money has been devoted for that purpose, but I venture to suggest the richest denomination in Wales or in England has room for more money, of which it could make good use even if it can borrow at 3 per cent., which is a better rate than Consols. What I want to get from the hon. Member is this. Does he or does he not think that money is an advantage to a religious body in its work? If a religious body has got lots of money, surely it means that it is more prosperous and more useful for its work. He shakes his head. Does he mean that it is better off without it?
      Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: I did not mean that. I meant that it was better off when it was dependent upon the voluntary efforts of those who attended the Church; that it was much more likely to be successful in that case, than when, like the Church in Wales, it is dependent, not upon the self-sacrifice of its members, but upon the self-sacrifice of their ancestors.
      Mr. RAWLINSON: If a church has an income of £200,000 a year, would it not be better if it was £210,000 or £250,000 a year? It reminds me of the passage in Voltaire, where there is a discussion of a poor man with a millionaire, and the millionaire is terrified at the difficulty of dealing with his money, and the poor man turns to him and says, "Misery for misery, I prefer yours." Misery for misery, give me the rich Church in preference to the poor Church. An hon.

      2107
      Member laughs. We are accustomed to the way in which this Debate is conducted, and we shall expect his speech turning the matter into ridicule when the time comes. I am seriously discussing the subject, and I hope I am not using too strong an expression when I say it is almost cant to tell me that money is not useful for religious purposes. I do not care whether it is South London or East London, or the poorer parts of any large town, money is useful for religious purposes in the present circumstances. The hon. Member for the Colne Valley (Mr. Leach) and an hon. Member who spoke from the Labour Benches, both said that providing for the widow and orphan was a religious purpose. Yes and no. Every poor rate and every workhouse provides for the orphans and for widows. There is absolutely no direct connection between that and religion at all. It is work to which an agnostic or an athetist can contribute as well as a Christian. It is work which is frequently done by people who are avowed agnostics and avowed atheists. Many avowed atheists I happen to know are exceedingly moral men and exceedingly liberal in providing for these purposes, but they are pronouncedly hostile to religion in any shape or form, and they are perfectly honest about it. No doubt they think that atheism or agnosticism is a sufficient guide through life. I am protesting that it is not sufficient for the bulk of the people of any community or any country. Hon. Members like the hon. Member for Colne Valley, who ought to know better, dare to get up and half quote a verse in St. James's Epistle and say that—
      "Pure religion and undefiled before God is to visit the fatherless and the widow"
      and then to stop the quotation. To say that is in any sense of the word a real defence of anything but by the purest materialism—
      Mr. LEACH: Will you complete the quotation?
      Mr. RAWLINSON: Certainly I will.
      "and keep himself unspotted from the world."
      When you say you can preach that in any Nonconformist chapel and can get sufficient money out of those you are addressing, I say that if you speak to them about keeping themselves unspotted from the world there is some doubt whether you will fill your pews so satisfactorily. A preacher who preaches that in season and
      2108
      out of season—I am not speaking of Nonconformists alone, but of other denominations as well—is less likely to fill his pews and keep his pew rents up to a high figure, even in a fashionable chapel in the West End. Political aspirations make a very good subject in certain chapels. The hon. Member has been preaching a narrow materialism. It is narrow materialism to tell us that merely giving money to widows and orphans is a definition of Christianity in any shape or form. It is the narrowest form of atheism which any Socialist has ever preached in the East End of London. I am speaking possibly rather heatedly on this point, but it is because I believe religion to be the essence of our life in England. I am not defending the property of the Church of England. That does not come up at this moment. The question before us is, Are you going to devote to secular purposes, even to such good purposes as feeding the poor or giving it to hospitals, money which has been devoted to God and religion? You tell me that philosophy is just as good as religion and is just as useful, provided it produces the same results, and that so long as a philosopher visits the fatherless and the widow he is just as much a religious man as the Christian. That is untrue. When you are dealing with a nation, you want a mainspring. May I quote an extract, which puts into English far better than I could do it what I have been saying. It is in the book of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour). He writes this when dealing with Positivism:—
      "What has Positivism to say to the obscure multitude who are absorbed and well-nigh overwhelmed in the constant struggle with daily needs and narrow cares. ‖Does it offer consolation to those who are in grief, hope to those who are bereaved, strength to the weak, forgiveness to the sinful, rest to those who are weary and heavy laden? If not, then whatever its merits, it is no rival to Christianity. It cannot penetrate and vivify the inmost life of ordinary humanity."
      I ask the hon. Member for the Colne Valley to carry that lesson home to himself. Do not say that the materialistic result of giving a certain amount of money to the orphan or the widow is religion. It is a thing which can be done by the most wicked man on the face of the earth, and it is certainly not a test of religion. Why did the hon. Member who spoke last say that he would not take this money? Why should not any Nonconformist body take it? If it is right to take it away from the Church of England, where if has been used for religious purposes, why should not Nonconformists take it? It

      2109
      is not confined to denominations represented by the last two speakers from the opposite side. There are other religious bodies, Jews and so forth, who would take their share in what came to their parish. They have given us no reason at all for refusing it. What is the reason at the back of their minds? They want money, like everybody else, for religious purposes. Why do they not take it? They say definitely that no Nonconformists will touch a penny of this money, and that it is no good our thrusting it upon them. What is the reason? Are they thinking that money got in a certain way does not do good to the recipient any more than it does to the donor? I suppose the Labour party think that is an old world superstition.
      Mr. GILL: They do not believe a word of it.
      Mr. RAWLINSON: I quite understand the hon. Member's view. He says that if money comes to him, let it come in any way. As Horace says—
      "It does not smell."
      Get money somehow, and it does not matter how it comes. Why do Nonconformists decline to touch it? If they think it is right to take it away from the Church, why do they not accept it? Is there a lingering doubt in their minds that this is money that ought not to be taken from the Church? Is it because they think that the price of blood may not bring altogether a satisfactory result with it? If that is not the reason, what is it? They decline to take for religious purposes money which has already been used for religious purposes. I have heard no shadow of reason from the hon. Members opposite as to why they think it right to decline to take it, except the old superstition that sometimes ill-gotten goods bring no gain. I am going to protest on a much wider ground than this. This is a thoroughly bad precedent. You are taking money which is devoted, rightly or wrongly, to religious purposes, and you are devoting it to secular uses. Is it going to stop there? I submit certainly not. We are told from the Labour Benches a few minutes ago that Agnostics, Atheists, and Materialists are very largely on the increase. Of course, as they regard it, the money is devoted to superstition, and ought to be devoted to secular purposes. Quite rightly they take that view. It is the only logical view to take. But do not Nonconformist Members, who are using
      2110
      the assistance of people who believe that in getting this money taken away from the Church of England and diverted to secular purposes, see that this is a precedent which certainly is not going to stop at the money of the Welsh Church? It is going to be carried to its logical and proper conclusion, and if you believe religion to be a superstition, and a stupid superstition, it is a mere waste of money to use it in extending that superstition and working for it, and therefore it ought to be used for secular purposes. It is a logical, a fair, and a proper position to take up, but it is a position which no member of a Christian body ought to lend himself to, and he ought to oppose it in the most bitter way he can the first time it is suggested in the House of Commons.
      Instead of that, we have Nonconformist Members opposing this Amendment. It will not stop there. It will not stop at the Church in Wales. It will go to the Church in England. Do you think it will stop there? Do you think the £200,000 a year which the hon. Member mentioned, is going to be held sacred for long? He told us that the parsonage house has been built and the bricks and mortar are still there. Do you think the magnificent edifices we see in London are going to stand? Once you adopt this principle of taking away money devoted to religious purposes, I do not care what religious purposes, and devoting it to secular uses, you are on the down grade. You are doing it with the assistance of the Agnostics, the Atheists, and the Materialists, and very properly and rightly from their point of view. This is not going to stop there, and if you do it for that reason you carry it on, and when the next time comes it will be quoted against you that on this occasion the House of Commons made a precedent, and a very bad precedent indeed, when, by a majority which included not only Materialists, but in many cases, the members of religious and Christian communities, they voted for the desecration of funds devoted to religious purposes and diverted them to secular purposes of any kind, whether those secular purposes are good or bad. I have spoken with some feeling because this is a matter on which I feel deeply, and I hope sincerely the House will think once, twice, and three times, before they decide not to press the Government to make a concession. It is not that the property of the Church is at stake. The Amendment does not raise that at all. Assuming that

      2111
      the property of the Church of England has gone, I most earnestly ask anyone, whether Churchmen or Nonconformist, on that side of the House to vote for devoting the money to religious and not secular purposes, and so prevent this evil and wicked precedent.
      Mr. GLADSTONE: I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman does not admit that it is religion to visit the fatherless and the widow.
      Mr. RAWLINSON: I never said so.
      Mr. GLADSTONE: It is the result of religion, but not religion itself. I should have thought it was religion. I cannot help recalling the passage in St. Matthew where he gives an account of the Last Judgment Day, and where some sat upon the right hand of the Judgment Throne, and some on the left, and those upon the right hand are commended because they have done service to the Almighty by visiting the sick, clothing the naked, and looking after the destitute, and visiting those who are in prison, and they are puzzled for a moment. They do not comprehend that this is a Divine Service, and they ask, when did we do all this for the Almighty? And the reply then comes: "Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye did it unto Me." I regard that as a very direct, explicit assurance from the Scriptures that care and relief of destitution, poverty, and misery is Divine Service.
      Sir HOWELL DAVIES: I am not a member of the Church of England, as the hon. Member (Mr. Gladstone) is, but, as a Nonconformist I wish to answer the question submitted by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Kawlinson) from the Nonconformist standpoint. He says that no reason has been assigned upon this side of the House why we cannot accept some of this money for religious purposes within the Nonconformist churches. Many of us have for many years supported the principle of Disestablishment, but if at any time the Nonconformists were to accept the invitation which has been submitted to them that they were in favour of Disestablishment with the idea of obtaining some of the spoils of Disestablishment, they would be open to the sneers of many members of the Church in Wales that our advocacy of Disestablishment was for ulterior purposes. It would be impossible for the Nonconformist Churches in Wales to partake in any way of the funds of the
      2112
      Established Church. Notwithstanding the fact that there are very considerable debts upon many of the Nonconformist Churches in Wales, there is yet sufficient money in Wales to carry on all the work which is necessary for the Principality without falling back upon the funds of the Church. I am not at all sure that sometimes a little debt upon a Church is a very Bad thing. It brings out very often the loyalty of its members to their Church. We are accustomed in Nonconformist Churches, not only in Wales, but also in England, to pay our way and to pay our ministers, without relying in any way upon any Endowments. I do not think we could for any reason accept this money in the way proposed. I feel assured that it would be impossible for Welshmen who have advocated Disestablishment to submit themselves to the charge of having acted from what might be termed an ulterior motive. I hope hon. Members opposite will not think that we are unmindful of the apparent generosity with which they are offering us these funds.
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: This has been a Debate in which it is rather difficult for hon. Members on both sides to express their views in a way comprehensible to one and the other. It seems an extraordinarily difficult thing for us to secure any sort of understanding of our point of view from hon. Gentlemen on the other side. The hon. Member opposite (Sir W. Howell-Davies) spoke in the same strain as many others who spoke before him about the raising of money for Church purposes being good for the people themselves. I quite agree that it may be good for the richer people in the Church. It may be good for them to feel that they should make greater sacrifices and contribute more than they are doing now. But we have to consider the poor of the Church—those to whom, among others, the Church is ministering. It is obvious that if you take away money which is being well used for the purpose of ministering to the poorest in the congregation it will be those who will suffer. You might apply exactly the same argument to people who subscribe to hospitals. You might say that it would be a very good thing for rich people who subscribe to hospitals to have the money taken away and given to something else in order that they might feel the stimulus involved in denying themselves some luxury in order to make up what was taken away from the hospitals.

      2113
      It might be a good thing for them, but would it be good for the people in the hospitals? You may talk very magniloquently about making greater sacrifices, but you have to remember those who will have to suffer, certainly during the first stages of the operation of this Bill, if it ever becomes law.
      What seems to me extraordinarily difficult is to make hon. Gentlemen opposite understand the difference between what we call spiritual work and social work. Speaker after speaker has got up, some with quotations from the Bible and some without, to try to demonstrate that the work which is to be carried out with this money when taken away from the Church is really religious work. They would like to make themselves think so, and they would like very much to make other people think so, but really in their hearts of hearts, cannot they see any difference between that social work and religious work? [An HON. MEMBER: "What is religious work?"] It is very difficult for me to explain, but I was going to try if the hon. Gentleman will give me time. The hon. Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs (Mr. W. G. Gladstone) quoted a very well-known passage, and he seemed to think that visiting the sick and the poor is exactly the work that is going to be carried out by the use of this money. I do not think it is in the least a parallel case. At any rate, it is work that should be done with their own money and not with other peoples. It means a different kind of sacrifice, though it is work not unconnected with religion. Our view is that this money belongs to the Church. There is no use going on to argue that point. We have said so again and again, and nothing that has been said on the other side has convinced us that we are wrong. Another hon. Member quoted a Scripture passage in the same sense. I think I can see their point of view, and I would like to try to make them see ours. All the work they are claiming this money for is work that can be done by the State and out of the rates. It is not necessarily religious work at all. Would it be any comfort to go to the widow and fatherless and, instead of giving them the ordinary spiritual counsel which a religious minister would give, to say to them, "There is a book in the library which was not there before, which you and your children can read. It has been given by the State under this Act." To my mind, that would not be the sort of comfort the widow and fatherless would value very
      2114
      much if at all. It seems to me that there would be no need for social legislation at all if there was perfect Christianity in this country. Is that proposition approved by hon. Members? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Very well, I say what is wanted is more religion and not less. [An HON. MEMBER: "More Christianity."] Well, Christianity is religion, and it is my religion. Surely hon. Members opposite do not contend that Christianity is not religion?
      Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD: If the hon. Member is appealing to me I would say that Christianity is a much more comprehensive term than your or my religion.
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: We must have some religion, and Christianity is my religion. I say if you had perfect Christianity you would have no need for social legislation. It would not be necessary to have legislation in order to make masters treat their men properly, nor would it be necessary in connection with family relations, or any of those other so-called social questions which we are constantly saying require very much attention in this House. We should be doing more good in all those directions if we left religion to work out those problems in its own way. I say this measure will hinder, instead of helping, religion. One is a matter of this world only, but the other is a matter that connects us with another world. I do not know if hon. Members understand what I mean by that. I mean that social work is a question of relieving people in this world of their actual worldly troubles, but religious work is keeping them in touch with the higher world, the higher aspirations, the greater hopes of something to look for and to comfort them, and to make them patient under their troubles. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are combined."] Of course, they are both combined, but what I say is that to do these things in a spiritual way is more effective. Religion appears to me to be something like the ladder Jacob saw in a vision stretching from heaven to earth, the top reaching heaven and the bottom fixed upon earth. Those who went up and down upon it are the saints of religion in all ages who have kept up the connection either by preaching and teaching or by influence and sympathy, connecting the lowest of us on this earth with the highest aspirations of another world. Religion and social work are totally different things. You cannot replace one by the other, and in supporting this Amendment we believe that rather than this money should be given to work which

      2115
      we consider should be done by the State or the public by taxes or rates it should still remain at the service of some religious body to be used by some religious spiritual person in a spiritual way, and not be given to county councils librarians, and others. I ask hon. Members opposite not to imagine that county council clerks and public librarians can take the place of ministers of religion.
      Mr. HINDS: I should not have intervened but for the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge University. No doubt he is quite sincere from the standpoint in what he said, but I can assure him that those of us who do not view this question from the same point are quite as anxious as he for the prosperity of Christianity. My standpoint is faith in the intrinsic value of truth and Christianity. They will prosper whether you have money behind them or not. The money will come from the people who believe in Christianity. We have an object lesson in Wales on this matter, in the fact that the people out of their own hearts and their free will offerings are maintaining their religion, because they love it and because they believe it has a great mission. We are blamed to-night because we do not take some of these Endowments from the English Church in Wales. It is impossible for us to take that money. We are four denominations. We do not look at the same truths from the same standpoint, but we desire to carry our work in our own way, which has been most successful in the past. We believe in religion, but some of the Members on the other side take a very narrow view of what religion means. I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for Kilmarnock quoting those verses from St. Matthew, and we believe that if the man is touched in his heart he will carry out those works, and if he does not carry out those works of charity and faith in daily life he has not been touched with the spirit of Christianity in its true and best sense. We have been blamed as being irreligious to some extent by some hon. Members on the other side because we cannot see from our standpoint our way to take this money to carry out our own view with regard to religion. But if our view is wrong we are willing to pay for it, and we have paid for it. Every chapel in Wales is a monument of a freewill offering of the people willing to do what they can for their fellow man in all manner of ways.
      Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Why not keep-things as they are?
      Mr. HINDS: No. There is a greater principle than all that in it. Some of us Welsh people have come to London, and we maintain Welsh causes in London because we believe in them. We have about thirty or forty Welsh places in London, and we provide for poor girls in shops, medical students, and all the young people who come flooding to our churches year after year. We maintain our chapels week after week and month after month, and while we do not desire to blame the Established Church in London, and do not say anything with regard to the work which they are doing, yet they must have out of this fund £450 a year. Which is the most spiritual of the two? The hon. Member said that the Nonconformist preacher was not so outspoken with regard to the sins of the world as the clergyman. I ask who is the most outspoken in Wales to-day with regard to the condition of things? The Nonconformist minister has been in the forefront at all times to do what he can to raise up the nation to a higher level of spiritual activity. I want hon. Members on the other side to understand that we do believe sincerely in this matter. We believe religion to be outside the State altogether. We do not want the Church touched which is most sacred with ourselves. We want to work out our own salvation because we believe in it, and because we believe in the intrinsic value of the religion in our hearts, and that it will carry the world before it, and that one day the world will come to the feet of the Master, through these voluntary gifts given through the hearts of the people for the sake of the principles in which they believe.
      Sir A. CRIPPS: I wish to refer to some remarks which were made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock Burghs. It is quite true that the quotation which he gave is from Saint Matthew, but the real point raised is this: In order to educate the Christian spirit which gives the result described in the text he quoted, you ought not to take away funds which are now being used for devotional purposes. Surely there is all the difference between spiritual work and social work. Of course, spiritual work ought to result in good social work, but you must have the Christian spirit in the first instance. That is exactly where I join issue with what was said by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock Burghs and many hon. Members on the other side. We do

      2117
      not deny that these good social works may be good Christian works. The question is where you will get the motive to perform works of that character. You do get it from the devotional spirit, which develops the Christian spirit, and these funds which you are now dealing with are at the present time devoted to this devotional work. If you are to have this outcome in Christian spirit, you ought certainly not to take away funds which are now being used to promote the Christian spirit which necessarily precedes the Christian work. One other word as regards the question of concurrent Endowment. I think hon. Members on the other side forget certain things in which there is what I may call concurrent Endowment at the present time. I may take four illustrations which are perfectly well known in this House. There are £30,000 of Endowments at present for Presbyterian ministers in Ulster. Will any Nonconformist here venture to say that funds of that kind which are used for the stipends of poor ministers in Ulster are in any way detrimental to Christian work or the Christian spirit in Ulster? All statistics show exactly the contrary.
      It is a question which we may well put to Members on the other side of the House: Are they prepared to say that funds used in this way for devotional purposes, funds that came directly from the State, have any other result than to promote the Christian, spiritual feeling which we think so necessary as regard spiritual and Christian work? Take, again, the Church in Scotland. There you have what we should call a Nonconformist Church from the Anglican point of view, which is the Established Church, that is, the Presbyterian Church in Scotland. Does anyone say, looking to the history of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland, that they have in any way suffered in their religious and spiritual life, or in any way rendered less high that life from the fact of having received this Endowment? It is exactly the contrary. The funds are wanted for devotional purposes, and they are being admirably used to the present day. Take another instance which will perhaps come home more closely to the Members on the other side. We know, as regards places of worship and Nonconformist chapels, that they are relieved from the payment of rates if they are used only for devotional purposes. That is Endowment by the State in the strictest sense of the term. It does not matter whether you relieve them by £5 or £10 a year, or give £5 or £10 a year in money. At the present moment every
      2118
      Nonconformist chapel in this country has an Endowment of that character. Can any hon. Member on the opposite side say that because of an Endowment of that character the spiritual work of those places of worship is worse done? We heard from the hon. Member who has just sat down that Welsh Nonconformist bodies in London are doing splendid work. Is that work hampered or rendered less efficient because the chapels in which it is carried on are relieved of the payment in rates? Really it is a quixotic notion which will not bear examination when one comes to examine the facts. There is just as much Endowment in this relief from the rates as about any Endowment of which we have been talking. I agree with what an hon. Member has said, that so far from in any way interfering with religious work, it is assistance which Nonconformists readily take, and which they find to be useful in carrying out their religious work.
      Mr. HINDS: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me, I would reply that one of the Welsh chapels in London allows a portion of their hall to be used by a polytechnic and education society, and in consequence they have to pay rates to the amount of £80 a year.
      Sir A. CRIPPS: Is not that a good example of what I was saying, that so long as chapels are used solely for spiritual purposes, they are relieved of the rates? Of course, if they are used for polytechnic purposes or other than spiritual purposes, they have to pay the rates; but the point I wish to emphasise is that this relief from rates in respect of places of worship used solely for religious purposes, is an Endowment by the State at the present moment, and I defy any one to say that any harm is done to the religious character of the work carried on by an Endowment of that description. Take the instance of what is called undenominational education, which we know is favoured by Nonconformist bodies in this country. That, is an Endowment by the State at the present moment. So far as Church education is concerned it is not directly endowed in the same way. I am not going into that however. But are Nonconformists going to say that education is worse because there is an Endowment of undenominational teaching by the State? Wherever they have been able to get Endowments from the State the Nonconformists have willingly taken them, and as regards their spiritual and devotional

      2119
      life, those Endowments have worked to their advantage. I do not blame them. Everyone knows that however highly we talk about matters of this kind, we cannot carry on great religious organisations without sufficient funds. We cannot possibly touch the spiritual and Christian life of some of our large populations in our poorer slums without having some means of paying the ministers to go into those districts in an endeavour to introduce the Christian spirit. It must be within the knowledge of everyone that as regards Nonconformist work, which I do not for a moment wish to criticise, there are constant appeals made for funds in order to carry out their spiritual duties more efficiently. There is nothing in that; it is merely acknowledging what must be an admitted fact, that to do the work well, you must have sufficient funds, and that in order to have spiritual agents, you must pay spiritual agents a fair stipend.
      Another argument was used by an hon. Member opposite who spoke lately. He said he was afraid that improper motives would be attributed to Nonconformists if, when they were seeking to take Church funds, they accepted them for their own use. I think I am putting quite fairly what he stated. I agree with him up to a certain point; but he must see that that is not what we are arguing now. We are not saying at the present time that the Nonconformist bodies are first of all taking our funds, and then asking for them for their own purposes. What we are saying is something quite different. We say that if religious devotional funds are going to be taken, let us see they are used for religious and devotional purposes and not for secular purposes. Surely when Churchmen have made that statement, the hon. Member cannot sggest that the motives of Nonconformists, if they assented to that proposition, could be impugned in the same way as they might have been impugned if in the first instance, before Disendowment, there had been a proposal to endow certain Nonconformists, Let us put on one side—and I think we have to a great extent—in our discussions, questions of impugning improper motives either the one side or the other. Let the hon. Member have the courage to do what is right. Very often it is the greatest courage to adopt an attitude which primâ facie may appear to be in one's own interest, and therefore the motives are impugned. Does he think it right that these funds now used for devotional pur-
      2120
      poses should be taken away from those purposes and applied to secular purposes or not? The question is whether the spiritual life in this country needs these funds, having regard to our large and poor population, and I would ask him and other Nonconformists to have the courage of their views, and not to be afraid of motives being impugned, and which certainly Churchmen will not impugn? Let them join with us on this important principle, not to allow these funds, which have been devoted to the promotion of Christianity and religious life, to be used for purely secular purposes.
      Sir JOHN JARDINE: I do not think I have yet spoken on this Bill. I have listened to-night to the flood of learning displayed by Members opposite, but have not been impressed by their views. What most amazes me is the insistence by the Opposition speakers on the value of money as a means of spreading spiritual graces among the Churches. I think they are wrong. I think the gifts of God are not to be bought by money and that there is no room for Simon Magus in matters of devotional concern. For centuries this view has been proclaimed in the history of the Christian Church by its leading men. If you look at Milton's poems you will find that he quotes three great Italians, Dante, Petrarch, and another, each one denouncing in poetry the evils of the gift that Constantine made to the Church. It is therefore quite reasonable that the Welsh Members should take that view. They have had experience, and they know all the advantages and disadvantages. I must say I think it would be a very grave misfortune if the efficacy of the Churches was to be ascribed to money. Is it conceivable that we can pass this Amendment when we have a number of hon. Members, nearly all of them Englishmen, insisting that this money shall be taken by the several sects in Wales, while the representatives of Wales get up and, from the point of view of patriotism and from the view of Christian knowledge and experience, insist that they will not have this money? Under these circumstances it is possible that it can be forced on them or on any of the religious communities? Where is this concurrent Endowment to end? How many sects are to be included? The representatives of Wales seem to be nearly all against it. How can this House be asked to decide at the instance of English Members that Welsh Nonconforming Churches shall accept what they do not want and

      2121
      what they believe would do harm to religion? I need not say which way I mean to vote.
      10.0 P.M.
      Sir WALTER ESSEX: I should like to say, not having spoken before in this Debate, how I have noticed during the whole course of it a note of anxiety lest on a subject so closely involving religion any hard word should be stated. That strain of thought has not been entirely successful, as, for instance, when the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University spoke about these funds now in the possession of the Church in Wales as being possible blood money if they were diverted to other purposes. I think that was an accidental expression of what is generally recognised in this House as an extremely kind heart. When we get talking about religion, we are at times apt to lose sight of the fact that in the main we are all seeking the same end. Can we not get back to first principles and ask ourselves what are the titles of the Church in Wales to this money? That is the first principle, after all. Was this money given, as a part of it was by the State, for those subtle religious and spiritual purposes, theological purposes, if you like, which nobody has been able fully to define? Our contention on this side, which we urge on the consideration of those who differ from us, is that those funds were given to the Church not only for that purpose, but also, and rightly, for secular purposes. To us as a nation we cannot help considering that the Church is standing in the light of a great national trustee, and a trustee whose duties have not been fully carried out, a trustee from whom the intended beneficiaries have drifted away, and in their drifting away have been deprived of some of the funds which the State in loco parentis, so to speak, designed for them. You cannot get back from that injustice and leave things as they are, plus a suggestion of concurrent Endowment. We have the argument that to make sure that the original intentions of the trust should be carried out these founds should be distributed to various agencies for purely religious purposes, whatever they may be, and I am not going to try and define them. That would mean that you would have to have a sort of unholy compact between a whole number of sects and federations and societies, and you would have to settle limits beyond which you would not go, and you would have to say what particular
      2122
      body or society was not in your opinion qualified to become one of the distributors of this fund. I think by that course you would find that the later stage of the matter was in a worse entanglement than it is at present. The hon. Member for South Bucks (Sir A. Cripps) pointed out that you had concurrent Endowment in the relief from local rates which the Nonconformist Churches enjoy to-day. I am sorry so learned an authority on Church history brought that argument in. Does he know nothing of the long struggle Nonconformity had to escape those rates? It is burned within the memory of every Nonconformist who knows the history of his Church. With regard to the present freedom from rates, does he not remember what occurred in connection with a Public Health Act passed in the sixties? In that Act it was provided that Nonconformist Churches, which were growing increasingly important and powerful, should be exempted by the parochial or municipal authorities from all claims to paving charges, which were a very heavy burden. The Church party in London was able to rule London out of the benefit of that concession, and for long years Nonconformist churches have had to pay, and in many cases are still paying, contributions to the very heavy paving charges, while Episcopal Churches erected later are free from that charge. I do not know that any Churchman in this House—the hon. Member for Oxford University, or the other hon. Member to whom I have referred—would think that that was a fair state of affairs. That is not concurrent Endowment in the same form. It is an aid, but the right thing would have been to have made all Churches alike pay their paving rates and pay their local rates.
      We made a blunder in this House some years ago, we Nonconformists, when we altered the law with regard to marriages in Nonconformist churches; and, in the same temper that has led people to claim concurrent Endowment, insisted that Nonconformists should be treated like Churchpeople, instead of claiming that Churchpeople should be treated by the civil authorities as Nonconformists were. We cannot get away from this view of the case—that these funds were given to the Church as a trustee, not merely for those high and well-nigh undefinable religious purposes to which frequent reference is made, but for others. The Church was the Poor Law authority, and the only one. She

      2123
      was the education authority, and the only one. She was the visitor of the sick, the comforter of the oppressed, the defender of all who were in trouble. Men who desired to help any of these good causes had only her arm through which to work That time is past. We simply come to say, "Tell us which of these funds have been ear-marked for all time for these specific purposes, and not one of us would for worlds take a penny of that money." Otherwise you have no moral right to take these funds, and, however good in a general way your intentions may be, divert them from their original purposes to one section of the community when they were intended for the benefit of all.
      You are not going to get out of that by inviting Nonconformists to share in the plunder. It is not Nonconformists property any more than it is yours. It is the property of the State. You must share in the benefits as Nonconformists, and all others do. You must have no favour over any other section of the community. We have had to-night a long discussion about the secularisation of the funds. We speak of high religious purposes. I do not want to get into controversy about what are such purposes, but I remember that the Divine Carpenter of Nazareth spoke of the healing of the blind, the restoring of those who were sick, and, last of all, the preaching of the Gospel to the poor. There will be no secularisation of the funds in the proposals made by Welsh auhorities in regard to the national distribution of this property for the common good. You may urge your claims to every penny—and you have done so successfully—which is purely spiritual money for spiritual purposes allocated for all time for your one denomination; but over and beyond that, we ask you to give clearer and more cogent reasons than you have yet done for retaining these funds, however good may be your intentions with regard to them.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: The hon. Member opposite has made a very interesting speech. Its value was considerable on first impressions, but that value was altogether destroyed by a strong delusion as to the facts of the case. Not a scrap of this money was ever given for any national, social, or civil purpose whatever. No mediaeval person would ever have dreamt of such a thing, and to speak in the terms used by the hon. Member shows how thoroughly remote he is from the
      2124
      point of view of the day in which this money was given. No mediæval person would have ever given a penny towards education except in so far as education was distinctly religious, or have given a penny to the poor except in so far as the poor might be relieved through the Church. The whole conception is utterly remote from that of the day in which these Endowments were given. We have every right to complain of Gentlemen, of whom the hon. Member is an admirable type, most well-intentioned, most sincerely doing what they think is right, but who have not taken the trouble to inform themselves of the very elements of the subject which they are speaking. The hon. Member made a most admirable speech in tone and in sentiment, but absolutely without value owing to its being an expression of boundless ignorance. It is really deplorable that at this time of day we should have vamped up once more this empty pretence that the money which is now being taken was in any respect whatever national money, or given to the nation, or to the society, or to the community, or to the municipality, or to any body of the kind. It was never anything of the sort. Nobody who has ever read a line of history can really argue that it was. I can understand people arguing that it was given to Roman Catholics. But you cannot say both. Do you say that it was given to Roman Catholics? If it was given to Roman Catholics, it was certainly given for religious objects. You cannot say that it is Roman Catholic money, and at the same time say that it is the money of the Welsh nation. Whatever the Roman Catholic Church is, it is not the Welsh nation. You must not contradict yourselves in the course of a single Debate, and even in the course of a single speech, as some Members who defend this Bill are not ashamed to do.
      I can understand again—and that is the very point with which this Amendment deals—a person saying that this money was given to Christians as it was known in the Middle Ages. Very well. We propose under this Amendment to give it to Christianity as it is known in the twentieth century. You propose to give it to secular objects quite remote from the original purposes. I can understand your casting aside the pious donor altogether, but you must really make up your mind which of these contradictory cases you are going to adopt. Does any Nonconformist, or any religious person in England or Wales, seriously say that it is better to

      2125
      spend money on any of the objects contained in this Bill, than on preaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments? I do not believe there is a single one who will say sol I am quite sure that none of the numerous witnesses that we examined before the Welsh Church Commission would have dreamt of maintaining the position, that as a matter of right it was better to spend the money on any of the objects enumerated in this Bill than on propagating the Gospel according to the teaching of any of the various denominations in Wales. Another hon. Member on the other side said a great deal about the degradation of this Debate because it was a matter of money. It is perfectly true that religion does not depend for its essential life in any degree whatever upon money. Everyone recognises that if you took away every penny from all the religious denominations, religion would still continue. But the work of the religious body would be very considerably limited. People constantly confuse religion in itself. The existence of the Divine reality in the Church—for this purpose I expressly avoid defining what we mean by the Church; undoubtedly we mean different things, but the proposition is equally true whatever definition you accept—the existence of the Divine reality in the Church would go on whatever happened to its material resources. But the number of its disciples would be immensely restricted.
      I think it was Dr. Pusey who was accustomed to say that the Catholic Church was once contained in a single upper chamber, and that he would not cease to believe in it if it were again contained in a single upper chamber. That is a very fine saying. But if you look at religion, not in its own essential life, but in the number of disciples that it draws in, and the degree to which it can make the Gospel a means for the healing of the nations, money becomes all-important. It becomes important because it is the means by which religion reaches the world at large. It is like any other mechanical apparatus that is necessary to bring to mankind the valuable gifts that originate in nature. Take water. According to Scripture and long tradition water is accepted as the symbol of religion. But you cannot get water without the proper apparatus; you must have a water supply. It is much the same with religion. Religion is there just the same as water is there. But you cannot get it without the mechan-
      2126
      ism, which you must provide for yourselves in order to obtain it. Money is therefore necessary. What do we really mean by taking away the money of the Church? No one—no one on this side—believes that the Church in Wales will suffer in her essential character by this Bill. Of course not; no one dreams of such a thing. What we mean is that the usefulness of the Church is restricted, especially in the industrial districts in Wales, where there is constant need for more money than is in the hands of all the religious denominations put together; In these districts you injure the work of the Church.
      For the purpose of this Amendment what do we propose? We propose that some effort should be made to use the money. If you will not allow us to use it as we believe it ought to be used for the work of the Church, we propose to use it for the work of Christianity—to take Christianity as a whole, to accept as a fact the schisms and separations that have taken place, and to allow all denominations to profit by those ancient Endowments which were, as we conceive, originally intended for the Church. We do not think that a just settlement, but we do take it as a religious settlement. We believe that the Bill, as at present drawn, inflicts injustice and hampers the cause of religion. At the proper opportunity we oppose both. Upon the present occasion if it is not open to us to resist the injustice that is to be wrought to the Church, at any rate, we say, while you are doing this injustice do not also inflict a great injury upon the cause of religion. Surely that is not unreasonable! I cannot believe that the only answer that will be offered to us is that Nonconformists simply refuse the money. Surely this House ought, as the great authority of the State, to sit impartially in the matter? It is not for us to consider what particular religious denomination will accept or reject. It is for us to consider what in the spiritual interests of the whole community it is they should accept. If after that they take the responsibility of handing the money over for some secular purpose, that is their responsibility, not ours. Our responsibility is to say that the money which has from old time been dedicated to religious purposes should, not be diverted to secular purposes. I cannot in this matter believe, if the matter were fairly considered, if hon. Members considered it fairly, apart from all party prejudice, and apart from all ulterior effects, that the mere subject necessarily produces on the general political position, I cannot

      2127
      believe that there would be a serious difference of opinion in this House on such a situation.
      I am confident that the overwhelming majority of religious Nonconformist opinion, of Nonconformist opinion that is not actually associated with politics, is strongly in favour of keeping money that has been given to religion for religious purposes. I quite understand that—I think it was the Chancellor of the Duchy who made the point—that no Nonconformist body or no assembly of Nonconformists has claimed any share of the money. I can quite understand they do not put it in that way. They do not say they desire to get something out of the settlement. It is unfair to ask for such a test as that. It is not reasonable to say to people, "We will not give you anything unless you come out and ask for it," because they would then lay themselves open to the accusation in the minds of unthinking people that they were actuated by unworthy motives. But if the question was put, "Do you think the money should be kept for spiritual purposes," I am sure the great mass of Nonconformists would say yes. They have their minds at present altogether confused by an artificial association between Establishment and and Endowment. These people do not understand the history of the matter and do not know how artificial that conjunction of the two ideas is. The case for Disestablishment and Disendowment are altogether different, and the case for Disendowment and the case for rejecting concurrent Endowment are altogether different. What we propose to the House is that you should retain for the particular spiritual purposes of propagating the Gospel the money that beyond all question was given to religious purposes, and not given to secular or municipal or communal purposes. We put it on the ground that no honest man who respects the dictates of justice could deny, and we put it still more when we say that it is withheld from the propagation of religious funds more than ever indispensable and urgently called for in, order that the work of religion may be properly carried out for the benefit of the people of Wales as well as those in other parts of the country. Do not let anyone lay to their consciences the solace that they do not incur a great moral responsibility in the vote they give on this question to-night. A vote against this Amendment will be a vote on the side of irreligion.
      Mr. WHYTE: The burden of the Noble Lord's speech is that Disendowment necessarily inflicts injury upon the cause of what I may call active religion. When a Church suffers injury inflicted in that way—and I imagine that description will be accepted by hon. Gentlemen opposite—it has been the almost universal observation that that Church, so far from diminishing in activity in the cause of religion, generally receives a great impetus in her work. That may seem a strange doctrine to propound in connection with Endowments. I see the hon. Member for Denbigh Burghs smiles incredulously. Fortunately we can bring it to the test, and from very recent events, and I propose to take two outstanding instances in recent ecclesiastical history in this country and on the Continent as showing that the contention of the Noble Lord is not fully justified. I recollect that in a previous speech of his he said to us on this side that we had no right to support Disendowment simply because we believed that Disendowment would act as a liberating force. But I think we are entitled to take into account the effect it will have in other respects, and I propose to give the House very briefly the two instances I have in my mind. I think no one will question the fact that the decision given some eight or nine years ago by the House of Lords in the famous Scottish Church case was a severe blow at the Church affected, and I ask the Noble Lord to mark this fact. There was as a result an outburst of enthusiasm and devotion in the cause of active religion within that Church which was absolutely unparalleled in the history of that Church since 1843, and the result was that not only was the financial damage very quickly and adequately repaired, but the sum of £300,000 was raised by voluntary subscription. No doubt the outrage was so great that Parliament ought to intervene to see that the trust was carried out in that respect, but the point which I am making is that that which was to all intents and purposes an act of Disendowment had the immediate effect of turning the Church in upon herself and renewing her old enthusiasm. We are all aware that the Noble Lord opposite dwells in a mediaeval atmosphere, and I do not propose to follow him, because I am dealing with twentieth century facts. The other case is even more remarkable, because it is exactly on all fours with what we are discussing to-night, or rather, it is the exact reverse

      2129
      but on the same subject. Some few years ago the State in France resolved to terminate concurrent Endowment, and the effect of that was to deprive every religious organisation in France of large sums of State money which they had previously enjoyed for their work. It is on record that in France the same religious result followed—and I speak with some knowledge of the Protestant bodies there—as in the Scotch case. What is more germane to this particular point is that, at all events, in one case which I have investigated—and possibly it was the same in all the Protestant Churches—the total income from voluntary sources after Disendowment was greater than the income before Disendowment from both voluntary and State sources combined. On the general question of the Noble Lord's speech we have again to confess, as we have done many times during these Debates, that there is a great and almost unsolvable conflict of principle between us. We believe that in the end the principle for which we stand is just, and that is why we feel that it must ultimately prevail.
      Colonel WILLIAMS: I should not have risen, but for the remarks of the hon. Member who has just spoken, which, if they mean anything at all, mean that the Nonconformists in this House are supporting this Bill for the sake of benefiting the
      Church of England in Wales. Is that true? Because it is alleged that certain Churches have been benefited by Disendowment, do our Nonconformist friends assert that they have taken up this Bill for the sake of benefiting the Church of England? They know it is nothing of the kind. The hon. Member has seized upon one passage in the eloquent and convincing speech of the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil), and he has tried to satisfy his own conscience by answering that one passage. That is a specimen of the way in which Nonconformists, I do not speak of Churchmen or Freethinkers—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about your own side?"]—I am talking of Nonconformists in this House when I say that is the way they are palliating their consciences when they know that they are deliberately taking away money which is being used for the spread of the Gospel and devoting it to purely secular purposes.
      It being Half-past Ten of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders of the House of 28th November, 1912, and 30th January, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
      The House divided. Ayes, 167; Noes, 278.

      Division No. 571.]

      AYES.

      [10.30. p.m.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Chaloner, Col. R G. W.

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

      Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

      Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Ashley, W. W.

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Astor, Waldort

      Clyde, J. Avon

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Baird, J. L.

      Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

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

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

      Cooper, Richard Ashmole

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Courthope, G. Loyd

      Hickman, Col. T. E.

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

      Craig, E. (ches., Crewe)

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Hills, John Waller

      Barnston, Harry

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Hill-Wood, Samuel

      Barrie, H. T.

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

      Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

      Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

      Hope, Harry (Bute)

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

      Dalrymple, Viscount

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

      Doughty, Sir George

      Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Home, W, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

      Bennett-Goldney, Francis

      Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

      Hunt, Rowland

      Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

      Falle, Bertram Godlray

      Hunter, Sir C. R.

      Bigland, Alfred

      Fell, Arthur

      Igleby, Holcombe

      Bird, A.

      Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

      Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

      Blair, Reginald

      Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Denis Fortescue

      Fleming, Valentine

      Kerry, Earl of

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Forster, Henry William

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Boyton, James

      Gardner, Ernest

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Gibbs, George Abraham

      Knight, Captain E. A.

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Gilmour, Captain John

      Kyffin-Taylor, G.

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Butcher, J. G.

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Larmor, Sir J.

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

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

      Campion, W. R.

      Grant, J. A.

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

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Greene, W. R.

      Lewlsham, Viscount

      Cassel, Felix

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

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

      Cator, John

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

      Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Cave, George

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

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

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

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

      Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

      Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

      Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)

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

      'Randies, Sir John S.

      Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Rawson, Col. R. H.

      Touche, George Alexander

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Tullibardine, Marquess of

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

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Valentla, Viscount

      Mount, William Arthur

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

      Rolleston, Sir John

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

      Newdegate, F, A.

      Royds, Edmund

      Wheler, Granville C. H.

      Newman, John R. P.

      Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen)

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

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby

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

      Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

      Salter, Arthur Claveil

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

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

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Wills, Sir Gilbert

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

      Sanders, Robert A.

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

      Perkins, Walter F.

      Stanier, Seville

      Yate, Col. Charles Edward

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Yerburgh, Robert A.

      Pole-Carew, Sir R.

      Starkey, John R.

      Younger, Sir George

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Stewart, Gershom

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Ormsby-Gore and Lord N. Crichton-Stuart.

      Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

      Talbot, Lord E.

      Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

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

      NOES.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Dewar, Sir J. A.

      Hodge, John

      Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

      Dickinson, W. H.

      Hogge, James Myles

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Dillon, John

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      adamson, William

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Addison, Dr. Christopher

      Doris, W.

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

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

      Duffy, William J.

      Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      Hudson, Walter

      Alden, Percy

      Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

      Hughes, S. L.

      Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Arnold, Sydney

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

      Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)

      Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      John, Edward Thomas

      Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

      Baltour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Essex, Sir Richard Walter

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Barnes, G. N.

      Esslemont, George Birnio

      Jones, J, Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Barton, W.

      Falconer, J.

      Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

      Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)

      Firench, Peter

      Joyce, Michael

      Bentham, George Jackson

      Field, William

      Keating, Matthew

      Bethell, Sir J. H.

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Boland, John Plus

      George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

      Kilbride, Denis

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Gill, A. H.

      King, J.

      Brace, William

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

      Brady, P. J.

      Glanville, Harold James

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Brunner, John F. L.

      Goldstone, Frank

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      Leach, Charles

      Buckmaster, Stanley O.

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Burke, E. Haviland.

      Greig, Colonel J. W.

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Griffith, Ellis J.

      Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

      Lundon, Thomas

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

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

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Lynch, A. A.

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Hackett, J.

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

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

      Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

      McGhee, Richard

      Chapple, Dr. William Allen

      Hancock, John George

      Maclean, Donald

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

      Clough, William

      Hardie, J. Keir

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

      Clynes, John R.

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

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

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      M'Micking, Major Gilbert

      Cotton, William Francis

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

      Hayward, Evan

      Martin, Joseph

      Crumley, Patrick

      Hazleton, Richard

      Meagher, Michael

      Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

      Healy, Maurice (Cork)

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Davies, E. William (Eiflon)

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

      Middlebrook, William

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Millar, James Duncan

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

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

      Molloy, M.

      Dawes, James Arthur

      Henry, Sir Charles

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      De Forest, Baron

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

      Mond, Sir Alfred M.

      Delany, William

      Higham, John Sharp

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Hinds, John

      Mooney, J. J.

      Devlin, Joseph

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Morgan, George Hay

      2132

      2133

      Morrell, Philip

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Morison, Hector

      Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

      Sutton, John E.

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Muldoon, John

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Munro, R.

      Reddy, M.

      Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

      Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Tennant, Harold John

      Needham, Christopher T.

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Thomas, J. H.

      Nolan, Joseph

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Richards, Thomas

      Verney, Sir Harry

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Wadsworth, J.

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      O'Dowd, John

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

      O'Grady, James

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

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

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

      O'Malley, William

      Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

      Watt, Henry A.

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

      Robinson, Sidney

      Webb, H.

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Roch, Walter F.

      Wedgwood, Josiah C.

      O'Shee, James John

      Roche, Augustine (Louth, N.)

      White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Rose, Sir Charles Day

      Whitehouse. John Howard

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Rowlands, James

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

      Parry, Thomas H.

      Russell, Rt. Hon, Thomas W.

      Wiles, Thomas

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

      Sheehy, David

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Pointer, Joseph

      Shortt, Edward

      Winfrey, Richard

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

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

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

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Young, William (Perth, East)

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

      Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Primrose, Hon. Neil James

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

      Radford, G. H.

      Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

      Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments and New Schedules moved by the Government of which notice had been given.
      Government Amendments made: In Subsection (1), paragraph (a),leave out the words "a scheme" ["in accordance with a scheme"], and insert instead thereof the words "one or more schemes." After the word "council" ["made by that council"], insert the words "either alone or jointly with any other such council." After the word "charitable" ["to any charitable eleemosynary or public purpose"], insert the word "or." Leave out the words "or public." At end insert the words, "including the aiding of poor scholars."
      In Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), after the word "of" ["University of Wales by way of payment"], insert the words "the appropriation of." After the word "of" ["for the benefit of the following institutions"], insert the words "the university and." After the word "Monmouthshire" insert the word "and." Leave out the words "and the National Museum of Wales." Leave out the words "each of the other institutions," and insert the words "the National Library of Wales." After the word "distributable" ["of the total amount so distributable"], insert the words and that in applying its share each
      2134
      such university college shall have regard to the needs of poor scholars."—[Mr. McKenna.]

      CLAUSE 21.—(Provision as to Trusts.)
      (1) Where any cathedral or ecclesiastical corporation dissolved by this Act holds any property in trust for any charitable purpose, the property shall on the dissolution of the corporation vest in the Welsh Commissioners, and the Commissioners shall, on the request of the representative body, transfer the property to that body or to persons appointed by them, subject to the trusts affecting the same, and under the same supervision, local or otherwise, as heretofore, or as near thereto as the circumstances of the case will admit.
      (2) Where any ecclesiastical persons are immediately before the date of Disestablishment in right of their offices entitled to be members of any bodies constituted for the management of any private Endowment, or trustees for the management of property belonging to institutions or private foundations for purposes not ecclesiastical, then the persons (if any) who may hereafter at any time discharge duties similar or analogous to those now discharged by those ecclesiastical persons shall be entitled to succeed in their room and to be members of such bodies and to act as such trustees.
      Government Amendments made: In Sub-section (2), after the word "be" ["in right of their offices entitled to be"], insert the words "trustees of any property held in trust for any charitable purpose or." After the word "ecclesiastical" ["for purposes not ecclesiastical"]; insert the words "or to exercise any control or to give any consent or approval in respect of any trust, Endowment, foundation or institution." After the word "persons" ["discharged by those ecclesiastical persons"], insert the words "and in succession to them." After the word "trustees" ["and to act as such trustees"], insert the words "and to
      exercise such control and give such consent or approval."—[Mr. McKenna.]
      Government Amendment proposed: In Sub-section (2), at the end add the words,
      "Provided that the bishops of the Church in Wales shall not as such continue to be Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty."—[Mr. McKenna.]
      Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
      The House divided: Ayes, 280; Noes, 167.

      Division No. 572.]

      AYES.

      [10.45 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Dewar, Sir J. A.

      Hogge, James Myles

      Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

      Dickinson, W. H.

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Dillon, John

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Adamson, William

      Donelan, Captain A.

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      Addison, Dr. C.

      Doris, William

      Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

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

      Duffy, William J.

      Hudson, Walter

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Hughes, S. L.

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Duncan, J, Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      Alden, Percy

      Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)

      Arnold, Sydney

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

      John, Edward Thomas

      Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

      Elverston, Sir Harold

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

      Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Essex, Sir Richard Walter

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Barnes, George N.

      Esslemont, George Birnle

      Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

      Barton, William

      Falconer, J.

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Joyce, Michael

      Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

      Firench, Peter

      Keating, M.

      Bentham, George Jackson

      Field, William

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Bethell, Sir J. H.

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Kilbride, Denis

      Boland, John Plus

      George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

      King, J.

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Gill, A. H.

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

      Brace, William

      Glanville, H. J.

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Brady, P. J,

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Brocklehurst, William B.

      Goldstone, Frank

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

      Brunner, J. F. L.

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      Leach, Charles

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Buckmaster, Stanley O.

      Greig, Colonel James William

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Burke, E. Havlland-

      Griffith, Ellis J.

      Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

      Lundon, T.

      Burt. Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Gulland, John William

      Lyell, Charles Henry

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

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Lynch, A. A.

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Hackett, J.

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

      McGhee, Richard

      Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

      Hancock, John George

      Maclean, Donald

      Chapple, Dr. William Allen

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Hardie, J. Keir

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

      Clough, William

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Clynes, John R.

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

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

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      M'Mlcking, Major Gilbert

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A,

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Cotton, William Francis

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Hayward, Evan

      Martin, Joseph

      Crawshay-Williams, Ellot

      Hazleton, Richard

      Meagher, Michael

      Crumley, Patrick

      Healy, Maurice (Cork)

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

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

      Middlebrook, William

      Davies, Ellis William (Eiflon)

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Millar, James Duncan

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

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

      Molloy, Michael

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

      Henry, Sir Charles

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Dawes, J. A.

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

      Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

      De Forest, Baron

      Higham, John Sharp

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Delany, William

      Hinds, John

      Mooney, John J.

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Morgan, George Hay

      Devlin, Joseph

      Hodge, John

      Morrell, Philip

      Morison, Hector

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Muldoon, John

      Reddy, M.

      Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

      Munro, Robert

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Tennant, Harold John

      Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Thomas, James Henry

      Needham, Christopher T.

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Nolan, Joseph

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Norton, Captain C. W.

      Richards, Thomas

      Verney, Sir Harry

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Wadsworth, J.

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      O'Dowd, John

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

      O'Grady, James

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

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

      Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

      Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

      O'Malley, William

      Robinson, Sidney

      Watt, Henry A.

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

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      Webb, H.

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Wedgwood, Josiah c.

      O'Shee, James John

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Rose, Sir Charles Day

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Rowlands, James

      Whitehouse, John Howard

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

      Whyte, A. F.

      Parry, Thomas H.

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

      Wiles, Thomas

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Sheehy, David

      Williams, John (Glamorgan)

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

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Shortt, Edward

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

      Pointer, Joseph

      Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Ailsebrook

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Ponsonby. Arthur A. W. H.

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Winfrey, Richard

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

      Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

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

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

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

      Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

      Primrose, Hon. Neil James

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W.)

      Radford, G. H.

      Sutherland, J. E.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. G. Howard and Captain Guest.

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Sutton, John E.

      Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Cripps, Sir C. A.

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

      Dalrymple, Viscount

      Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

      Ashley, Wilfrid W.

      Doughty, Sir George

      Kyffin-Taylor, G.

      Astor, Waldorf

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Baird, J. L.

      Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

      Larmor, Sir J.

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

      Falle, Bertram Godfray

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

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Fell, Arthur

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

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

      Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

      Lewisham, Viscount

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

      Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

      Barnston, Harry

      Fleming, Valentine

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

      Barrie, H. T.

      Forster, Henry William

      Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

      Gardner, Ernest

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

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

      Gibbs, G. A.

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

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

      Gilmour, Captain John

      Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth]

      Goldsmith, Frank

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

      Bennett-Goldney, Francis

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

      Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Bigland, Alfred

      Grant, J. A.

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

      Bird A.

      Greene, W. R.

      Mount, William Arthur

      Blair, Reginald

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

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

      Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

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

      Newdegate, F. A.

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Newman, John R. P.

      Boyton, James

      Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

      Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

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

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Harris. Henry Percy

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

      Butcher, John George

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

      Helmsley. Viscount

      Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

      Campion, W. R.

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

      Peel, Captain R. F.

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Perkins, Walter Frank

      Cassel, Felix

      Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Cator, John

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Pole-Carew, Sir R.

      Cave, George

      Hills, John Waller

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Hill-Wood, Samuel

      Pretyman, E. G.

      Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

      Hoare, S. J. G.

      Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

      Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

      Hope, Harry (Bute)

      Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

      Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Randies, Sir John S.

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

      Rawilnson, John Frederick Peel

      Clyde, James Avon

      Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

      Rawson, Col. Richard H.

      Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

      Hunt, Rowland

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Cooper, Richard Ashmole

      Hunter, Sir Chas. Rodk.

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Courthope, George Loyd

      Ingleby, Holcombe

      Roberts. S. (Sheffield, Ecclesail)

      Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

      Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

      Rolleston, Sir John

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Royds, Edmund

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Kerry, Earl of

      Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen)

      Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      2138

      2139

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Sanders, Robert Arthur

      Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

      Wills, Sir Gilbert

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

      Thynne, Lord A.

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Touche, George Alexander

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      Stanler, Beville

      Tullibardine, Marquess of

      Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Valentia, Viscount

      Yate, Colonel C. E.

      Starkey, John Ralph

      Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

      Yerburgh, Robert A.

      Stewart, Gershom

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

      Younger, Sir George

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington)

      Wheler, Granville C. H.

      Talbot, Lord E.

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

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir H. Craik and Mr. Hills.

      Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

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

      CLAUSE 22.—(Saving for Marriage Law.)
      Government Amendment made: Leave out the Clause.

      CLAUSE 23.—(Supplemental Provisions as to Burial Grounds.)
      Government Amendments made: In Subsection (3), paragraph (a), leave out the word "Divine" ["purpose of Divine worship"], and insert instead thereof the words "public or private."
      In paragraph (b), after the word "made" ["other regulations shall be made"], insert the words "by the Secretary of State."
      In paragraph (c), after the word "repair," insert the words "by the authority."
      In paragraph (d), after the word "enlargement" ["enlargement of the Church"], insert the words "or repair." After the word "and" ["and the part so used"], insert the words "where used for the purpose of the enlargement of the Church."

      CLAUSE 25.—(Powers of Incumbents with Respect to Property in which they have Existing Interest.)
      During the continuance of the existing interest of the holder of any ecclesiastical office in the Church in Wales in any property transferred under this Act to the representative body, any power of sale, leasing, mortgaging, exchanging, or otherwise disposing of or dealing with that property exerciseable by the holder of that office at the passing of this Act shall continue exerciseable by him, but no such power shall be exercised by him without the consent of the representative body, and such consent as aforesaid shall be substituted for any
      consents or approval which would have been required if this Act had not been passed:
      Provided that where under the Acts in pursuance of which property is disposed of or dealt with the whole or any part of the proceeds of the consideration received for the sale, leasing, mortgage, exchange, disposal of, or dealing with the property is payable to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty or the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, or any other authority, it shall be paid to the representative body, and shall, subject to the existing interest of the incumbent, become the property of that body.
      Government Amendment made: Leave out the words "transferred under this Act to the representative body."—[Mr. MeKenna.]
      Government Amendment proposed: To leave out the words "without the consent of the representative body," and insert instead thereof the words—

      "(a) in the case of property transferred or to be transferred to the representative body, without the consent of that body; and

      (b)in the case of property transferred or to be transferred to a county council, without the consent of the Welsh Commissioners so long as they continue to exist, and thereafter of the county council, or on appeal of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries."—[Mr. McKenna.]

      Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
      The House divided: Ayes, 277; Noes, 164.

      Division No. 573.]

      AYES.

      [10.57 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Arnold, Sydney

      Bentham, George Jackson

      Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

      Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

      Bethell, Sir J. H.

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Adamson, William

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Boland, John Plus

      Addison, Dr. Christopher

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Booth, Frederick Handel

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

      Barnes, G. N.

      Brace, William

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Barton, W.

      Brady, p. J.

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Alden, Percy

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Brunner, J. F. L.

      Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

      Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Buckmaster, Stanley O.

      Higham, John Sharp

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Hinds, John

      Parry, Thomas H.

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Hodge, John

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

      Hogge, James Myles

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

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Pointer, Joseph

      Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Chapple, Dr. William Allen

      Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

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

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Hudson, Walter

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

      Clough, William

      Hughes, S. L.

      Primrose, Hon. Nell James

      Clynes, John R.

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Collins, Godfrey p. (Greenock)

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Radford, G. H.

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      John, Edward Thomas

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

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

      Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Cotton, William Francis

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Reddy, Michael

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

      Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Crumley, Patrick

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

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

      Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

      Joyce, Michael

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Davies, E. William (Eifion)

      Keating, Matthew

      Richards, Thomas

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

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

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Dawes, J. A.

      Kilbride, Denis

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      De Forest, Baron

      King, Joseph

      Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

      Delany, William

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

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)

      Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

      Devlin, Joseph

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Robinson, Sidney

      Dewar, Sir J. A.

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      Dickinson, W. H.

      Leach, Charles

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Dillon, John

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Donelan. Captain A.

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Rose, Sir Charles Day

      Doris, William

      Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

      Rowlands, James

      Duffy, William J.

      Lundon, T.

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      Lynch, A. A.

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

      Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      McGhee, Richard

      Sheehy, David

      Edwards, J. H. (Glamorgan, Mid)

      Maclean, Donald

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Elverston, Sir Harold

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

      Shortt, Edward

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

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

      Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

      Esmonds, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Essex, Sir Richard Walter

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

      Esslemont, George Birnle

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Falconer, James

      McKenna, Rt. Hon, Reginald

      Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

      Farrell, James Patrick

      M'Micking, Major Gilbert

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Sutton, John E.

      Firench, Peter

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Field, William

      Martin, Joseph

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Meagher, Michael

      Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Tennant, Harold John

      George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

      Middlebrook, William

      Thomas, James Henry

      Gill, A. H.

      Millar, James Duncan

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Glanville, H. J.

      Molloy, Michael

      Thorne, W. (West Ham)

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Verney, Sir Harry

      Goldstone, Frank

      Mond, Sir Alfred M.

      Wadsworth, J.

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Walsh, Stephen (Lanvs., Ince)

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      Mooney, John J.

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Greig, Colonel J. W.

      Morgan, George Hay

      Ward, W. (Dudley (Southampton)

      Griffith, Ellis J.

      Morrell, Philip

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

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

      Morison, Hector

      Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

      Gulland, John William

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Watt, Henry A.

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Muldoon, John

      Webb, H.

      Hackett, J.

      Munro, R.

      White. J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

      Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

      Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Hancock, J. G.

      Needham, Christopher T,

      Whitehouse, John Howard

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Nolan, Joseph

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.

      Hardie, J. Keir

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Whyte, A. F.

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Wiles, Thomas

      Harvey, A. G. c. (Rochdale)

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

      Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire)

      O'Dowd, John

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      O'Grady, James

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

      Havelock-Allan, sir Henry

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

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Hayden, John Patrick

      O'Malley, William

      Winfrey, Richard

      Hayward, Evan

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

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

      Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

      Healy, Maurice (Cork)

      O'Shee, James John

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

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

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. G. Howard and Captain Guest.

      Henry, Sir Charles

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Hon., S.)

      2142

      2143

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Gardner, Ernest

      Newman, John R. P.

      Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

      Gibbs, G. A.

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      Ashley, Wilfrid W.

      Gilmour, Captain John

      Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

      Astor, Waldorf

      Goldsmith, Frank

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

      Baird, John Lawrence

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

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

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Grant, J. A.

      Peel, Captain R. F.

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

      Greene, W. R.

      Perkins, Walter Frank

      Barlow, Montague (Saltord, South)

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

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Barnston, Harry

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

      Pole-Carew, Sir R.

      Barrie, H. T.

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

      Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

      Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

      Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

      Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Randles, Sir John S.

      Bennett-Goldney, Francis

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

      Bigland, Alfred

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

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Bird, Alfred

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Blair, Reginald

      Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Rolleston, Sir John

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Hills, John Waller

      Royds, Edmund

      Boyton, James

      Hill-Wood, Samuel

      Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

      Bridgeman, William Clive

      Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

      Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool, Derby)

      Burdett-Coutts, William

      Hope, Harry (Bute)

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Butcher, John George

      Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

      Sanders, Robert Arthur

      Campion, W. R.

      Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Hunt, Rowland

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Cassel, Felix

      Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

      Stanier, Beville

      Cator, John

      Ingleby, Holcombe

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Cave, George

      Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

      Starkey, John Ralph

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Stewart, Gershom

      Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

      Kerry, Earl of

      Talbot, Lord Edmund

      Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

      Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Knight, Captain E. A.

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

      Clyde, James Avon

      Kyffin-Taylor, G.

      Touche, George Alexander

      Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Tullibardine, Marquess of

      Cooper, Richard Ashmole

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Valentia, Viscount

      Courthope, George Loyd

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

      Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

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

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Lewisham, Viscount

      Wheler, Granville C. H.

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

      Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

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

      Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

      Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Dalrymple, Viscount

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

      Wills, Sir Gilbert

      Doughty, Sir George

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

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      Duke, Henry Edward

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

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

      Meysey-Thompson, E.C.

      Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

      Falle, Bertram Godfray

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Yate, Col. C. E.

      Fell, Arthur

      Mills. Hon. Charles Thomas

      Yerburgh, Robert A.

      Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

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

      Younger, Sir George

      Fitzroy, Hon, Edward A.

      Mount, William Arthur

      Fleming, Valentine

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Ernest Craig and Mr. John Lyttelton

      Forster, Henry William

      Newdegate, F. A.

      Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: May I say, on a point of Order, Sir, that I was in the Lobby just now, and the clerks took the paper on which they recorded the names of Members off the door as I was going through, and I pointed out to them that they had taken the paper off too soon, because I had not voted. This they admitted, but they said that the Tellers had left the door. May I ask whether I can now have my name recorded?
      Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that the hon. Member sat too long in his seat.
      Further Government Amendments made: After the word "body" ["paid to the representative body"], insert the words "or the county council as the case
      2144
      may be." After the word "body" ["property of that body"], insert the words "or council."—[Mr. HcKenna.]

      CLAUSE 26.—(Powers of Management and Sale.)
      Government Amendment made: At the end of the Clause insert—
      (3) As respects glebe and other land transferred to the representative body subject to the payment of the value thereof, the Welsh Commissioners may allow the whole or any part of the money payable by the representative body to remain on mortgage of the glebe or other land transferred, or may allow the payment to be made by instalments

      2145
      spread over such term of years as they may determine."—[Mr. McKenna.]

      CLAUSE 29.—(Borrowing Powers.)
      (1) The Welsh Commissioners may, with the consent of the Treasury, and upon such terms as the Treasury may approve, borrow such sums of money as they may think expedient for carrying into effect any provisions of this Act and may save as otherwise expressly provided by this Act, give as security for the repayment of any sums so borrowed and the interest thereon, any part of the property vested in them by this Act, but shall determine as between the several parts of property so given as security the part or parts to be primarily liable for the several sums so borrowed.
      (2) The National Debt Commissioners, if they think fit, may, out of any money in their hands, advance to the Welsh Commissioners, with such guarantee as is by this Act authorised (but not otherwise), any money which by this Act the Welsh Commissioners are authorised to borrow.
      (3) The Treasury may, if they think fit, guarantee the payment of the principal and interest of all or any part of any money borrowed by the Welsh Commissioners.
      {4) Any security given by the Welsh Commisioners in pursuance of this Act shall be in such form, and may contain such powers of sale or otherwise, as the Treasury approve, and there shall be certified thereon, in such form and manner as the Treasury direct, any guarantee given by the Treasury.
      (5) For giving effect to the guarantee aforesaid, the Treasury, in aid of any money applicable under this Act for payment of principal and interest for the time being accrued due in respect of any money borrowed by the Welsh Commissioners in pursuance of this Act, may cause to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, or the growing produce thereof, such sums as may be necessary for payment of the said principal and interest, or of any part thereof respectively.
      (6) If any money is at any time issued cut of the Consolidated Fund in pursuance of the guarantee aforesaid, the Treasury shall cause the same to be repaid to the Consolidated Fund out of the funds in the bands of the Welsh Commissioners.
      Government Amendments made: In Subsection (1) leave out the words "save as otherwise expressly provided by this Act."
      2146
      After the word "Act" ["vested in them by this Act"] insert the words "other than any property required by this Act to be transferred to the representative body."
      At the end of Clause insert the words "or of their successors in title to the property given as security."—[Mr. McKenna.]

      CLAUSE 37.—(Interpretation.)
      After the words "The expression 'burial authority means any burial board and any council, committee, or other local authority having the powers and duties of a burial board under the Burial Acts, 1852 and 1906, and any local authority," insert the words "other than a rural district council."—[Mr. McKenna.]
    FIRST SCHEDULE.

      Part I.—PROPERTY VESTED IN THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS WHICH IS TO BE DEEMED WELSH ECCLESIASTICAL PROPERTY.
      Government Amendments made: After the word "office" ["an ecclesiastical office in the Church of Wales"], insert the words "or cathedral corporation." Leave out the words,
      "and a sum equal to the amount applied by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in such purchases shall be deducted from the produce of the property coming within the preceding paragraph of this Schedule accordingly,"
      and insert instead thereof the words,
      "the produce of such last-mentioned property shall be taken as having been diminished by the amount expended by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners on such purchases."—[Mr. McKenna.]

    SECOND SCHEDULE.

      PROPERTY VESTED IN QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY WHICH IS TO BE DEEMED WELSH ECCLESIASTICAL PROPERTY.
      Government Amendments made: Leave out paragraph.
      (b) does not consist of money arising from the sale of parsonage houses in Wales or Monmouthshire, or the securities in which any such money is for the time being invested.
      Leave out the words
      "For the purpose of determining what property is derived from sources other than Welsh sources, Queen Anne's Bounty shall ascertain and by order declare the amount by which Grants made out of the Royal Bounty Fund for the purposes of the Church in Wales have

      2147
      exceeded the sums received by them by way of first fruits and tenths in respect of ecclesiastical offices in the Church in Wales, and such part of any Grant so made by them as is proportionate to such excess shall be deemed to have been derived from sources other than "Welsh sources."
      And insert instead thereof the words
      "Two-thirds of each Grant made by Queen Anne's Bounty out of the Royal Bounty Fund shall, for the purposes of this Schedule, be deemed to have been derived from sources other than Welsh sources."—[Mr. McKenna.]

    THIRD SCHEDULE.

      Part III.—PROPERTY A PERPETUAL ANNUITY OF THE ANNUAL VALUE OF WHICH MAY BE CHARGED ON THE COMMON FUND OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS.
      1. Charges on the common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners made before passing of this Act by way of grant or provision for any ecclesiastical purposes in the Church in Wales, not being charges in respect of the property mentioned in Part I. of this Schedule and not being Welsh ecclesiastical property within the meaning of this Act.
      2. The average amount granted by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners out of the annual appropriations from the surplus income of their common fund during the seven years ending the thirty-first day of October, nineteen hundred and twelve, by way of augmentation or Endowment of benefices or towards the stipends of assistant clergy in Wales and Monmouthshire.

      Part IV.—PROPERTY A PERPETUAL ANNUITY OF THE ANNUAL VALUE or WHICH MAY BE CHARGED ON THR ROYAL BOUNTY FUND.
      The average amount by which the Grants made out of the Royal Bounty Fund for the purposes of the Church in Wales in the seven years ending the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twelve, have exceeded the average annual amounts received by Queen Anne's Bounty in those years by way of first fruits and tenths in respect of ecclesiastical offices in the Church in Wales.
      Government Amendments made: In Part III., paragraph (1), leave out the words "or provision."
      At the end of paragraph (1), insert the words
      "(2) A sum equal to the difference between the aggregate annual amount of the sums mentioned in paragraph (2) of Part II. of the First Schedule to this Act, and the annual value of the property mentioned in paragraph (1) of Part I. of that Schedule."
      Leave out paragraph 2.
      Leave out the words of Part IV., and insert instead thereof the words
      "Limit of amount which may be granted in any year by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to the representative body.
      A sum equal to the average amount granted by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners out of the annual appropriations from the surplus income of their common fund during the seven years ended the thirty-first day of October, nineteen hundred and eleven, by way of augmentation or endowment of benefices or towards the stipends of assistant clergy in Wales or Monmouthshire."—[Mr. McKenna.]
      Government Amendment proposed: To insert the following new Schedule:—

      FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Method of Calculating Existing Interests for Purposes of Commutation.)
      (1) The value of the existing interest of the holder of an ecclesiastical office in any property shall be taken to be the value as on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirteen of an annuity payable half-yearly, commencing on that date during the life of the person who was at that date holder of the office, of an amount equal to the annual value of the interest.
      (2) In determining the value of such annuity as aforesaid, interest shall be calculated at the rate of 3é per cent, per annum, and the tables to be used shall be the Tables of Mortality of Government Life Annuitants (1912), subject however to such allowance as may be determined, in default of agreement between the Welsh Commissioners and the representative body, by an actuary appointed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, after giving the parties, if they desire it, an opportunity of being heard, to be the proper allowance to be made on account of the greater longevity of the clergy as compared with other classes of the community, and on account of any prospective-decrease in the death rate.
      (3) The annual value of the interest shall be taken to be—

      (a) if the interest is an interest in specific property, the annual income derived from that property; and

      (b) if the interest consists of a right to receive a fixed annual sum, the amount of that sum,

      after deducting any tenths payable by the holder of the ecclesiastical office.
      (4) The annual income derived from property shall be taken to be—

      (a) in the case of tithe rent-charge, the amount of the tithe rent-charge according to the septennial average in force at the date of Disestablishment, after deducting two and one-half per cent, on account of the cost of collection and the average amount paid during the three years preceding the passing of this Act on account of rates and land tax;

      (b) in the case of land which is at the date of Disestablishment subject to a contract of tenancy, the annual amount payable by way of rent under the contract by the tenant after deducting the amount of any fixed charges on the land and Land Tax (unless borne by the tenant) and, except where the contract is a repairing lease, after deducting 9 per cent, on account of repairs and other outgoings:

      Provided that, if in any case the representative body so require, the annual income shall be taken to be—
      (i) where the contract is a building lease of which less than sixty years remain unexpired, such amount as, in default of agreement, may be determined by arbitration having regard to the then present value of the reversion expectant on the determination of the lease; and
      (ii) where the contract is a mining lease, such amount as, in default of agreement, may be determined by arbitration; and
      (iii) where the contract is not a building or a mining lease, one twenty-fifth of the gross value of the land as determined for the purposes of Part I. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910;
      (c) in the case of land which, at the date of Disestablishment, is not subject to a contract of tenancy, the annual value of the land as ascertained at that date for the purposes of Schedule A of the Income Tax Acts, after deducting the amount of any fixed charges on the land:
      Provided that, if in any case the representative body so require, the annual income shall be taken to be one twenty-fifth of the gross value of the land as determined for the purposes of Part I. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910.
      (5) For the purposes of this Schedule—
      The expression "fixed charge" has the same meaning as in the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910;
      The expressions "building lease" and "mining lease" have the same meanings as in the Settled Land Act, 1882;
      The expression "repairing lease" means a lease under which the tenant undertakes to bear the cost of repairs;
      The expression "contract of tenancy" means a letting of or agreement for letting land for a term of years, or for lives, or for lives and years, or from year to year.
      Question put, "That the Schedule be added to the Bill."
      The House divided: Ayes, 275; Noes, 167.

      Division No. 574.]

      AYES.

      [11.12 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Barnes, G. N.

      Buckmaster, Stanley O.

      Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

      Barton, W.

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Adamson, William

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Addison, Dr. Christopher

      Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

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

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

      Bentham, G. J.

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Agnew, Sir George William

      Bethell, Sir J. H.

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Cawley, Harold T. (Lanes., Heywood)

      Alden, Percy

      Boland, John Plus

      Chapple, Dr. William Allen

      Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Arnold, Sydney

      Brace, William

      Clough, William

      Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

      Brady, P. J.

      Clynes, John R.

      Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Brunner, John F. L.

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Cotton, William Francis

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Hudson, Walter

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

      Hughes, S. L.

      Pointer, Joseph

      Crumley, Patrick

      Illingworth, Percy H.

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

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

      Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

      John, Edward Thomas

      Primrose, Hon. Neil James

      Davies, E. William (Eiflon)

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

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvll)

      Radford, G. H.

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

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Dawes, James Arthur

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

      De Forest, Baron

      Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Delany, William

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

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Joyce, Michael

      Reddy, M.

      Devlin, Joseph

      Keating, Matthew.

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Dewar, Sir J. A.

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Dickinson, W. H.

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      Dillon, John

      Kilbride, Denis

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Donelan, Captain A.

      King, J.

      Richards, Thomas

      Doris, W.

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

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Duffy, William J.

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

      Leach, Charles

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Robinson, Sidney

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

      Roch, Walter F.

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Lundon, Thomas

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Essex, Sir Richard Walter

      Lynch, A. A.

      Rose, Sir Charles Day

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

      Rowlands, James

      Falconer, J.

      McGhee, Richard

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Farrell, James Patrick

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

      Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

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

      Firench, Peter

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Field, William

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Sheehy, David

      Fitzgibbon, John

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Shortt, Edward

      George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

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

      Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

      Gill, A. H.

      M'Mlcking, Major Gilbert

      Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

      Glanvillc, Harold James

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Goldstone, Frank

      Martin, Joseph

      Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, Wesh)

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      Meagher, Michael

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Sutton, John E.

      Greig, Colonel J. W.

      Middlebrook, William

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Griffiths, Ellis J.

      Millar, James Duncan

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

      Molloy, M.

      Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

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

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Tennant, Harold John

      Gulland, John William

      Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

      Thomas, J. H.

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Money, L. G. Chlozza

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Hackett, J.

      Mooney, J. J.

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

      Morgan, George Hay

      Verney, Sir Harry

      Hancock, John George

      Morrell, Philip

      Wadsworth, J.

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Morison, Hector

      Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

      Hardie, J. Keir

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Muldoon, John

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Munro, R.

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

      Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

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

      Needham, Christopher T.

      Watt, Henry A.

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Nolan, Joseph

      White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Norton, Captain Cecil W

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Hayden, John Patrick

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Whitehouse, John Howard

      Hay ward, Evan

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

      Hazleton, Richard

      O'Doherty, Philip

      Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

      Healy, Maurice (Cork)

      O'Dowd, John

      Wiles, Thomas

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

      O'Grady, James

      Wiikie, Alexander

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

      Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

      Henry, Sir Charles

      O'Malley, William

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

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

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

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

      Higham, John Sharp

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Hinds, John

      O'Shee, James John

      Winfrey, Richard

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

      Hodge, John

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Young, William (Perth, East)

      Hogge, James Myles

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Holt, Richard Dunning

      Parry, Thomas H.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. W. Jones and Mr. Webb.

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Astor, Waldorf

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

      Balrd, J. L.

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

      Ashley, W. W.

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

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      2152

      2153

      Barnston, Harry

      Grant, J. A.

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

      Barrie, H. T.

      Greene, W. R.

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

      Bathunst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

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

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

      Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

      Beauchamp, Sir Edward

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Perkins, Walter F.

      Beckett, Hon, Gervase

      Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

      Pole-Carew, Sir R.

      Bennett-Goldney, Francis

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Bigland, Alfred

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

      Bird, A.

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Randies, Sir John S.

      Blair, Reginald

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

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

      Howins, William Albert Samuel

      Rawson, Col. R. H.

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Hickman, Colonel T. E.

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Boyton, James

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Hills, John Waller

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Hill-Wood, Samuel

      Rolleston, Sir J. D.

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

      Royds, Edmund

      Butcher, J. G.

      Hope, Harry (Bute)

      Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

      Campion, W. R.

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Cassel, Felix

      Home, Edgar (Surey, Guildford)

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Cator, John

      Hunt, Rowland

      Sanders, Robert A.

      Cave, George

      Hunter, Sir C. R.

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Ingleby, Holcombe

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

      Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

      Stanier, Beville

      Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

      Kerry, Earl of

      Starkey, John R.

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Stewart, Gershom

      Clyde, J. Avon

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Talbot, Lord E.

      Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

      Knight, Captain E. A.

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

      Cooper, Richard Ashmole

      Kyffin-Taylor, G.

      Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

      Courthope, G. Loyd

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

      Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Touche, George Alexander

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

      Tullibardine, Marquess of

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

      Vaientia, Viscount

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Lewlsham, Viscount

      Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

      Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

      Locker-Lampsoll, O. (Ramsey)

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

      Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

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

      Wheler, Granville C. H.

      Dalrymple, Viscount

      Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

      Doughty, Sir George

      Lowe, Sir F. (Birm., Edgbaston)

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

      Duke, Henry Edward

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

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

      Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

      Wills, Sir Gilbert

      Falle, Bertram Godfray

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

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

      Fleming, Valentine

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      Yate, Col. Charles Edward

      Forster, Henry William

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

      Yerburgh, Robert A.

      Gibbs, G. A.

      Mount, William Arthur

      Younger, Sir George

      Gilmour, Captain John

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      Newdegate, F. A.

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Newman, John R. P.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Fell and Col. Pryce-Jones

      Gordon, Hon John Edward (Brighton)

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

      FIFTH SCHEDULE. —(Method of Calculating Annuity to which Holder of an Ecclesiastical Office is Entitled in Lieu of Existing Interest which has been Commuted.)
      Motion made, and Question put, "That this Schedule be added to the Bill."
      The House divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 160.

      Division No. 575.]

      AYES.

      [11.22 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

      Clynes, John R.

      Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

      Boland, John Plus

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

      Adamson, William

      Brace, William

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Addison, Dr. Christopher

      Brady, P. J.

      Cotton, William Francis

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

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Brunner, John F. L.

      Crawshay-Williams, Ellot

      Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Crumley, Patrick

      Arnold, Sydney

      Buckmaster, Stanley O.

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

      Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

      Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Davies, E. William (Eifion)

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

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

      Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

      Barnes, G. N.

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

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

      Barton, W.

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Dawes, James Arthur

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

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

      De Forest, Baron

      Beck, Arthur Cecil

      Chapple, Dr. William Allen

      Delany, William

      Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Denman, Hon. R. D.

      Bentham, G. J.

      Clough, William

      Devlin, Joseph

      Dewar. Sir J. A.

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Primrose, Hon. Neil James

      Dickinson, W. H.

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Dillon, John

      Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

      Radford, G. H.

      Donclan. Captain A.

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

      Raflan, Peter Wilson

      Doris, W.

      Joyce, Michael

      Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

      Duffy, William J.

      Keating, Matthew

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Duncan. C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Reddy, M.

      Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

      Kilbride, Denis

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      King, J.

      Redmond, William (Clare E.)

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

      Richards, Thomas

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Essex, Sir Richard Walter

      Leach, Charles

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Esslemont, George Birnie

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Falconer, J.

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

      Roberts, Sir H. (Denbighs)

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Lundon, Thomas

      Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

      Ffrench, Peter

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Robinson. Sidney

      Field, William

      Lynch, A, A.

      Roch, Walter F.

      Fitzgibbon, John

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      McGhee, Richard

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

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

      Rose, Sir Charles Day

      Gill, A. H.

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

      Rowlands, James

      Glanville, Harold James

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

      Goldstone, Frank

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

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

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

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

      Sheehy, David

      Greig, Colonel J. W.

      M'Micking, Major Gilbert

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Griffith, Ellis J.

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Shortt, Edward

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

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

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

      Martin, Joseph

      Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

      Gulland, John William

      Meagher, Michael

      Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Median, Francis (Leitrim, N.)

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

      Hackett, J.

      Middlebrook, William

      Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

      Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

      Millar, James Duncan

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Hancock, John George

      Molloy, M.

      Sutton, John E.

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

      Hardie, J. Keir

      Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Mooney, J. J.

      Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Morgan, George Hay

      Tennant, Harold John

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

      Morrell, Philip

      Thomas, J. H.

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

      Morison, Hector

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

      Thorne, William (West Ham)

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Muldoon, John

      Verney, Sir Harry

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Munro, R.

      Wadsworth, J.

      Hayward, Evan

      Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

      Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

      Hazleton, Richard

      Needham, Christopher T.

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Healy, Maurice (Cork)

      Nolan, Joseph

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

      Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E)

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

      Henry, Sir Charles

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Watt, Henry A.

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

      O'Doherty, Philip

      White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

      Highant, John Sharp

      O'Dowd, John

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Hinds, John

      O'Grady, James

      Whitehouse, John Howard

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

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

      Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

      Hodge, John

      O'Malley, William

      Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

      Hogge, James Myles

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

      Wilkie, Alexander

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      O Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

      Holt, Richard Durning

      O'Shee, James John

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      O'Sullivan, Timothy

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

      Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Winfrey, Richard

      Hudson, Walter

      Parry, Thomas H.

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

      Hughes, S. L.

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Young, William (Perth, East)

      Illingworth, Percy H.

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

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

      John, Edward Thomas

      Pointer, Joseph

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. W. Jones and Mr. Webb.

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

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Priestley, Sir W E. B. (Bradford)

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Barnston, Harry

      Blair, Reginald

      Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

      Barrie, H. T,

      Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

      Ashley, W. W.

      Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Astor, Waldori

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

      Boyton, James

      Baird, J. L.

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Bennett-Goldney, Francis

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

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

      Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

      Butcher, J. G.

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Bird, A.

      Campion, W. R.

      2156

      2157

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Pole-Carew, Sir R.

      Cassel, Felix

      Hickman, Colonel T. E.

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Cator, John

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Cave, George

      Hills, John Waller

      Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Hill-Wood, Samuel

      Quitter, Sir William Eley C.

      Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

      Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

      Randies, Sir John S.

      Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

      Hope, Harry (Bute)

      Rawlinson, J. F. P.

      Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Rawson, Col. R. H.

      Clive, Captain Percy Archer

      Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Clyde, J. Avon

      Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

      Hunt, Rowland

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Cooper, Richard Ashmole

      Hunter, Sir C. R.

      Rolleston, Sir John

      Courthope, G, Loyd

      Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

      Royds, Edmund

      Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen)

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Kerry, Earl of

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

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Salter, Arthur Clavell

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Sanders, Robert Arthur

      Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

      Knight, Captain E. A.

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

      Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

      Kyffin-Taylor, G.

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Dalrymple, Viscount

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Stanler, Beville

      Doughty, Sir George

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Stanley, G. F. (Preston)

      Duke, Henry Edward

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

      Starkey, John R.

      Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

      Lewisham, Viscount

      Talbot, Lord E.

      Falle, Bertram Godfray

      Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

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

      Fell, Arthur

      Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

      Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

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

      Thomson. W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

      Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

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

      Touche, George Alexander

      Fleming, Valentine

      Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

      Tullibardine, Marquess of

      Forster, Henry William

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

      Valentia, Viscount

      Gibbs, G. A.

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

      Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

      Gilmour, Captain John

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

      Goldsmith, Frank

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      Wheler, Granville C. H.

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

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

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

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Mount, William Arthur

      Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

      Grant, J. A.

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Greene, W. R.

      Newdegate, F. A.

      Wills, Sir Gilbert

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

      Newman, John R. P.

      Wood, John (Stalybrldge)

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

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

      Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

      Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

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

      Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

      Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

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

      Yerburgh, Robert A.

      Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

      Younger, Sir George

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Peel, Captain R. F.

      Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

      Perkins, Walter F.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Gershom Stewart and Mr. Ingleby.

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Peto, Basil Edward

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

      Question put, and agreed to.

      Bill to be read the third time To-morrow (Wednesday), and to be printed. [Bill 360.]

    TUBERCULOSIS PREVENTION (IRELAND) BILL.
    Order for the Second Reading read.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): This is a very small and I think an agreed measure amending the Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland) Act, 1908. The Bill as printed contains two Clauses which seek to make the notification of tuberculosis compulsory. Those Clauses excited opposition, and I have, not without some sorrow withdrawn them. I will not enlarge upon the matter except to say I am handing in Amendments which, if the measure is read a second time, will strike those two Clauses out of the Bill. The necessity for the other Clauses mainly arises in consequence of the Treasury
    2158
    grant which is now given towards this object. The Act of 1908 divided the cost of these sanatoria into two heads: the creation cost and the maintenance cost. It threw the creation cost upon the county at large, and the maintenance cost was thrown upon the local districts in proportion to the number of persons from them who availed themselves of the benefits of the sanatoria; but, as the Treasury now pays half of the whole of these expenses irrespective of whether they are maintenance or creation that is unnecessary, and we are able to throw the whole cost upon the county at large, which in itself is much better, and it therefore becomes a county charge.
    Another provision is to enable county councils to provide a common hospital or dispensary and to arrange the proportions which each county is to contribute to the expenses. It also enables a joint hospital provided by the sanitary authorities under the Public Health Act to be transferred to the county council. This accomplishes an act of justice to the Cork Sanatorium and also to one in the

    2159
    neighbourhood of Dublin, not Peamount but another. It enables county councils now to take over these estimable institutions. Clause 6 removes a doubt as to the classes of persons who may be admitted to tuberculosis hospitals, and Clause 7 empowers the Local Government Board to facilitate the establishment of a tuberculosis dispensary by transferring to a county council for that purpose any land which may be vested in the Board. This is a useful provision for the purpose of giving effect to an Act which is already on the Statute Book. This is an agreed measure and therefore I cannot hold out any hope that I shall agree to any Amendment that may be moved from any part of the House. To do so would be to arouse controversy, which at this period of the Session would be obviously unfair and undesirable. I hope the House will now give the Bill a second reading.
    Captain CRAIG: I do not intend in any way to obstruct the passage of this Bill which I understand from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman is an agreed Bill. At the same time, I really think that when a second reading is asked to be given to a measure of this character at this hour at the close of a very long Session, with only a few introductory remarks from the Minister in charge of it, it shows what a state our legislation has reached under the present arrangements. I make this protest also because the Bill goes much further than the Chief Secretary has just said. In 1908 there was legislation on the subject of tuberculosis in Ireland and the Act that was then passed was entirely voluntary. If anyone will care to look at Section 3 of that Act he will see that before it comes into operation in any part of Ireland it must be adopted by the local authority. It says that "any Sanitary Authority or Rural District may, subject to the approval of the council, by resolution passed at a meeting thereof, adopt this part of the Act."
    In the Bill now proposed to be read a second time that Clause is cut out altogether. Clause 1 will in future make the whole of the Bill of 1908 compulsory, although it was got through this House because the right hon. Gentleman made it a necessary part that the rural council should have the option to adopt it or not. Now he comes down and asks us to pass this Bill which is a complete alteration of that promise, under which the Act of 1908
    2160
    was got through, and without any explanation and without telling us how many of the rural districts in Ireland have adopted the Act of 1908. I must protest against that course, although I cannot very well take upon my own shoulders the responsibility of interfering with the progress of the Bill. Having got his Bill of 1908 as an agreed Bill he now asks us to-reverse it without adequate, or indeed any, explanation. I do not know what arrangements have been entered into. He ought at least to tell us how many of the local authorities have voluntarily adopted the Act of 1908, because on that hangs the question of the necessity for this House making the Act of 1908 compulsory throughout the whole of Ireland. The Bill of 1908 was so faulty that in the Session of 1912 a Bill is brought in to alter it radically from stem to stern, and even this Bill as brought in is all wrong, we are now told, and the right hon. Gentleman is going to put down Amendments to alter it. Where are we going to stop? The whole thing is the result of trying to do too much. The right hon. Gentleman will probably come to us again very soon to say that he got his Act of 1908 as an agreed Bill, that he got a Bill to amend it in the Session of 1912 in the small hours of the morning, and that in the Session of 1913 he must bring in another amending Bill to amend the Act of 1912, which amends the Act of 1908. Nothing could better show the farce to which we are reduced in legislating than this Bill, the Second Reading of which the Chief Secretary has just moved.
    Mr. FARRELL: If the statement made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Craig) were true, I should find it necessary to move the rejection of this Bill, but as I understand the position, the Chief Secretary is prepared in Committee to move the omission of Clauses 1 and 2.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Hear, hear.
    Mr. FARRELL: Therefore the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this Bill is going to reverse the decision come to in 1908 is not correct.
    Captain CRAIG: May I say that I was dealing with the Bill as it is. I concluded by saying that it was an agreed Bill.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I said in my opening; statement that I was going to move that Clauses 1 and 2 should be omitted in order to meet the very objection the hon. and gallant Gentleman raised.
    Captain CRAIG: It is a very slipshod way of doing things.
    Mr. FARRELL: My recollection of the settlement of 1908 is that it was pressed for from the Benches above the Gangway. I believe the hon. Member for Londonderry protested against the action of the Chief Secretary in accepting our Amendments then. The Amendments we moved to that Act, and which were incorporated in it, left it optional to the county councils and district councils to apply the compulsory notifications sections. I understand from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that that settlement is to stand.
    Mr. BIRRELL: Hear, hear.
    Mr. FARRELL: If that is so, my friends on these Benches see no objection to the other Clauses of this Bill, which are not compulsory. If they were, I should certainly have a strong objection to them. They are, however, merely enabling Clauses, and not compulsory in the sense the hon. and gallant Gentleman declares them to be. Personally, I should have preferred that the right hon. Gentleman should have left this matter to the new Irish Parliament. I think we might then have come nearer to a settlement of this question. While opposed to the compulsory notification of tuberculosis, I am not opposed to it on principle, but because I think it might lead to very gross abuse and the imposition of unnecessary cost upon the ratepayers of the country. Although this is a matter we might safely have left to an Irish Parliament, I do not wish to obstruct the right hon. Gentleman's beneficent intentions. We believe that so far as the stamping out of this disease is concerned the right hon. Gentleman is beneficent in his intentions. On the distinct understanding that we are to have the objectionable and, as I think, disastrous Clauses struck out of the Bill, I offer no objection to it.
    Mr. BARRIE: I have listened to the Chief Secretary's announcement that under certain pressure—he did not tell us from what quarter that pressure came— he has decided to drop the two Clauses providing for the compulsory notification of this disease in Ireland. Speaking for myself, I exceedingly regret to have heard that statement. We have made in Ireland a very considerable advance in the treatment of this disease since the Act of 1908 was passed in this House. Speaking as a county councillor, there will
    2162
    be general regret that under pressure, from where I know not that the Chief Secretary has decided to drop these two Clauses, which to me were the very essence of the Bill. I consider that the Bill minus these two Clauses, is one which no one need waste any time over. The remainder of the Bill is of the most minor importance. It only removes some ambiguity in the law as it now exists and gives a little extra power to county councils in regard to dispensaries. I hope the right hon. Gentleman's announcement may be reconsidered, because I think Ireland would gladly embrace the compulsory powers proposed to be given. As regards the remainder of the Bill the position has been very considerably altered since the Insurance Act was passed, and we really owe the Bill to some requirements under the Insurance Act which the Government now find it necessary to empower county councils to be able to deal with. We shall have an opportunity of discussing that on the Supplementary Estimates, and I reserve my reference to that till that occasion. I can only again express my regret that the^ two really important Clauses have been dropped under pressure which I must presume has come from below the Gangway. It has not come from any Ulster Unionist Member.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: It ought to be said, as far as hon. Members from Ireland with whom I am connected are concerned, that we have no sympathy whatever with the pressure which has been put on the Chief Secretary, and I regret the tone which has been adopted towards the right hon. Gentleman by the hon. Member (Mr. Farrell) and the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Craig). There was no occasion for it. Anyone who apart from the field of politics looks into the question of social reform must thank any Minister who undertakes the task of looking into these questions for which he gets no credit and will, certainly have some blame. I remember very well thirty years ago when Mr. Dwyer Gray adopted the same tone on the notification of disease which the hon. Member has adopted. He was the great engine of the "Freeman's Journal" and frightened the whole country. It turned out that there, was no occasion whatever for this alarm, and I am sure those who come later in the field of politics are needlessly alarmed on the subject of notification. I feel that it is to some extent due to the jealousy of the medical gentlemen who it is supposed have something to gain by notification.

    2163
    But I think you will find on consulting the Supplementary Estimates that the very gentlemen who show this jealousy of the medical profession have forced the Government to give no less than 59,000 golden sovereigns to these doctors in order that they may certify on behalf of certain friendly societies under the Insurance Act. I believe the doctors as a whole are animated by the very highest motives, and I do not believe there is one black sheep in the entire flock who would subject any family on the question of notification to the smallest inconvenience or discomfort, and who would not if he could find some way to enable them to avoid notification. Therefore I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has, under pressure and not I am sure due to any spirit on his own part, given way to misinformed opinion on this question. I thank him heartily for having brought in the Bill.
    Mr. LYNCH: I have been somewhat impressed by the last two speeches in favour of notification, because they have simply reinforced the argument which commended itself to me during the time that the Bill has been before us. I think that in regard to a very serious disease like tuberculosis, which is probably one of the few diseases affecting the modern civilised world that is progressive, no cost would be too great if we could succeed in the end in stamping it out. Even if public opinion may be contrary to such action, I believe we as legislators ought at times to be prepared to resist the current of public opinion and to say that our duty demands that we should take such and such a course, although contrary to the general opinion even of our own Constituents. While saying this and giving the greatest sympathy to the views expressed by those in favour of notification, I am yet inclined to think it would be wise for the Chief Secretary to delete the first two Clauses because I believe if they were allowed to remain, so much opposition would be caused that the Bill would probably be lost altogether, whereas if these Clauses are omitted in Committee, I think that subsequently when the pulse of public opinion has been felt it might be possible to introduce some form of notification Clause which would do the work these two Clauses were intended to do. I wish to obtain from the Chief Secretary information on one point. He said he would not allow any kind of Amendment to this Bill. I wish to know whether it is on the Second Reading or in the Committee
    2164
    stage that he will allow no kind of Amendment? In the Committee stage will he refuse to have the Clauses discussed separately, point by point, and to allow any Amendment which might be suggested after consultation with the county councils to be introduced in the Bill?
    Captain O'NEILL: We have had a very short discussion at this late hour on a subject which I think is of extreme importance. I do think the House is entitled to ask the Chief Secretary to tell us definitely what are his reasons for wishing to strike out Clauses 1 and 2. I quite agree with my hon. Friend that these are by faith e most important Clauses in the Bill. I happen to represent a Constituency which did quite early adopt the principle of notification under the Act, and therefore I speak not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of my Constituents, when I say that it would be their wish that this Bill should contain some compulsory powers. It is for that reason, and also for the other reasons stated by hon. Members below the Gangway, that I think we are entitled to a very full and adequate explanation from the Chief Secretary why these Clauses are to be omitted. It does seem startling that the Clauses should be suddenly removed from the Bill, although up to five minutes ago we believed they would be retained. I do ask some Member of the Government to give an adequate reason for this important change in the Bill.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I should not have thought that, at this time of the Session, the proposed change required any explanation. The reason why I was compelled, reluctantly I admit, to delete these two Clauses, was that I could not have got the Bill through if they had been retained, because we have not got adequate time now for the discussion of a very vexed and delicate question. Although I am strongly in favour of compulsory notification, I am not sure that it would help the beneficent work if it had to be carried out in the face of an unwilling public. That is the only reason why I have deleted these Clauses. We have not got time to debate a question which we have seen from the Debate that has already taken place excites strong differences of opinion, and if the Clauses had not been deleted the Bill must have been withdrawn and postponed to another Session, although it contains very useful businesslike Clauses which would be most beneficent to the very cause that all of us have at heart. These

    2165
    can now be carried out while the important question of compulsory notification stands over. If everybody said he was in favour of compulsory notification it would be in, the Bill, but I am handing in the Amendment to-night simply because I know that if I did not do so the other Clauses of the Bill would not pass. It is really a choice of having the Bill as it is or withdrawing it altogether. The general sense is in favour of it. The Local Government Board, of which I am President, thought the other Clauses not only as machinery but otherwise most beneficent, and therefore advise a second reading of the Bill. If you want to discuss the other important subjects you must discuss them in your own minds and then perhaps next Session if there is time a Bill can be introduced
    2166
    with these Clauses, but I do ask the House to give the Bill a second reading now.
    The Orders for 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."
    Adjourned accordingly at Three minutes before Twelve o'clock.