HC Deb 03 January 1913 vol 46 cc735-87

(1) The following persons (that is to say)—

shall be Commissioners under this Act. If any vacancy among them occurs by death, resignation, incapacity, or otherwise, His Majesty may, by Warrant under His Sign Manual, appoint some fit person to fill the vacancy.

(2) The said Commissioners (in this Act referred to as the Welsh Commissioners) shall be a body corporate, styled, "The Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Wales" with a common seal, and power to hold land for the purposes of this Act with out licence in mortmain.

(3) The Welsh Commissioners may act by any one of their body and notwithstanding any vacancy in their number, but if any person aggrieved by an order of one Commissioner so requires, the order shall be reconsidered on rehearing by the three Commissioners.

(4) There shall be paid to one of the Welsh Commissioners such salary, not exceeding fifteen hundred pounds a year, and to one other of the Commissioners such salary, not exceeding one thousand pounds a year, as the Treasury may direct.

(5) The Welsh Commissioners may, with the consent of a Secretary of State, and the consent of the Treasury as to number and remuneration, appoint or employ and remove a secretary, and such other officers and persons, and with such remuneration, as appears necessary for enabling the Commissioners to carry this Act into effect.

(6) The said salaries and remuneration and all incidental expenses sanctioned by the Treasury of carrying this Act into effect shall be paid by the Commissioners out of moneys in their hands in pursuance of this Act, but not so as in any way to diminish the property to be transferred to the representative body or county councils under this Act.

(7) The powers of the Commissioners shall continue until the end of the year in which this Act is passed and for three years thereafter, and no longer, and the Commissioners shall then be dissolyed; but it shall be lawful for His Majesty from time to time with the advice of His Privy Council, on the application of the Commissioners, to suspend the dissolution of the Commissioners and, subject to revision by the Treasury of the salaries of the Commissioners and the remuneration and number of their officers, to continue their powers for such time, not exceeding in the aggregate two years, as His Majesty thinks fit.

(8) A paid Commissioners and an officer or other person employed by the Commissioners shall not during his continuance in office be capable of being elected to or sitting as a Member of the House of Commons.

The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith)

I beg to Move, in Sub-section (1), at the beginning, to leave out. the words "The following persons (that is to say),"and to insert instead thereof the words" Such persons, not exceeding three in number, as His Majesty may by Warrant under His Sign Manual appoint, of whom one at least shall be a member of the Church of England."

The substance of my Amendment, as hon. Members will see, is to defer the naming of the Commissioners under this Bill. It may be said, and said with truth, that this is departing from the precedent of the Irish Bill, where three names were mentioned, and it is to a certain extent departing from the precedent of the Welsh Bill of 1895, because in that case the names were placed upon the Paper as an Amendment to a Clause similar in form to the one we are now discussing. Therefore, I say quite frankly we are departing from those two precedents. It must not, however, be supposed the precedents are invariably against the course the Government are now taking. There is the precedent of the Local Government (Ireland) Act of 1889. There was an appeal to a Commission provided in that Act; and the Act of Parliament, instead of naming the Commissioners, said they should consist of the Vice-President of the Local Government Board and four others, of whom two were to be Members of Parliament nominated by the Lord Lieutenant. There is another precedent, too, in the London Local Government Act of 1899, where an Appeal Commission was referred to the Privy Council. I only mention those two precedents in order to meet to some extent the arguments of those who base themselves to a considerable extent on precedent in a matter of this kind. I want to be quite frank with the House. Really, the difficulty has arisen because of the probability—it is not for me to judge-that the House of Lords may deal with this Bill in such a way that it can only be passed under the provisions of the Parliament Act. I do not think the Government had any right when this Bill was introduced to anticipate such hostility would be shown to it, and it was therefore introduced in this form. During the Debates, however, hostility has been so marked that it now seems extremely probable the Bill will only become law under the provisions of the Parliament Act. Therefore a new situation confronts us, and we had to decide whether we should put the names in the Bill or whether we should defer it to a later stage, and we have come to the conclusion that the names ought not to be put in at this stage. I am going to tell the House why.

First of all, our view is that these three Commissioners have got very important functions to perform. They have got judicial and they have got administrative functions, and the men who can perform such duties are not to be found every day; at any rate, I do not think they are to be found among the leisured class. The men who will have to perform these functions are men in all probability who are employed on analogous work at the present time. I submit you cannot get men occupying high judicial or administrative positions to allow their names to be put in a Bill for eighteen months before it becomes law, and which hon. Members opposite say quite frankly may never become law. I think hon. Members will agree it is extremely difficult to get first-class men to allow their names to be put in a Bill which, in any event, may not come into force for eighteen months, and which, according to a great body of opinion in the House of Commons may never become law at all. There is another matter. I am sure hon. Members will observe that in the Amendment, for the first time, it is made obligatory that one of the three Commissioners should be a Churchman. I know there are Churchmen in Wales bitterly opposed to this Bill who will have no part nor portion in it, but at the same time there are Churchmen in Wales who, if they felt that this Bill were really going to become an Act of Parliament, would like to face the situation and serve their Church in the new position. That is a position with which I am sure Churchmen on that side of the House can sympathise more than I can. If one of these men in the case I am endeavouring to describe allowed his name to be published he would be liable to the retort, "You are opposed to the Disestablishment of the Church, but while the fight is going on you allow your name to be associated with a Bill in which you do not believe." I think we should free him from that position. Really what guides us most in the course we are taking is this: We think we should get better men to act as Commissioners under this plan than would be possible under the plan of the Bill. I should like to say one word to reassure hon. Members opposite. They may think it unsatisfactory that this Bill should become law without the House of Commons even knowing the names of the three men who are to be appointed to perform these very important functions. What I have to say is this: If this Bill becomes law without the intervention or authority of the Parliament Act the House of Commons shall have an opportunity of considering these names before it does become law. But, on the other hand, if the Bill cannot become law except under the provisions of the Parliament Act, then the names will be communicated to the House of Commons before the House loses control of the Bill. Of course, hon. Members are aware that under the Parliament Act it is not possible to introduce new Clauses, and that is why I have suggested this difference of treatment. I think it will be admitted I have dealt quite frankly with the Committee in this matter. We think the course we propose would be in the interests of the Church itself; that better men would offer themselves for these posts than would otherwise be possible. If hon. Members opposite are really satisfied that that is so, I would ask them, putting aside small controversial technical points, if they think it would be better for the government of the Church and if better judicial and administrative officers would be secured, I would ask them to put aside their partisan attitude for one moment and give their support to this Amendment.


I do not approach this question from a partisan point of view. I can understand the difficulties under which the Under-Secretary labours, because I was once myself in a difficulty which was similar but not identical. But I cannot approve of what he proposes to the Committee. It was once my duty to propose an Irish Land Act to this House. In that Land Act there were three Commissioners who were to be charged with responsible functions affecting great classes of separate interests in Ireland. During the discussion of that Bill in the House I was urged, as the Under-Secretary has been urged in this case, to disclose the names of the three Commissioners. I did so. I said I did not wish to create a precedent; I disclaimed the intention of creating a precedent and I now ask the Committee to consider this matter on its merits. The difference in the situation is this: That the Parliament Act has since been passed, and that difference, I think, should count in favour of our having the names disclosed Merely by way of illustration let me take the situation during the Irish Land Act Debates Many interests were involved, and those in this House who were responsible for those interests felt that they could not allow the Bill to proceed unless they knew the names of those gentlemen who were to discharge such important duties. When the names were first given some criticism was brought to bear upon them. Those gentlemen could have said, "Why are we to be exposed to this fire of criticism during all the remaining stages of the Bill?" It would be far better it should not be the case that their names should be disclosed from that point. The Under-Secretary suggests that the result of subjecting them to such criticism is that they will not be as competent to discharge the duties as if the matter were allowed to remain in abeyance. But what is the argument of the Parliament Act? It is that what is now decided by this House must, if the Parliament Act applies, become the ultimate decision of the House with, of course, the safeguarding promises made by the Under-Secretary. The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to complain of this Bill coming under the Parliament Act, for the Prime Minister has stated frankly that, in his opinion, where a Bill excites controversy it is only right it should be before the country for two years and be passed in three consecutive Sessions of Parliament. Therefore the Government-are not entitled to make a bargain with us and say, "If you will let the Bill go through you shall have these three names." They must act on their own interpretation of the effect of the operation of the Parliament Act. How can you ask those who have great interests at stake, those whose interests are to be put into the custody and guardianship of these Commissioners, to go blindfold through a period of two years without knowing whether any solution is to be arrived at which they deem to be suitable to the necessities of the case? Against that you have only to place the convenience of the gentlemen who may have to discharge these important duties. If the only comparison is between the rights of the great interests which are to be safeguarded and the convenience of the Commissioners, then I say our decision ought to be in favour of the rights of those interests, whatever the temporary inconvenience may be to those who are asked to accept public offices of great responsibility.


I protest strongly against the Amendment proposed by the Under-Secretary. I regard it as nothing short of an outrage. What is our position? Most important functions are to be performed by these Commissioners. We have only to remember the discussion we had this morning on the question of the border parishes and whether they shall come within the operation of the Bill. That is a question which the Commissioners will have to decide. Then again, by Clause 14, they will have to decide who are to be entitled to existing interests and who are to get compensation. Yet we are not to be told, apparently, if the Bill comes under the Parliament Act, who are the gentlemen who are to carry through these most important functions which may affect the whole future of the Church in Wales. The argument put forward by the Under-Secretary did not appear to me to be to the point at all. He mentioned various precedents in which the names of the Commissioners had not been brought forward in the Bill. If he had taken the precedents of Church Bills, he would have found that the names of the Commissioners have invariably been mentioned. Church Bills are the only precedents for this Bill. We have the case of the Irish Church Act of 1869 and the case of the Welsh Church Bill in 1895. May I remind the Under-Secretary, when he says it is not desirable that the names of the three gentlemen should be in a Bill for eighteen months before it becomes law, that the names of the three gentlemen were inserted in the Bill of 1895? I suppose they are still in that Bill. That Bill never became law, yet their names are there to this day. The Under-Secretary said that some of us expected that the Bill would not become law at all. I am sure we all expected that the Bill of 1895 would not become law. We knew perfectly well it never would, and the Prime Minister of the day defined it as ploughing the sands of the seashore. Notwithstanding that the names were inserted, and I can see no reason whatever in that argument why the names should not be inserted at the present time.

The Under-Secretary said that when we entered upon this discussion nobody thought that the opposition to the Bill would be so strong, or that the Bill would come under the provisions of the Parliament Act. I do not know where the Under-Secretary has been living for the last two years. I have never thought that the opposition to this Bill was not going to be strong, and if the Under-Secretary had only taken the trouble to ascertain what has been going on in England and Wales during the last two years, he would have known that we meant to fight this Bill to the very last, and if it is then forced upon us under the Parliament Act, without being submitted to the people, we cannot help it. As the Leader of our party said, if we get a chance we shall take the first opportunity of repealing it. Nobody need for a moment be under any misapprehension as to whether it will be necessary, in all probability, to apply the terms of the Parliament Act to this Bill. I call it a positive scandal, in view of the important functions the Commissioners have to discharge, and in view of the discussions that will have to take place upon those functions, that we should not know the names of the Commissioners. It is absolutely impossible for us, under the terms of the guillotine, even to discuss these provisions unless we know who are the gentlemen who are to carry the Bill into operation. When I come to the second part of the Amendment, over which the Under-Secretary, with characteristic agility, skated very lightly, I mean the fact that at least one of the Commissioners is to be a Churchman, I call that the most scandalous proposal I have ever heard. They ought all to be Churchmen. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh !"] Do hon. Members support the Under-Secretary in his appeal to precedents? If so, are they aware that in the case of the Irish Church the three gentleman nomniated were all members of the Irish Church? Section 3 of the Act of 1860 gave the names: Viscount Monck, the Rt. Hon. James Anthony Lawson, and George Alexander Hamilton, Esq. Similarly, under the Bill of 1895, the gentlemen nominated were all members of the Church of England. They were Sir Algernon West, Colonel Hughes, and Mr. William Brooks.

Why is it that these precedents have been departed from? Why is it that you now take power that at least two of the Commissioners should not be members of the Church of England—in fact, that they may be gentlemen moved by that bitter hostility to the Church in Wales which has been displayed by hon. Members opposite from the Welsh constituencies? How do we know that one of the Members from the Welsh constituencies is not to have the unpaid post of Commissioner, and will have to sit in this House? Probably one of them will be appointed. We come to this: That the Church is first of all to be Disendowed—plundered, as I call it—and Disestablished by Parliament, and then the details of the working out of it are to be arranged by men of whom the majority may be bitterly hostile to the Church. Let me take an example of how that will work. The Home Secretary was dealing this morning with the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cave) as to the difficulty that might arise in deciding, in the case of a border parish, whether the people desired to be Disestablished under the Bill or to be saved and attached to an English diocese. What was the test the right hon. Gentleman took? He took the test of communicants. Who are to decide that? The Welsh Commissioners. If you have Church Commissioners they may have regard to such a test. They may look to the Churchman-ship of these people, but if two of them are bitterly hostile to the Church do you suppose that they will regard the feelings of Churchmen in the parishes? That is the very last thing they are likely to regard. What they are more likely to do is to hold out to these border parishes that if the Church is Disendowed they will get all kinds of funds for public purposes, baths, wash-houses, and various charitable uses, whereas if the Church is not Disendowed that money will still be paid to the clergymen. The whole matter depends upon the character of the Commissioners. It is a most monstrous and outrageous thing, and an insult to the Church, that you should take power, as you do deliberately by this Amendment, to say that two out of the three Commissioners should not be members of the Church of England.


We only take power.


I know you only take power, but we cannot judge how you are going to use your power, because yon do not tell us the names. You take power to impose them upon us hereafter, when there will be no further chance of discussion, so far as I understand. The Under-Secretary said that the names will be communicated to the House. I suppose they will be communicated through the public Press. How will they be communicated; and is there going to be a chance of discussion In any case the Bill will have passed. We might have had a discussion on the names and moved Amendments to the names, but the Bill will have passed. Great parts of the Bill depend upon the names, character, and religious persuasion of these gentlemen. I say it is a perfect scandal that you should first of all withhold the names, and then take power to appoint two of the Commissioners from people who may be bitterly hostile to the Church. I do not know what is the genesis of this Amendment. In the very brief Christmas holiday we had seen a good deal of pressure put upon the Government in consequence of the small concessions they made shortly before the Christmas holiday. Is this Amendment a sort of repayment to the Welsh Radical Members, to make up for what has been done? Have they held a pistol at the head of the Government and said, "You have taken from us £15,000 a year; you shall now submit the Church to a tribunal of which two-thirds are to be against it"? I think that is very likely the origin of this Amendment. It is a sort of make-up to the Welsh Members for the concession that was made. I am bound to say I have never been anxious to discuss this Bill in a bitter spirit, although it is difficult sometimes not to resent the treatment that is meted out to us by hon. Gentlemen opposite; but I think of all the scandals proposed in the Bill nothing is worse than this Amendment to withhold from the House of Commons the knowledge of who the Gentlemen are who are to have the work of plundering the Church in future and to tell us that probably only one out of the three will be a Churchman or a person in any way acquainted with the feelings of Church people. I regard this Amendment as insult added to injury and I earnestly hope the House will reject it.


I think the hon. Member is really doing a great injustice to his own case when he says that in his view this is the most scandalous thing in the Bill. I think that speaks very well for the Bill and we should be quite prepared to go with renewed confidence and eagerness to our friends in the country now and say this is the most scandalous thing in the Bill, and therefore all the rest of the Bill is very much better than it. Seriously, if the hon. Member will consider for a moment he will sec that he is making out a case which must inevitably recoil upon himself and his friends on this particular Amendment. As far as I know, the Welsh Radicals to whom he alluded have never discussed this particular Amendment. I do not know whether anything has been done, and speaking for myself alone, it does not matter two pins to me one way or the other, and I do not know that it matters very much to any of our other Welsh friends whether we get the names now or whether it is done as the Home Secretary suggests, though probably we should prefer having the names now. But I want to put to the hon. Member, on the merits, a reason why I think he and his friends are taking a mistaken line upon this matter. I would submit to him that the point about these gentlemen being members of the Church of England is really not a serious point because, after all, the work that these men have to do is mainly actuarial. It is a trifling matter after all. What you want is practical men, and I hope they will be the most competent men you can get in the country. The hon. Member gave the names which were put in the Bill of 1895. I know those gentlemen by repute. They are worthy gentlemen, and I have nothing to say against them, but I do not think they were the best kind of individuals to select for this particular class of work.


Because they were Churchmen.


No, but because they were not professional gentlemen of great eminence in work of this character—work which the Commissioners will have to do. Sir Algernon West was, but the others were not. If hon. Members would take stock of the fact that you want distinguished men like these they will quite see that at the present moment it would be a disadvantage perhaps for the Church and for the exponents of the policy of opposition to the Bill that the actual selection should be opposed. They would probably find this difficulty if they wanted to get certain eminent men, in certain high offices at present, who would be the most suitable men for the sake of the Church to do the work properly and impartially and accurately, that they would find these men unwilling to put their names forward now for two years and to have them discussed up and down, here and in the House of Lords. These are reasons which occur to me in favour of the Home Secretary's Amendment. I only got up to say, as the hon. Member alluded to Welsh Radicals, that personally—I do not know whether my Friends take the same view—it does not matter at all to us, but we think, on the whole, in the interests of the Church, that the Home Secretary has done a very wise thing to enable him to get the very best names when the time comes to appoint them.


The only argument which was addressed to us by the Under-Secretary was that, in his view, you will get a better Staff of Commissioners than if the names were submitted to the House at present. That is a position with which I want to deal. I entirely agree with what was said by the hon. Member (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) that in a matter of this kind, which is part of the business portion of the Bill, I believe Churchmen will desire to join Members on the opposite benches in order to get the best business arrangement they can to deal with certain complicated matters. I was not convinced by the arguments put forward by the Under-Secretary when he was proposing this Amendment. May I put what I think a much stronger argument on the other side? In the first place, if we do not have the names at the present time, it is quite clear that the House of Commons in this Bill would be delegating functions of the greatest nicety and importance to a tribunal of the character of which they have no cognisance. That is an extremely important matter in my view, having regard to this Bill and Bills of a similar character. We have very complicated Bills to deal with very often at present. These complicated Bills very often necessitate that a large number of functions which might properly be dealt with in the House itself have to be dealt with by delegated authorities. That is common ground. But surely, once take that assumption, this House ought to know, and there is a duty on the Government to supply the information in a case of this kind as to the names and character of the tribunal to which great functions of this kind are to be delegated. That was done, of course, in the Irish Act and it was done in the 1895 Bill. The names given in the Irish Act were Lord Monk, the Judge of the Common Pleas, and Mr. Hamilton, but in addition to that there was a provision that if one of these for any reason could not carry on his duty, and you were to appoint a person in his place, he was to be a member either of one of the State Churches or the United Church, which, of course, carries out what was said by the hon. Member. Not only were the persons appointed in the Act itself Churchmen, but there was a further provision that if there was any failure in respect to which they could not carry out these public duties they were to be supplemented by a man who was himself a Churchman.

There is another matter. That is an argument upon the Parliament Act, and it appears to me it is a wholly fallacious one of a very dangerous character. Does the Under-Secretary mean that since the Parliament Act has been introduced it has become wrong to state in a Bill in this House the names of the Commissioners, whereas if it was not for the Parliament Act they would have been inserted? If he makes that statement, I do not think he can cast a greater slur on this House and on the Parliament Act, because it is quite clear, whatever else the Parliament Act was intended to do, it was not intended to diminish responsibility in this House. On the other hand, I think one might well say it tended to increase the responsibilities of Members of this House to a dangerous point, and that is the argument which I always felt strongest against the Parliament Act. But now it is said on account of the Parliament Act it is wise for this House to shirk a responsibility which, but for the Parliament Act, according to precedent would have been undertaken by them. I do not think the Under-Secretary realises this. These Commissioners will really be undertaking duties in reference to this House. I will deal with their duties with regard to the Church and other matters in a moment. How can we determine whether they are a proper body to undertake the duties we are putting upon them, unless we know their names. I am not going to say that the Government are not going to select the best they possibly can. I will assume that they are going to do so, but that is not an argument, in my opinion, at all. It means that you give the Cabinet, unwisely and wrongly, a power which ought to be kept in the hands of the House itself. There is a somewhat unfortunate tendency in modern days to increase the number of these official bodies, and to increase the patronage of the Government unduly, and in a case of this sort the House ought to insist, and I hope it will insist, upon its undoubted right to know the names, position, and status, of the Commissioners before they delegate these great duties to their care. I can see no argument against that. What does it matter if you put the names into the Bill? What does it matter under the operation of the Parliament Act:? The Bill may not be passed for a period of two years. Of course, if you put wrong names in, it would give a chance of somewhat extended criticism. Let us assume that the right names are put in—names selected from the very best panel possible, and that every care is taken in their selection. The fact that they are in the Bill is a feature of the Bill itself. If they are gentlemen above any possible criticism so much the better.

If I might answer what was said by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Edgar Jones), whose opinions we respect in regard to Church matters in Wales, surely from his point of view it is desirable that he ought to know that before this Bill leaves the House of Commons, who is going to exercise these great powers, more particularly in the Welsh Principality. I can see no answer to that attitude, which, I suggest, is the right one. I do not think one can put out of sight wholly the duties and functions which this body will have to carry out. I cannot agree that they are actuarial duties at all. In many respects they are very important duties which are almost legislative in their character. For instance, there is the question we were discussing on the last Amendment, namely, whether certain parishes should or should not be continuing members of the old Established Church. That is one of the extremely important functions to both sides. I am not discussing now whether a decision is given one way or the other. When we consider that great questions must depend upon the decisions which these Commissioners give, I do not think the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones) used too harsh words when he said it was really a scandal as regards Parliamentary practice that the House of Commons should not be in a position to consider and properly criticise the names of the Commissioners to whom functions of this character are going to be delegated. I do not think the hon. Member meant that it was a scandalous thing in regard to this Rill. He never meant or said that. He was talking about an Amendment, and his view was that it was a scandal as regards the procedure in this House that we should not know who the Commissioners are to be, and that the House should delegate its powers wholly in this matter to the Government without keeping the control itself. It is on these grounds that I shall certainly vote against the Amendment. I regret exceedingly that the names are not to be disclosed, and that we do not know the people in whom we have to place this confidence.


I have no quarrel with the remarks made by the hon. Member (Sir A. Cripps) as to the duties of the Commissioners, but I think if he had looked a little more at the Rill he would have seen that the most important functions which the Commissioners have to perform are of a judicial nature. If the Committee will look at the Clause, they will see that the Commissioners are invested with very great powers indeed. They—

"shall have all such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in the High Court for such or the like purposes, and all proceedings before the Commissioners shall in law be judicial proceedings before a Court of Record."

Therefore, it is a very important body of a judicial kind. What does the resistance to the Amendment on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith- Boscawen) amount to? It is that this House is to demand the names of people who are virtually to be in the position of judges, and that, their names being put in the Rill, it should be possible for this Committee to discuss them, and to see whether or not the gentlemen who are to form this new Court ought or ought not to be appointed. My attitude in regard to this matter is quite different from that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Looking at the whole scope of this Rill I was quite surprised when I saw that the Government had at first intended that the names should be announced to this House. That was my view, and I was greatly relieved when for the first time I heard late last night that the names were not to be announced, and that the whole matter was to be treated in exactly the same way as all matters connected with judicial appointments are treated in this House. It was only the other day that a Motion for the appointment of a new judge was laid before the House, and nobody asked who was going to be appointed by the Government, and I think any such attempt on the part of the House to control the appointment of judicial officers would be fraught with great danger to the services these officers have to perform.

3.0 P.M.

I think we have confidence—I speak, at all events, for myself—in the Government as to the appointment of the Commissioners. I do not think any complaint can be made against the Government with respect to the appointment of judicial officers since they came into power. I do not think the hon. Member opposite would suggest that in the exercise of patronage or judicial responsibility the Government are likely, when this Rill becomes law, to appoint any people who would not discharge their responsible duties with perfect propriety. Is it really thought that any man who was appointed to exercise the duties of a Welsh Commissioner, whatever his religious views might be, would be of such a character that he would allow his religious predilection to affect his judgment in deciding matters of law and fact in accordance with the ordinary rules of our judicial system. I think my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has taken a very wise course indeed. Rut if they had taken the other course I do not know that I should have made any great complaint, because I am perfectly certain that the names that would have been suggested would have been the names of gentlemen who would certainly commend themselves to the hon. and learned Gentleman and his Friends on the other side of the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr referred to the names of the Commissioners in the Bill of 1895. I remember that Bill and the discussions in this House, and my recollection is that the names suggested were received with complete approbation in every quarter, and I entirely dissociate myself from the suggestions of my hon. Friend as to the two gentlemen to whom he referred. No two better men could have been nominated by the Government of the day for the discharge of the functions of the Bill. This Bill is a little different in structure. I quite agree with the course which the Government have taken. I have no doubt that the three gentlemen who will in due course be announced will be perfectly strict and proper persons for the discharge of these duties. I notice the words "member of the Church of England" in the Motion. I am not at all sure what is meant, but I claim myself to be a member of the Church of England by law established; but I rather think that looking to the terms of the Amendment, and giving a very broad construction to its terms, it means that one man, at any rate, of these three Commissioners should be a member of the Church of England in the sense that he was baptised in it and confirmed by a bishop of the Church of England, and communicates in an Established Church. The points that will come before the Welsh Commissioners for decision are mere points of administration which may involve some considerable difficulty, and also questions of law and fact which will have to be dealt with in a judicial manner. I am utterly unimpressed by the suggestion that the Government have made a false move in this matter from any point of view, and I for one shall support the Government.


I could not follow the argument of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. He deplored at the beginning the suggestion that the names should be published, and seemed to think that if that were done the judicial impartiality of the gentlemen appointed would be impugned. I cannot agree with that; that is not my main point. Towards the end of his remarks he went back to 1895 and implied that then he was in full agreement with what happened when the names were published. It seems, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman is in the position of agreeing with the Government whatever they do. He was in the House in 1895, and then voted for the publication of the names. Now, because the Government thought it better not to publish the names, he is quite prepared to agree to the new precedent. Further, he seems to think that the appointment of these Commissioners is in the nature of the appointment of County Court judges. If that is his impression, he misconceives entirely the feeling which we hold on this side of the House. We do not regard this matter as the collection of small debts; we regard it as a matter of the most vital importance that we should know the names of these officials, upon whom you put duties of the greatest magnitude and most minute complexity. There is one precedent in which the Welsh Commissioners were not only proposed, but actually appointed. It was the precedent at the time of the dissolution of the monasteries in the sixteenth century. If we go back to that remote date, we certainly have every reason for our doubts when officials are going to be appointed to do what we believe is nothing less than plunder the National Church in Wales.

A further point which seems to be of the greatest importance was raised by the speech of the Under-Secretary for the Home Department. He urged that, because the Parliament Act is now in force, we are debarred from knowing what is really a most material point in the consideration of a first-class measure. That is one of the unexpected and incidental results of the Parliament Act. Here you have a matter which no one can deny is of the greatest importance withheld from the cognisance of this House, because we are told that owing to the fact that the Parliament Act is in force certain gentlemen do not like to have their names placed in this Bill during the eighteen months that must elapse before this Bill comes into force. I can sympathise with the disinclination of any gentlemen to have their names connected with the office of Commissioner under this Bill, but that is not my point. My point is to protest in the strongest way against any material fact being withheld from the knowledge of this House because an Act which the Government passed a year and a half ago is now in force. I come now to my third point. The Under-Secretary for the Home Office in this instance pushed aside the case of the Irish precedent altogether, and I am sure it is very typical of the attitude that has been adopted by hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite. They quote the Irish precedent when it suits them, but when it does not suit them they throw it over. The Irish precedent is so strong in this case that it is worth repeating to the Committee what actually happened. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley said that the names of the three Commissioners were published and each of those Commissioners was a Churchman, but the strength of the comparison does not end there. If hon. Members will refer to the Debate upon the corresponding Clauses of the Irish Church Act, Clause 3, they will find that Mr. Gladstone who was then in charge of the Bill was convinced that before proceeding with the appointment of the Commissioners it was necessary that the House should know the names of the Commissioners at the earliest possible opportunity. And he said that, as upon Clause 3, it was not possible for the House to know exactly what the duties were which the Commissioners would have to perform, the whole Clause should be postponed until a later period of the Bill; in other words, he regarded the names of the Commissioners as of the most vital importance in the consideration of the Irish Bill.

If hon. Members will refer to the speech he then made they will see that I am in no way exaggerating what I say was his opinion, that he regarded the names of the Commissioners as one of the most important things in a Bill of that very complicated and important character. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think that the duties of these Commissioners will be of a comparatively simple nature. I cannot agree with that contention at all. It is my belief that the duties which they will be called upon to perform will be much more difficult than the duties which the Irish Commissioners are called upon to perform, for these reasons: They will first of all have to deal with the extremely complicated questions that arise from the dismemberment of a Church that is at present undivided. The Irish Commissioners were not faced with that difficulty. The course which the Debate has run to-day shows how complex are many of the questions to be dealt with, as, for instance, the border parishes. Take another instance in which their duties will be more difficult than the duties of the Irish Commissioners—the question of deciding whether or not a particular fund is a private benefaction within the scope of this Bill. There again the Irish Commissioners had no such difficulty. Members of the Committee will remember that Mr. Gladstone, instead of going into these detailed questions of date and character of particular benefactions, gave a lump sum, which I believe amply satisfied the claims which were then made. In this case the Commissioners will have to inquire into very complicated questions—first as to the date, and secondly, as to the nature, of each Endowment.

Take a third instance. The Irish Commissioners were not confronted with the difficulty of dividing up the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commission. In Ireland there was an Irish Ecclesiastical Commission in which the Irish funds were vested, and where no difficulty could arise as to whether the Endowment was Irish or not; but here, in the case of the Welsh Commissioners, they will have to go through the accounts of the Ecclesiastical Commission, the Central Financial Fund of the Church, and decide whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are right or not in saying that particular funds are English, and therefore free from this Bill, or are. Welsh, and therefore subject to Disendowment. Taking the last case, in which it seems to me the difficulties of the Welsh Commissioners will be much greater than the difficulties of the Irish Commissioners. In the case of Irish Disendowment many difficult questions were avoided by the compensation clauses taking the form of a commutation system under which a great many difficulties and details were certainly avoided. If hon. Members will refer to the compensation clauses I feel sure that they cannot help agreeing with me when I say that the system which is now adopted is much more complicated than the commutation system which was adopted in the case of the Irish Act. Here, again, the Welsh Commissioners will have to decide the extremely difficult and important questions as to what the holder of a particular freehold office should receive in compensation, instead of the very simple commutation system adopted in the case of the Irish Act.

In respect of all those points the difficulties of these officials will be much greater than the difficulties of the Irish Commissioners. That seems to me to emphasise and lend force to the argument which we have urged, that we should know at once who are the gentlemen who are to administer these most difficult functions, and upon whose decisions will rest the fortunes of many parishes and many particular individuals. I cannot conceive why the names should not be published. The only reason that struck me in the course of this Debate why these names are withheld is that the indication of the names of the successful candidates for these official positions will certainly disappoint a great many unsuccessful gentlemen. But on a point of this kind it is most important that we should know the names. We cannot have them withheld simply because the Parliament Act is now in force. No doubt in the near future many other Bills will be introduced by a Radical Government under the Parliament Act, and if past experience and the experience in connection with this Bill is correct, each of those measures will certainly have somewhere within its four corners the appointment of three well-paid Commissioners. That has been the experience in connection with practically every one of the important Radical measures introduced since 1906. Therefore we ought to make our protest at the very outset against the names of important officials being withheld on the ground of the Parliament Act. If we do not make our protest now, we shall have this precedent brought up again and again in the future, and we shall be left in the dark for eighteen months or some long period before we know who these important officials are to be. I hope before this Debate finishes we shall have some further answer from the Home Secretary, and that, in spite of what the Under-Secretary has said, he will see that a most dangerous precedent is now being created, and that, it is important that the House should not be kept in the dark, but should know at once who these three officials are to be.

Sir J. D. REES

The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Welsh party laid itself open to the criticism of my hon. Friend, and it was a very spirited application of the Tros Tyriusque principle in politics. I should have thought that the duties of the Commissioners under the Bill could hardly be described—as they were by his follower, the hon. Member for Merthyr—as of an actuarial character, as something light, intangible, and airy; something such as those described in connection with the Irish Exchequer Board. The duties of the Commissioners will, in fact, be of a most delicate and difficult descrip- tion, and it is most satisfactory to find that the Leader of the Welsh party, unlike his follower, the Member for Merthyr, recognised that fact. I think it very extraordinary that the Home Secretary should argue that there would be nothing strange in not putting the names of these Commissioners in the Bill. He must be aware that it is not a precedent of to-day. It is in a similar Welsh Church Bill. In the Incorporation of Universities Bill we have also a precedent for the names of the first officials being given. I think the name of every fellow of the university is inserted. Take the case, a very much less important one, and not quite on the same plane, of a new company—the names of the directors are always printed in the articles.

And I am reminded of the instance of the Port of London Authority, which is of great importance. These instances in point of fact go to show that it would be following the normal course to give the names of the officials, and it is an extraordinary course to omit them in a case like this, where there is such a strong feeling on every side in regard to the character and capacity of the gentlemen who will have to discharge such delicate functions in connection with the determination of these border parishes, upon an inquiry into the religious persuasion of the majority of the inhabitants. I submit that the point should be very strongly pressed that these Commissioners should be members of the Church of England. I will take an instance which shows how desirable and necessary and indispensable it is that they should be members of the Church of England. One of the parishes discussed on the last Amendment was that of Montgomery, which is English to the core, with everybody Conservative, and so on—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Hon. Gentlemen may refute that afterwards, but I say it is. It is said that it would not matter whether these Commissioners were members of the Church of England or of the Free Church, that there is such good feeling on all sides and that religious differences are being worn so thin that it really does not matter what is the religious persuasion of those three gentlemen. I should like to refer to a speech which was made on the 13th December on the borders of this Conservative parish of Montgomery, which has been connected for centuries with the diocese of Hereford, and which is now to be made a portion of a Welsh diocese. In the parish of Meifod you have a number of the Wesleyan body, that which is nearest of all to the Church of England, is most in sympathy with it and often votes even in Wales for the Unionist and Conservative faith. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]


Is this in order?

Sir J. D. REES

Three weeks ago a gentleman there said, "if so much filth was removed from the Church of England at the Reformation, why does so much remain—


The hon. Member's remarks are not relevant.

Sir J. D. REES

Am I not at liberty at a moment like this, when the question of the religion of Commissioners is admittedly relevant, to quote what was said? I have only quoted two lines and I only want to quote two further lines. It is not, I think, an intrusion on the time of the House and it is a contemporary utterance. Am I not in order in quoting a statement made by a minister of the Free Church that "the time has now come, thank God, to cut the claws of the ferocious old bear—


We might spend our whole time in a series of speeches which have nothing really to do with the point. There is an Amendment on the Paper which deals with the specific point whether there should be three members, or at least one, of the Church of England. When we dispose of this I intend to allow the hon. Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boseawen) to move his Amendment on that point.

Sir J. D. REES

Obviously then my remarks are now out of order, but it is not equally obvious that I shall have the opportunity of making them subsequently. At the present moment there is so much feeling shown in certain quarters by ministers of Free Churches with one foot in the pulpit and the other on the platform looking forward to the time when they may become by the favour of some arch agitator, wholly politicians and cease to be ministers, and such extreme statements are made at a time like this so galling to the feelings of right-minded people on both sides, that I do submit it is of the utmost moment that provision should be made as to the religion of these Commissioners.


I feel some surprise that we have not had from the Home Secretary any defence of the Amendment which stands in his name. After all, in three hours we have to discuss two-and-three-quarter pages of this Bill, including three separate Clauses. It is on an occasion of that kind that the Home Secretary thinks it right to propose an Amendment which, so far as this Clause is concerned, makes the most vital change in it that could be possibly made. I am not going to exaggerate the importance of the Clause, but there is no doubt that to transform it from a Clause giving power to Parliament to appoint Commissioners into a Clause giving power to the Executive of the day to appoint them, is a change of a very vital and important character. I look at this I confess mainly from the point of view of the House of Commons, and not mainly on this occasion from the point of view of the interests of the Church. This is a proposal to withdraw from the control of Parliament altogether the question of who shall be appointed Welsh Commissioners. I am quite aware that the Under-Secretary said that the Government were willing to undertake that, if this Bill were rejected by the House of Lords, and consequently had to be passed under the powers of the Parliament Act, they would, before it actually became law, communicate to the House the names of the Commissioners they intended to appoint. That is really an absolutely futile and useless promise, though I am not throwing the slightest doubt on the Under - Secretary's good faith. Of what use is that when we should not have any opportunity unless the Government chose of even considering such appointment. The Government is, of course, practically in control of the whole time of the House, and we should never have any opportunity of asking any information, much less of deciding on these appointments. Let us be quite clear about this, that all these kind of promises are practically valueless, and that this proposal is one for absolutely abolishing the control of Parliament over the appointment of these Commissioners. I do not share the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Welsh party that these Commissioners are in the least in the same position as judges. I do not agree with him that their functions are really comparable to those of judges in any way. Even if I did, I should have to remind him that judges can only be appointed from a limited class of persons. They not only have to be appointed from barristers, but from barristers of a certain standing. That is a very considerable difference from these gentlemen, who can be appointed from any class of the community.

Quite apart from that, judges are not, or ought not, to be appointed mainly for political reasons. They may be, and too often are, appointed—I am not making any charge against the present Government in this respect—as a reward for political services; but they are not appointed with a view to discharging political functions. Unquestionably the functions of the Welsh Commissioners will be of a political character, closely affecting the political and religious passions of a large section of their fellow countrymen. They will be political officers, and political officers ought not to be appointed without the consent and full knowledge of the House of Commons.

The Under-Secretary gave some precedents. It has been impossible for me on the spur of the moment to look up the precedents which he gave, but I venture to assert that they will be found not in any way comparable with this case. They are not the same kind of Commissioners. No one suggests that every official appointment ought to be made by the House of Commons; but I say that on grounds of precedent and expediency political officers, appointed for political functions, ought to be appointed by the House of Commons, and not at the sole discretion of the Government of the day. I object to the proposal on another ground. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), whom I see opposite, has made very eloquent speeches on the danger of increasing the patronage of the Government. He made observations which lasted for some considerable time on that topic in the Committee on the Mental Deficiency Bill, when he strongly desired to prevent the increase of the power of the Government with regard to appointments. Here is a direct attempt by the Government to increase their own patronage, although in the first instance they thought that that was not a desirable course. Here is an attempt to create for themselves the patronage of two offices, one worth £1,000 and the other £1,500 a year for three years certain, and for as much longer as the Government of the day shall think fit; and they are proposing to do that, although in the first draft of the Bill they thought, and I think justifiably, that such a thing ought not to be done except subject to the control of Parliament.

We have heard only the Under-Secretary on this question, but I am content to believe that he speaks the whole mind of the Government on the matter. He says, in the first place, that owing to the operation of the Parliament Act it will be difficult to get good Churchmen to accept such offices as these, because for two years or whatever the period may be they would be held up to the odium of their fellow Churchmen as people who had sold their convictions for £1,000 or £1,500 a year. I do not think that that is a very valuable observation. What has the Parliament Act got to do with it, to begin with? If the Parliament Act did not exist the odium would be just the same. It was just the same in 1895, but the Government inserted the names in the Bill of that year. They were able to get men whom they thought satisfactory, and who the Leader of the Welsh party, with his knowledge of Wales, tells us were admirable men, and all Churchmen. The Government were able to insert their names in the Bill, although there was the knowledge that the passage of the Bill into law was extremely doubtful. But no one, as far as I know, ever made it a subject of accusation against those gentlemen that they, acting on their own conscientious convictions, had chosen to accept those offices. I do not believe that the idea that they would be accused of selling their convictions for £1,500 or £1,000 a year would deter any good Churchmen from taking these offices if they otherwise thought they were conscientiously entitled to do so. Another reason given by the Under-Secretary was that not only will Churchmen be deterred from accepting the offices because of the uncertainty of the passage of the Bill under the Parliament Act, but that it will be difficult to get any good men at all, whether Churchmen or not, to take the posts. Surely that is a most exaggerated view. What docs it mean? It means that a man docs not mind having his name put into the Bill if it is only for a few months, but that he will not stand it if it is for fifteen or eighteen months. Surely that cannot convince even the most devoted follower of the Government.

I have no doubt as to what is the real reasons of this change. I have no doubt that the Government have tried to get decent men to accept these offices and have been met with refusals. They cannot get the men. So great is the feeling against the provisions of this Bill that they cannot get decent people to serve under it. That means that when this Bill has left the House and the discretion is entirely entrusted to the Government they will appoint men who are not the best. They will appoint anybody they can get, and I dare say there are many excellent servants of the Radical cause in Wales who are looking for such appointments. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] When we examine this proposal, what does it mean? It means that the funds of the Church are to be taken, not only for whatever local purposes may be chosen, but also for paying two Radical nominees under this Bill.


The Noble Lord uses the phrase "Radical nominees." Does he mean that they themselves would be Radicals or that they would be nominees of Radicals?


I do not appreciate the distinction. We have been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we take a very narrow view of religion when we confine it to strictly ecclesiastical purposes. Is the payment of the salaries of the Welsh Commissioners a religious purpose or not? It illustrates the total insincerity of the whole of the case underlying the Bill when you find that these men are to be paid, not by a charge on the funds of the country, but out of the funds of the Church, and that the funds of the Church, given, to use the touching words read by the Leader of the Welsh party the other day, centuries ago for strictly religious purposes, are now to be utilised in order to reward the political services of some Welsh Radicals. I confess that that aspect of the case makes me distrust very much the last reason given by the Under-Secretary. He said that the real reason why the Government preferred this way of appointing the Commissioners was that it would make for the better treatment of the Church. Really the hon. Gentleman draws too large a draft on our credulity when he makes a statement of that kind. Surely we are not now going to admit that this Assembly is so degraded, so degenerate, that if we submit the names of the Commissioners to the House of Commons we shall necessarily appoint worse men than if we leave them to the uncontrolled discretion of the Government ! I refuse altogether to believe that that is a sound view of the present political situation. I do not believe for a moment that we should have worse men if we had their names in the Bill. I think it is possible that the Government would not be able to get any decent men to accept the post. In that case that would be a fatal condemnation of the Bill. But if they got anyone, they would get good men. They would not venture to put before the House of Commons the names of any but good men. To adopt the Amendment of the Home Secretary is to abandon a solid guarantee for the excellence of the Welsh Commissioners, and on that ground I shall vote against the Amendment.


The Noble Lord has challenged me to support the Amendment standing in my name. If I have not done so before the reason is obvious to those who heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who made a most admirable and complete statement of the case. With perfect frankness, without concealing anything from the Committee, he stated exactly what the situation is, and gave as the sole reason in support of this Amendment that under the system now proposed we believe that we shall be able to select from a larger and better panel of suitable names than we could do if the gentlemen proposed, particularly in the case of Churchmen, had to run the gauntlet of criticism for eighteen months or two years without any certain knowledge that the Bill would become law. It was really in the interests of the Church. The Noble Lord is perfectly convinced, honestly—I will pay him that tribute—I believe he thinks it true—he is firmly convinced that the sole reason why I have proposed this Amendment is because I have asked a number of gentlemen who have all refused. He really believes that to be true. I have not asked a single individual. I have been refused by nobody. I have not the smallest shadow of doubt that I could get admirable names, quite as good names as in the Bill of 1805, at this moment, to be included in this Bill. I quite honestly believe that I can get better names, more admittedly representative of Church feeling, if I postpone the matter. That has been my sole reason, and not in the least what the Noble Lord thinks is the reason, that I have failed at the present time to get gentlemen willing to accept the position.

The Noble Lord put his case in opening in a way that I thought for once that we were going to have, so far as this Bill was concerned, a somewhat more conciliatory speech from the Noble Lord. He put his case rather on House of Commons grounds than on Church grounds. I was disposed to agree with him. I do agree with him, certainly, that as a general rule in appointments of this kind it is desirable that the names should be in the Bill. That is why we proposed the original Clause. It is not from malice that we are altering it, but because of the genuine belief that I have stated. What are the present circumstances in this case? It is said that the House ought to know the names. I agree that the House ought to know the names. I am now quoting the exact words used by the hon. and learned Member for South Bucks. I agree that the House ought to know the names. But the point is when? If the House of Commons is given the names now I believe that we shall not get as good men as otherwise. I believe in consequence that the administration of this Bill, particularly in view of the fact that such administration lies much more in reputation than in fact, and that what is going to happen under this Bill will in men's minds largely turn upon their belief in the honesty, character, and ability of the Commissioners—because, I say, it lies more in reputation than in fact, I think it to be of the utmost importance that the Commissioners should be men whom the Church of England believe to be honest and upright men. I agree that the names ought to be known, but I believe—I know, indeed, as a matter of fact—I could not get at certain people whom I believe I can get if I do not put the names in the Bill now, and who will be most acceptable—


How do you know? Have you asked them?


If lean reply to the interruption of the hon. Member for Dulwich I will do so, but I do not think it is very relevant.


I think it is very relevant.


The hon, Member for Dulwich has not been here during the course of the Debate. I think it would be better if the Home Secretary were allowed to proceed.


I have been in the precincts of the House for some time.


I am endeavouring to answer the very serious argument put forward by the hon. and learned Member for South Bucks, whose arguments I am sure everybody on this side endeavour to answer. We sympathise with his feelings, although we do not share them. He says why do we not put in the names? My reply is that I believe we will get better names. That is my belief, and upon that ground I have acted. I agree that the House should know, and my hon. Friend has stated that the House shall know the names before the Bill becomes law, if the question is put: "Will the House have an opportunity of discussing the names?" My hon. Friend said something more. He said, if this Bill goes through under the Parliament Act, that the names shall be brought before the House of Commons before the House loses control of the Bill. That is a truism; if the Bill goes through under the Parliament Act it must be in the third Session.


Your defence of the Parliament Act was that important matters are before the country for two-years; but if you only dispose of them a week before the end of those two years, you are going back upon your promises.


If I had known that that was all the right hon. Gentleman was going to say I do not think I would have given way to him. Before the House loses control of this Bill the House will know the names. [An HON. MEMBER: "And discuss them?"] Obviously, if the House has not lost control of the Bill it will have the opportunity of discussing the names. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the guillotine?"] Therefore, as the assurance is given that in the last resort, if any of the wicked things which exist in the minds of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and nowhere else, were perpetrated, the House of Commons would have its veto.


Will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that this part of the Bill will not be guillotined in the last Session?


The hon. Gentleman thinks that I can give a guarantee ! Even if I had the authority to do that, which would ensure that obstruction on that side should put a stop to the Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] After all, so long as this House has control of the Bill, the opportunity will exist to discuss the matter. Otherwise the House of Commons would not have control: that is implied.


Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how the House will have power to discuss the names under what he calls the control of the Bill?


It is impossible to say in advance what the procedure will be in the third Session, but before this House loses control of the Bill the names will be known, and if any of these wickednesses which the Noble Lord says, and rightly says, if ever they are perpetrated, would be wrong, the House will have its veto upon the Bill. Therefore, it is idle to say that the House is asked to accept this provision in the dark. We have got to consider whether this is the better course in the permanent interests of the settlement of outstanding disputes in Wales; whether we should sacrifice the chance of getting men whose names will be absolutely acceptable to every part of Wales, and whose decisions in consequence will settle, instead of inflaming, disputes. By putting in the names now we should run the risk of doing permanent injury. Between these two we have to choose the proper course and the Committee may rest assured that the names shall be given to them at a time when the House has still control of the Bill, and I submit that ought to satisfy them.


I wish to deal for a moment before I come to the substance of the Amendment with the remarks of the Home Secretary. His promise is the same as the guarantee given us by the Under-Secretary to the Home Office, and, like it, it is absolutely fallacious, and I will tell the Committee why. The promise is that the names will be communicated to the House before the House loses control of the Bill, but the names will not be inserted in the Bill. No Division can be taken upon them. They will simply be communicated to the House, probably on the Third Heading, and the House could only refuse to sanction the names by rejecting the Bill on Third Reading altogether. Is that what the right hon. Gentleman calls control by the House. Are hon. Gentlemen opposite going to reject the Bill because of their objection to particular names. Now as to the main point of the Amendment. We are here appointing Commissioners who are to be entrusted with serious duties and is it not essential that not only shall they be men who will do justice, but that they should be men who will inspire the people who come before them with the idea that justice shall be done. Is not that very material? We have repeatedly pressed that the Commissioners should be appointed in the Act and that their name should be inserted in the Bill, so that if the House of Commons thinks fit to criticise them it can do so and should be at liberty to reject any one name if it wished. I do not say that it is likely that the House of Commons will reject one of these three names, but the mere fact that the House of Commons would have power to move such an Amendment and to discuss the names would make any Government very careful of the names they submitted. That is the materiality of it. Is it not very unfortunate that the usual precedent of putting the names in the Bill should be departed from in this instance.

The Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary said that in not putting in the names they are admittedly departing from precedent; and they agree it is vital in the best interests of the House of Commons that this precedent should not be departed from, but they are departing from this precedent in this case, and why? For the sake of the Church of England ! Can they not trust us who represent the Church of England and who are unanimous in this point to say whether those men whom the Home Secretary describes as "admirable men will be suited for the duties they have-to discharge" are such. He says he can get such men. Why does he not trust us by giving us the names? And why does he not tell us who these "admirable men, well suited for those duties," are? Why does he not put their names before us at the present moment so that we may criticise them, and know who their antecedents are, and say whether we shall be content to take them, rather than be asked to accept the belief of the Home Secretary that he will be able to get good men who will satisfy everybody in the future. It is quite clear he has only the belief that he will be able to get such men. He told us, and one accepts his word at once, that so far, he has asked nobody to serve. He has had no refusals, therefore it is the merest belief, a quite honest one, but founded upon no data, that he gives us, because he assures us absolutely, and that was the reason of the interruption of my hon. Friend, that he has not made an offer to anybody, and that he has had no refusal. He only made up his mind two nights ago to adopt this method, and therefore he must have had names in his mind, and if so he might have put them into the Bill. So far he has not offered anyone the job, and has had no refusal. We are unanimously in favour of having "admirable men, well suited for the duties," but we want to discuss their names at the present moment rather than simply accept the belief of the Home Secretary that he can get such men. Surely if this Amendment is moved in the interests of the Church the right hon. Gentleman would not prefer his own judgment to the judgment of those interested in the Church.

4.0 P.M.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea District (Sir David Brynmor Jones) told us that the precedent is to put the names into the Bill, but he said, "What fear is there in this case?" Those people who are going to do what is in substance judicial work of great importance, and when you appoint judges their names never come before the House at all. I protest in the strongest possible way against that analogy. It is absolutely fallacious. Judges and County Court judges are appointed by the Lord Chancellor upon his responsibility. I make no complaints of the appointments made by the Lord Chancellor of the present Government, but the appointments by the Lord Chancellor of judges of the High Court are subject to very strong criticism amongst a very strong profession, a profession which includes people of both sides in politics, and who have a pretty sound understanding amongst them. The point is this, that when the Lord Chancellor appoints a man to be a High Court judge or a County Court judge, even if he selects him from the ranks of Members of this House, that man is made a judge for life, and does not entertain political control or political ambition from that time. That is invariably so in the case of High Court judges, and it is practically the case with County Court judges. There is only one instance that I know, after a pretty long experience of the Bar, and that is the distinguished exception of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea District, who left the County Court bench and came back to this House, but, beyond that I have never heard of any other instance where a man appointed a County Court or a High Court judge has ever come back to take part in the deliberations in the political arena in this House. That is not the case with these Commissioners. They are to be men appointed on comparatively small salaries of £1,500 a year and £1,000 a year, and one is to be unpaid. They are to be appointed for three years only. At the end of these three years they will be again available to come back to this House or to carry on political warfare. It would be possible to say, by Amendment, that they shall not become Members of this House for at least five years afterwards, or something like it. You cannot grant safeguards of that kind to insure the constitution of a tribunal which people will think is a fair one. It is useless to say that these men shall not be Members of Parliament, and that they will be people connected with the Church of England. We all know the pressure pur upon politicians. The point raised by the hon. Member for Swansea about the judges does not apply here at all. You have people appointed for three years only, and at the end of that time they may be back again amongst political strife, and it is for that reason that I press the Government here most strongly, in the name of fair play and justice, to give us the names of these three men who have to try these important Clauses. Let us have the three names so that we may criticise them if we are dissatisfied.


I wish to deal with two points put by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil). He divided his speech into two main arguments. In one of those arguments the Noble Lord made a general attack upon the Government of the day, which was a very strong one, and not without bitterness. He spoke of appointments being created for Radical nominees and rewards for political services. I do not think you can consistently make a charge like that against the present Administration. I know attacks have been made upon the Prime Minister, and he has been charged with fraudulent conduct and called a trickster. May I point out that the Prime Minister has in his hands, not only this patronage, but he has also the tremendous patronage of apponting the spiritual heads of the Church which the Noble Lord opposite apparently does not object to. Therefore, the Noble Lord cannot in sincerity make violent attacks of that nature against an Administration when he quietly and calmly acquiesces and upholds the head of that Administration in the large and valuable appointments of the spiritual heads of the Church who will control the Church for many years to come. The Noble Lord cannot make a bitter party attack of that kind and consistently maintain the other aspects of the Establishment. The only argument that has any weight with me is that from a strict Parliamentary point of view this is a bad thing. In this matter I go further than the Home Secretary, and I say that from a strict Parliamentary point of view, and from the point of view of the Church, it is a most undesirable thing to put names into any Bill. I think that is the old-established practice of the House. It was adopted in the Irish Church Bill and in the case of the present Administration in the Licensing Bill, and one or two other instances.


It was done in the Education Bill.


There are many precedents for not putting in the names. I will tell the Committee why it is a most undesirable thing that names should be put in the Bill and discussed at length. I do not suppose anybody would get up and say that an administration worth continuing in office at all would not choose the very best men in its opinion it thought it could appoint; but let me suppose a section of the House very strongly opposed one particular Member appointed and that the appointment was debated at length. The Government would be bound, as I think, to adhere to its own nominee in spite of all criticism, and that man would be called upon to discharge judicial and heavy administrative functions with a prejudice against him and with all possible kinds of imputations that he was unfair and undesirable. I do think on that ground it is highly desirable Parliament should play no part in the fixing of the Members who are to carry on these duties, but that it? should be left to the Executive of the day. Parliament, as I conceive it, is not strictly an executive body in the sense of making appointments. The duty of Parliament is not to express their opinion about the names in this Bill, but to jealously guard the administration of it, and, if the men appointed are not fit and proper persons to discharge the duties placed upon them, to visit with a heavy hand the responsibility upon the Government. I believe on the ground of political consistency, and still more on the ground of Parliamentary control the Government have been well advised to follow what I hope will be the growing Parliamentary practice of keeping strictly in their own hands the nomination of those who are to carry out the work, leaving Parliament to carry out the much more difficult and equally important function of criticising their administration.

Viscount WOLMER

The hon. Member who has just sat; down has enough resource to introduce a new theory to suit the changed times. It has up to now been universally held that in a measure of this sort it was very desirable that the House of Commons should decide who should have the carrying of it out. That was the opinion of Mr. Gladstone in 1869, it was the opinion of the Government that carried through the Bill of 1895, and it has been the opinion of this Government in regard to several Bills which have been brought forward during recent Parliaments. I should like to point out the effect the Parliament Act has had in this case on the Members of the House of Commons. We are here setting what is bound to be a precedent in all important Government Bills which contain a similar provision. If the Government have to carry a Bill under the Parliament Act, we now know they will never be able to put in the names of the men who are going to administer it; that is to say, the safeguard which Mr. Gladstone and Lord Rosebery thought necessary in 1895 and which the present Government thought necessary in the Licensing Bill and the Education Bill, is now taken away, and the House of Commons will have to discuss these Bills in future in the dark without knowing who is going to have the carrying of them out. We were told at the time of the passing of the Parliament Act that the two years' space of time was a most vital factor in the Government scheme, inasmuch as it would give the country an opportunity of analysing the Bill for itself, of appreciating what its effect would be, and of passing a judgment upon it by way of demonstrations by elections and the like.

In a Bill of this sort, administration is a very important factor; in fact, in connection with some parts of the Bill it is an all-important factor. Yet you are going to deliberately withhold from the country the names of those who will have the administration of the Bill, and you will thereby handicap the Members of this House in passing judgment upon the Bill. It is to the interest of the Bill itself that the House should know who these gentlemen are to be. If they are to be the fit and proper persons which the Government pretend, that would be one of the strongest arguments in favour of the Bill. But the omission to give the names will be a source of suspicion, doubt, and uncertainty. The giving of the names would be of the greatest assistance to the Government in their task of piloting this Bill through the House of Commons, providing, of course, the names were those of gentlemen whom we could all respect and whose intentions we should know would be bonâ fide. It has been suggested from these benches that the Government asked certain gentlemen if they would become Commissioners and that they refused: hence the postponement of the publication of the names. But the Home Secretary has informed us that that is not the case. In his speech the right hon. Gentleman said he knew that in the case of certain men who might suitably be appointed they would not accept office if their names were to be exposed to public criticism for a coupe of years. How does he know that? How can he have obtained the information except by asking? And if he has thus obtained it, what does he mean by getting up and saying that he has asked no one? The right hon. Gentleman has contradicted himself flatly in these two sentences, and I should be very glad if he would clear up that point.


They are not the words the right hon. Gentleman used.

Viscount WOLMER

If the hon. Membar will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow morning, I think he will find that what I have said is perfectly accurate. There is another incident in the situation which ought to be borne in mind. The Government only put down this Amendment forty-eight hours ago. It is perfectly inconceivable that they could have gone all this time since this Bill was first brought in without having in mind the names of some persons whom they intended to appoint. Why, then, did they come down suddenly forty-eight hours before this Clause came up for discussion and announce this change of policy? It can only be because they knew that the names which they would bring forward would not command the confidence of the majority of the Members of this House. I do not mean, of course, that the names would be such as to ensure the rejection of the Bill. But they would not be such as to command confidence in the country, because they would create a feeling of disquiet on both sides of the House, and thereby weaken the general position of the Bill. Really a very serious precedent is being set up at the present moment. Information of a vital character with regard to the administration of this Bill is being withheld from the House of Commons and from the country owing to the working of the Parliament Act. We believe that that information is being withheld because its publication would be damaging to the Government. We can conceive no other reason why it should be withheld. We cannot trust the administration or the appointments of the right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary without criticism from this House. We have had experience of his administration in the Education Office, and we found him capable of bringing about by administration that which he could not bring about by legislation. Therefore, we are not prepared to trust him with a blank cheque in this matter, or to give him a free hand to appoint men whom he thinks would carry out the Bill to suit his purposes and intentions best; whose names he dare not publish to the country or bring before this Committee at the present moment.


The Noble Lord the Member for the Newton Division (Viscount Wolmer), echoing the argument used by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord Robert Cecil), tells us that he cannot conceive of any reason why the Government should withhold the names of the Commissioners who are to administer the Bill when it becomes an Act, except that the names which may have been chosen would not receive the assent of the House of Commons, or at all events, if receiving it, would only receive a grudging assent. I think that both Noble Lords are neglecting the use of their imaginations in this case. We know that in other cases they have large and powerful imaginations. I suggest that they should bring them to bear in this fashion: Let me make the assumption that the Government, either now or at the time when this Bill is about to be brought into operation, chooses some distinguished Churchman not in the House of Commons, not known for his association with the Conservative party, but chosen deliberately because he is well acquainted with the affairs of the Church in Wales. Let me assume that his name is published now. I do not think I should envy his experience during the next two years. I do not think I should like, in the person of that gentleman, to meet the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) in some of his impassioned moments. I do not think I should like to meet the hon. and learned Member for South Bucks (Sir A. Cripps), still less should I like to meet the Noble Lord the Member for the Newton Division (Viscount Wolmer) or the hon. Member for the Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Ormsby-Gore). Let it also be marked, on my assumption, that these are the persons with whom I would naturally be associating at the present moment. This supposed appointee, on going into his club, would probably be assailed with the remark, "Here is the fellow who is hand and glove with the Radical Government in robbing the Welsh Church." I may be putting this as an extreme case, but I do so in all sincerity to the two Noble Lords. I am perfectly certain that is the first idea that would rise in the mind of a man on being asked to receive this appointment at this moment, when passion is most violently aroused on this subject. Even if my supposed appointee says that the Government have moved in good faith, he will say, "I am not prepared to stand up to be shot at in this fashion by my own friends."

Viscount WOLMER

made a remark which was inaudible.


I do not think that assumption is well founded.


Wait and see.


I am prepared to wait and see. I do not think, so far as the Amendment is concerned, that the argument is well justified. The appointee will be engaged in showing by actual day to day administration of the Bill his bona fides, and his desire to work without friction, but he will be the target of, I will not say ill-meaning but passionate denunciation of persons who have maintained a most passionate opposition to this Bill.


The hon. Member who has just sat down has proved himself a most ingenious apologist for the Government, but I cannot seriously think that he believes his argument will carry very much weight. The hon. Member has more than once made us interesting, moderate speeches in this connection and in others which we appreciated, but on this occasion it seems to me that his imagination at any rate has rather run away with him. But what has interested me in this Debate, and more particularly in the speech of the Home Secretary, is the very curious attitude which he has developed. The Home Secretary has told us that he has asked no one and had no refusals in connection with the appointment of these Commissioners. Why did he agree to the Clause being framed as it was when the Bill was first drafted? That is a matter which entirely puzzles me. The Bill was read a first time eight months ago, and it is only yesterday or the day before that the Home Secretary put down an Amendment to tell us that he has changed his mind. If he had changed his mind and did not propose to name the Commissioners in the Bill I should have thought he might have put down that Amendment ever so long ago. If, on the other hand, he proposed to adhere, as was perfectly natural, to the original proposition that the names should be put in, he has had eight months to think about it, in which he could have asked people, and it is astonishing that he should now say he has not attempted to ask anyone and has had no refusals. And all this is directly against precedent. In every case that I can recall to memory, in the case of the Irish Land Act, in the case of the Port of London Act, in the case, I think, of one of the Education Bills introduced by the Government, and in one of the Water Bills, in every one of these cases, and no doubt there are many more, the names of the Commissioners have invariably been introduced.


It was not in the Insurance Act.


It was not drafted in the Insurance Act.


They gave the names.


Not at this stage.


They gave the names while the Bill was under the control of the House, but in this case that is not proposed.




No, the hon. Member is mistaking the facts. When does he suppose that we are going successfully to resist any names which are proposed in this Bill? There is to be no Division taken upon them under any circumstances I can see unless the Government put down a separate Resolution to discuss the names. It is quite impossible to discuss the names themselves effectively on, say, the Second Reading of the Bill next Session or when it is summarily closured in Committee, or on Third Reading, with the Parliament Act in force.


May I explain what I meant by my interjection? There was no opportunity on the Committee stage of the Insurance Act to criticise the names of the Commissioners. We waited all through the Committee stage till the conclusion of it, but before the Bill left the House we got the names. I think the Conservative party accepted that, and made no complaint.


It could have been done on the Report stage. There is no suggestion that they are going to do it on the Report stage here. If the Government say they will do that it will remove many of our objections, but they have not the slightest intention apparently of doing so. Therefore the parallel of the hon. Member is inapplicable. Further, these names in no case will come up in Estimates before the House. The names will be withdrawn from the Estimates because, forsooth, the salaries are to be charged on the plundered funds of the Church. There is no way in which the House can effectively discuss them and divide upon them. The Government is creating absolutely a new precedent. They may search in vain the pages of the Statute Book to find any similar course. These gentlemen will be political functionaries. There is no denying that. They are not in the position of judges, or members, in the ordinary sense, of judicial bodies. They have largely political functions to perform, and it is idle, it seems to me, to bring forward the parallel which the hon. Member for Pembrokeshire (Mr. Roch) mentioned with regard to the appointment of bishops. I am prepared myself to admit that the Prime Minister has taken immense trouble to make wise appointments of the heads of the Church, but this is not a matter of appointing bishops at all. The bishops are not political functionaries, and I really think that bishops ought not to be so. Therefore, again, the parallel between the bishops and these Commissioners entirely falls to the ground. I do wish that the House would bear in mind that its privileges in this matter are being seriously threatened. This is an attempt, which seems at the moment likely to succeed, to put the power of the Executive Government above the power of the House of Commons as to a matter in which the House of Commons is specially concerned, and in regard to officers specially created for carrying out the behests of the party in office. We object to encroaching upon the privileges of the House of Commons to that extent. We think they are being encroached upon contrary to all precedent, and it is not likely to secure the care which ought to be exercised in making the appointments if this power is withdrawn from the control of the House of Commons. We trust that the Government will reconsider the matter before a decision is taken.


My criticism will be directed to a point to which no reference has hitherto been made this afternoon. It is the provision that a member of this body should be a member of the Church of England. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Swansea District (Sir D. Brynmor Jones) has very properly intimated that he and others who think with him acknowledge that they are members of the Church of England. As the House will remember, John Wesley made it his boast that he and his coreligionists were members of the Church of England. I may say that those who are working and yearning for reunion among Protestants do look to this factor as one upon which they may depend for some chance in their efforts, but if you lay down specifically that one Commissioner is to be a member of the Church of England—and by that I mean a baptised communicant member—you will, following the old Latin maxim, Erpressio unius est exclusio alterius, impliedly convey that the other Commissioners will not be members of the Church of England. In other words, you start by creating a definite religious partisanship upon what is admittedly a judicial tribunal. Surely, if it is a judcial tribunal, you desire to constitute it properly. We must admit that the Commissioners will have difficult and delicate matters to deal with relating to the Orders made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, Queen Anne's Bounty, and private benefactions, and one thing you ought not to do is to emphasise the sectarian character of the individuals who constitute that tribunal. I should like to see these words absolutely omitted, because I believe you will thereby create a tribunal that will enjoy to a much greater extent the confidence of the people of Wales and the members of the Church of England, as they will appear in the public eye to be there as judges and not as sectarian partisans.


I thank the hon. Member who has just sat down for his generous utterances. I entirely agree with them, and I am sure that many Members on this side of the House agree also with the sentiments which he has expressed, that men holding such positions ought to be there not as representing any one Church, but the Christian community and the public generally, and if there is an opportunity on the Report stage, and he chooses to put down an Amendment, then in that sense he will find certainly that I will go into the Lobby even against the Government in support of him. I desire now to refer to one speech in this Debate which made a great impression on me, the speech of the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees). His utterance compares in quality and argumentative force very favourably with certain other speeches to which we have listened from that side of the House. I recognise very gladly the prominent position which the hon. Member, who has so recently left our ranks, is now assuming in the councils of the party opposite, and if at some future date we have to cross the floor of the House and I find myself confronted with the hon. Member sitting on the Front Treasury Bench, it will be some solace to me and other Members on this side of the House. I am just going to suggest to the Under-Secretary that if there is any difficulty in finding a suitable person for the post of Commissioner under this Act he might apply to the hon. Member. He has entered deeply into the aspirations of both sides upon this question. He is a man of great experience and wide breadth and sympathy. I only wish to make one more observation; that is I think that the view which has been expressed on this side of the House ought seriously to be considered on this and every other occasion, that it is generally undesirable to put the names of Commissioners in any Bill at all. In the case of the National Insurance Act there was no demand from a single Member of this House that the names should be placed in the Bill. I am generally more than satisfied with the arguments put forward by the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary, and I can go away for the week-end feeling satisfied that as a matter of argument my side of the House has had the best of the encounter.


From the House of Commons point of view, may I say frankly I have not the least idea as to who any nominee of the Government or the other side would be. The hon. Member for Pembroke said that if these Commissioners were appointed the House at once had the power of criticising them when the Estimates came on or at other stages. As a matter of fact we have no power to criticise administration under this Government, with its guillotine and Sessional Orders. Our power of criticism is purely illusory. No matter what may be the subject of administration, we never get the time or opportunity to discuss it. In addition to that, if these officials are appointed, they will not be on the Estimates, and their action cannot be criticised when the Estimates come up. Therefore, if the hon. Member is relying on a Parliamentary opportunity of criticism, it is no safeguard, especially in this case. Hon. Members opposite are perfectly sincere, no doubt, in insisting on a strong House of Commons; they are always shouting for increased strength of the House of Commons. I am only looking at this subject as a House of Commons man, and it strikes me that increased strength of the House of Commons, only means increased strength at the expense of the other Chamber. They are perfectly willing to give way to the Executive, so that the House of Commons is more and more losing control as the years go by. This is an exact case in point. The House of Commons will have no control over the gentlemen to be appointed. Surely it cannot be a healthy tendency among those hon. Gentlemen who are in favour of increasing the strength of the House of Commons when they surrender powers to the Executive. It is not in accordance with the old Liberal doctrine. There are three kinds of possible Commission. Take the Insurance Act: there we had the names given before the Bill left the House. That was a compromise and, I think, a fair one.

What are the Insurance Commissioners? I am not finding the least fault, because, as the hon. Member said, they were accepted by the House of Commons. The Insurance Commissioners are persons who were appointed to carry out the policy of the Government in administering the Act. Are the Commissioners under the Bill now before us to carry out the Government policy? We do not know, and we cannot know until the names are given. You have another class of Commission, the purely judicial Commission, the members of which are men of judicial character, and in regard to whom it makes no difference whether we know their names before appointment or not. The members of such a Commission are above all sides of the House, and are in the position of judges. Personally, I do not think you could have a judicial Commission, because of the inextricable business which has to be dealt with, and I think that administrators rather than judges will be required. Thirdly, there is a kind of Commission to which the hon. Member the Under-Secretary objects, but which will work exceedingly well in Ireland, where there was deliberately appointed a nominee who was a strong and keen Churchman, a nominee of the Free Churches, and an impartial chairman. I am not in the least criticising any of the three forms of Commission. In Ireland, under the Land Act, which was to be a national settlement, Mr. Gladstone, with the full approval of the House of Commons, chose a tenants' representative, a landlords' representative, and an impartial chairman. That was done again under the Act of 1903, and the names were put into the Bill. To me it is immaterial which kind of Commission is appointed, whether you have administrators, or purely judicial Commissioners, or two Commissioners, representing the Church and the Free Church, with an impartial chairman. "Which is their selection? We cannot tell until we know the names. Surely we are only giving up one of the few remaining powers we have over the Executive if the policy of the Government is not stated to us in one of these three respects before it leaves Committee. From the point of view of the House of Commons let us know what it is before the House of Commons loses all control over it.


As one of those who is much alarmed at the growth of Executive power, I am not in favour of taking powers from the House in order to lavish them on the Front Bench—certainly not!—but I would remind the hon. and learned Gentle-

man that that is not quite the point, for even if the names go in the Bill it does not affect the power of this House over them in their administrative acts. If the hon. and learned Gentleman or any others could have given me information on this point I would have been prepared to vote against my Whip if they could have proved that we would have more control over the Commissioners when they are performing their functions. The mere fact that we have a voice in the selection does not mean a step in advance. In my own view I rather think the Government are more likely to appoint impartial people, if they select them, than this House. If this House goes to a vote, we shall be subject to the charge that we come here in order to lavish political patronage. I say quite candidly I do not want to be brought here to vote for men having appointments of £1,000 or £1,500 per year. I would much prefer to come here and criticise them, severely if you like, and keep them up to the mark. If there was anything in this Amendment which pointed to the fact that the House of Commons would have more control over those officials, then I would feel bound, in accordance with my own convictions, to vote with the Opposition, but as this is purely a matter of the selection of the men, and does not bear at all on the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I leave it in the hands of the Government, which has a right hon. Gentleman at the head whose record in this matter of Church appointments will stand favourable comparison with that of any Prime Minister we ever had.

Question, "That the words ' The following persons,' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 125; Noes, 249.

Division No. 485.] AYES. [4.45 P.m.
Aitken, Sir William Max Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)
Amery, L. C. M. S. Boyton, James Denniss, E. R. B.
Astor, Waldorf Bridgeman, William Clive Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott
Baird, John Lawrence Bull, Sir William James Faber, George D. (Clapham)
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) Burdett-Coutts, William Faber, Captain W. V. (Hants, W.)
Balcarres, Lord Burn, Colonel C. R. Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Cassel, Felix Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.
Barnston, Harry Castlereagh, Viscount Fletcher, John Samuel
Barrie, H. T. Cave, George Forster, Henry William
Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc, E.) Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Gardner, Ernest
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) Gibbs, G. A.
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Chambers, James Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)
Bennett-Goldney, Francis Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)
Beresford, Lord Charles Clive, Captain Percy Archer Goulding, Edward Alfred
Blair, Reginald Craik, Sir Henry Greene, W. R.
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred Gretton, John
Haddock, George Bahr MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Hall, Fred (Dulwich) Macmaster, Donald Sanders, Robert A.
Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.) M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) Spear, Sir John Ward
Harris, Henry (Percy Malcolm, Ian Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Mildmay, Francis Bingham Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Helmsley, Viscount Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire) Moore, William Swift, Rigby
Hewins, William Albert Samuel Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)
Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. Mount, William Arthur Talbot, Lord Edmund
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Newman, John R. P. Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford) Newton, Harry Kottingham Touche, George Alexander
Horner, Andrew Long Norton-Griffiths, J. Tryon, Captain George Clement
Hunt, Rowland O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) Wheler, Granville C. H.
Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William White, Major G. D. (Lancs, Southport)
Jessel, Captain H. M. Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) Winterton, Earl
Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) Wolmer, Viscount
Larmor, Sir J. Perkins, Walter Frank Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) Peto, Basil Edward Worthington-Evans, L.
Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End) Pollock, Ernest Murray Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Lloyd, George Ambrose Pryce-Jones, Col. E. Yate, Col. C. E.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel Younger, Sir George
Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) Rawson, Colonel Richard H.
Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) Rees, Sir J. D. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo.,Han. S.) Salter, Arthur Clavell Hoare and Major Gastrell.
Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Kellaway, Frederick George
Adamson, William Essex, Sir Richard Walter Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Addison, Dr. Christopher Esslemont, George Birnie Kilbride, Denis
Alden, Percy Falconer, James King, Joseph
Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire) Farrell, James Patrick Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Ffrench, Peter Lardner, James Carrige Rushe
Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. Field, William Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) Fitzgibbon, John Leach, Charles
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Flavin, Michael Joseph Levy, Sir Maurice
Barnes, G. N. Furness, Stephen W. Lewis, John Herbert
Beale, Sir William Phipson Gilhooly, James Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Bentham, George Jackson Gill, A. H. Low, Sir F. (Norwich)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Ginnell, Laurence Lundon, T.
Boland, John Pius Gladstone, W. G. C. Lynch, A. A.
Booth, Frederick Handel, Glanville, H. J Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)
Bowerman, C. W. Goldstone, Frank McGhee, Richard
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Brace, William Griffith, Ellis J. MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)
Brady, P. J. Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) Macpherson, James Ian
Bryce, J. Annan Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Burke, E. Haviland- Gulney, Patrick M'Callum, Sir John M.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Gulland, John William McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)
Byles, Sir William Pollard Hackett, J. Marks, Sir George Croydon
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Hancock, J. G. Marshall, Arthur Harold
Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood) Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rosssndale) Martin, Joseph
Chancellor, Henry G. Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) Mason, David M. (Coventry)
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire) Meagher, Michael
Clancy, John Joseph Hayden, John Patrick Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Clough, William Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.) Millar, James Duncan
Clynes, John R. Healy, Maurice (Cork) Molloy, Michael
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.) Mond, Sir Alfred M.
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Helme, Sir Norval Watson Morgan, George Hay
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Hemmerde, Edward George Morrell, Philip
Condon, Thomas Joseph Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Morison, Hector
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Cotton, William Francis Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) Muldoon, John
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot Higham, John Sharp Munro, R.
Crean, Eugene Hinds, John Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.
Crooks, William Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Nannetti, Joseph P.
Crumley, Patrick Hodge, John Neilson, Francis
Cullinan, John Hogge, James Myles Nolan, Joseph
Davies, E. William (Eifion) Holmes, Daniel Turner Norton, Captain Cecil W.
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) Nugent, Sir Walter Richard
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Howard, Hon. Geoffrey O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire) Hudson, Walter O'Brien, William (Cork)
Delany, William Hughes, S. L. O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Denman, Hon. R. D. Illingworth, Percy H. O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Devlin, Joseph John, Edward Thomas O'Doherty, Philip
Dillon, John Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea) O'Donnell, Thomas
Donelan, Captain A. Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) O'Dowd, John
Doris, William Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) O'Grady, James
Duffy, William J. Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)
Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney) O'Malley, William
Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) Joyce, Michael O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Keating, Matthew O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
O'Shee. James John Rowlands, James Verney, Sir Harry
O'Sullivan, Timothy Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
Outhwaite, R. L. Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L, (Cleveland) Walters, Sir John Tudor
Parker, James (Halifax) Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Pearce, William (Limehouse) Scanlan, Thomas Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) Wardle, George J.
Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. Waring. Walter
Pointer, Joseph Sheehy, David Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Power, Patrick Joseph Sherwell, Arthur James Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Shortt, Edward Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Pringle, William M. R. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook Webb, H.
Radford, G. H. Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Raffan, Peter Wilson Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton) White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Redmond, William (Clare, E.) Snowden, Philip Whitehouse, John Howard
Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) Soames, Arthur Wellesley Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.
Richards, Thomas Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert Whyte, A. F.
Richardson, Albion (Peckham) Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) Wilkie, Alexander
Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) Sutherland, J. E. Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Sutton, John E. Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Roberts, George H. (Norwich) Taylor, John W. (Durham) Williamson, Sir A.
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Tennant, Harold John Young, William (Perthshire, E.)
Robinson, Sidney Thomas, James Henry Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Roche, Augustine (Louth) Thorne, W. (West Ham) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Rose, Sir Charles Day Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.

It being a quarter before Five of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 28th November, 1912, successively to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at a quarter before Five of the clock at this day's sitting.

Amendment made: "In Sub-section (1), leave out the words" The following per-sons (that is to say),"and insert instead thereof the words "Such persons, not exceeding three in number, as His; Majesty may by Warrant under His Sign Manual appoint, of whom one at least shall be a member of the Church of England."

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 126

Division No. 486.] AYE5. [4.55 P.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Flavin, Michael Joseph
Adamson, William Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Furness, Stephen
Addison, Dr. Christopher Condon, Thomas Joseph Gilhooly, James
Alden, Percy Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Gill, A. H.
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) Cotton, William Francis Ginnell, L.
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Crawshay-Williams, Eliot Glanville, Harold James
Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. Crean, Eugene Goldstone, Frank
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Crooks, William Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Crumley, Patrick Griffith, Ellis J.
Barnes, G. N. Cullinan, J, Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)
Beale, Sir William Phipson Davies, E. William (Eifion) Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)
Beck, Arthur Cecil Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth) Guiney, P.
Bentham, G. J. Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Gulland, John William
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire) Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)
Boland, John Pius Delany, William Hackett, J.
Booth, Frederick Handel Denman, Hon. R. D. Hancock, John George
Bowerman, C. W. Devlin, Joseph Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)
Boyle, D, (Mayo, N.) Dillon, John Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)
Brace, William Donelan, Captain A. Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Brady, P. J. Doris, W. Hayden, John Patrick
Bryce, J. Annan Duffy, William J. Hazleton, Richard
Burke, E. Haviland- Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Healy, Maurice (Cork)
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) Helme, Sir Norval Watson
Byles, Sir William Pollard Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Hemmerde, Edward George
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs, Heywood) Essex, Sir Richard Walter Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)
Chancellor, H. G. Esslemont, George Birnie Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Falconer, J. Higham, John Sharp
Clancy, John Joseph Farrell, James Patrick Hinds, John
Clough, William Ffrench, Peter Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E.H.
Clynes, John R. Field, William Hodge, John
Collins, G. P. (Greenock) Fitzgibbon, John Hogge, James Myles
Holmes, Daniel Turner Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) Muldoon, John Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Munro, R. Scanlan, Thomas
Hudson, Walter Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. Scott, A. MacCallum, (Glas., Bridgeton).
Hughes, S. L. Nannetti, Joseph P. Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Illingworth, Percy H. Nellson, Francis Sheeny, David
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus Nolan, Joseph Sherwell, Arthur James
John Edward Thomas Norton, Captain Cecil W. Shortt, Edward
Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea) Nugent, Sir Walter Richard Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook.
Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) O'Brien, William (Cork) Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Jones, Leif stratten (Rushcliffe) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Snowden, Philip
Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts.,Stepney) O'Doherty, Philip Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Joyce, Michael O'Donnell, Thomas Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert
Keating, Matthew O'Dowd, John Stanley, Albert (Stalls, N.W.)
Kellaway, Frederick George O'Grady, James Sutherland, J. E.
Kennedy, Vincent Paul O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) Sutton, John E.
Kilbride, Denis O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) Taylor, John W. (Durham)
King, J. O'Malley, William Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)
Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) Tennant, Harold John
Lardner, James Carrige Rushe O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Thomas, J. H.
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) O'Shee, James John Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Leach, Charles O'Sullivan, Timothy Thorne, William (West Ham)
Levy, Sir Maurice Outhwaite, R. L. Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Lewis, John Herbert Parker, James (Halifax) Verney, Sir Harry
Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek) Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)
Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) Walters, Sir John Tudor
Lundon, Thomas Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Lynch, A. A. Pointer, Joseph Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) Power, Patrick Joseph Wardle, George J.
McGhee, Richard Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Waring, Walter
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Pringle, William M. R. Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) Radford, G. H. Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Macpherson, James Ian Rattan, Peter Wilson Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Webb, H.
M'Callum, Sir John M. Redmond, William (Clare, E.) White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)
McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) Richards, Thomas White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Marks, Sir George Croydon Richardson, Albion (Peckham) Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Marshall, Arthur Harold Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Martin, Joseph Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Wilkie, Alexander
Mason, David M. (Coventry) Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Meagher, Michael Robertson, Sir G. Scott, (Bradford) Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) Williamson, Sir Archibald
Millar, James Duncan Robinson, Sidney Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Molloy, M. Roch, Walter F. Young, William (Perth, East)
Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz Roche, Augustine (Louth) Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Morgan, George Hay Rose, Sir Charles Day
Morrell, Philip Rowlands, James TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.
Morison, Hector Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. Wedgwood Benn and Mr. W. Jones.
Aitken, Sir William Max Chambers, J. Hewins, William Albert Samuel
Amery, L. C. M. S. Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Hickman, Colonel T. E.
Astor Waldorf Clive, Captain Percy Archer Hoare, Samuel John Gurney
Baird, J. L. Craik, Sir Henry Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Baicarres, Lord Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Dalziel, D. (Brixton) Horner, Andrew Long
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Denniss, E. R. B. Hunt, Rowland
Barnston, Harry Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott Hunter, Sir C. R.
Barrie, H. T. Faber, George Denison (Clapham) Jessel, Captain H. M.
Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.) Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Larmor, Sir J.
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)
Bennett-Goldney, Francis Fletcher, John Samuel Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)
Beresford, Lord C. Forster, Henry William Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)
Blair, Reginald Gardner, Ernest Lowe, Sir F. (Birm., Edgbaston)
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- Gastrell, Major W. H. Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S.)
Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) Gibbs, G. A. Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)
Boyton, James Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K. MacCaw. Wm. J. MacGeagh
Bridgeman, W. Clive Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) Macmaster, Donald
Bull, Sir William James Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)
Burdett-Coutts, W. Goulding, Edward Alfred Malcolm, Ian
Burn, Colonel C. R. Greene, W. R. Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Carilie, Sir Edward Mildred Gretton, John Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas,
Cassel, Felix Haddock, George Bahr Moore, William
Castlereagh, Viscount Hall, Fred (Dulwich) Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)
Cator, John Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.) Mount, William Arthur
Cave, George Harris, Henry Percy Newman, John R. P.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Newton, Harry Kottingham
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) Helmsley, Viscount Norton-Griffiths, John
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) Wheler, Granville C. H.
Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) Sanders, Robert A. White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) Spear, Sir John Ward Winterton, Earl
Perkins, Walter F. Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) Wolmer, Viscount
Peto, Basil Edward Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Pollock, Ernest Murray Steel-Maitland, A. D. Worthington-Evans, L.
Pryce-Jones, Col. E. Swift, Rigby Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central) Yate, Col. Charles Edward
Rawson, Col. R. H. Talbot, Lord E. Younger, Sir George
Rees, Sir J. D. Terrell, H. (Gloucester)
Rolleston, Sir John Touche, George Alexander TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Salter, Arthur Clavell Tryon, Capt. George Clement Lloyd and Sir R. Baker.