§ (1) There shall be paid to each person who has any existing interest in any tithe rent-charge transferred to a county council under this Act, in substitution for and in satisfaction of that interest, and so long as that interest would otherwise have continued, the annual amount, according to the septennial average, of that tithe rent-charge, after deducting such sum as may be allowed by the Welsh Commissioners for cost of collection, rates, and other outgoings.1915
§ (2) The amount so payable shall be paid by the county council to the representative body upon trust to pay over the same to the person who had such an existing interest as aforesaid, and the amount so payable by the county council shall be a debt from the council to the representative body, and a charge on the county fund.
§ (3) A county council and the representative body shall as respects any tithe rent-charge transferred to them under this Act which was previously attached to a benefice, be deemed to be the owner of tithe rent-charge attached to a benefice for the purposes of the Tithe Rent-charge Rates Act, 1899, so long as the holder of the benefice continues to be entitled to the emoluments of the benefice, but no longer.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The first Amendment I propose to call is that standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for South Bucks (Sir A. Cripps); the second is the one next following on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Montague Barlow); and the third is one standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Newbury Division (Mr. Mount).
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
I have an Amendment on the Paper, the object of which is to try and. raise a question of some importance, if I might submit it to you?
§ The CHAIRMAN
The Noble Lord is hardly entitled to set forth his Amendment except on the application of the Chairman.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
Then may I ask you, Sir, whether you have considered the effect of the words "in substitution for and in satisfaction of that interest and," which appear in this Clause, and whether you would allow me to explain why I submit some Amendment should be moved in order to raise points of great importance with reference to the consideration of this Clause and Clause 18?
§ The CHAIRMAN
The Noble Lord's Amendment only appeared on the Paper this morning, but, after giving it such consideration as I had been able to do, it is not one of those which I think it my duty to select.
§ Sir ALFRED CRIPPS
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "according to the septennial average."
I want to know what the Bill means as it stands. The Home Secretary has inserted in the Bill these words "according 1916 to the septennial average." If he merely means the annual amount of the tithe rent-charge, of course it is ascertained according to the septennial average, but, if he intends these words to mean another form of septennial average, then of course they ought not to be inserted. In the one case they are unnecessary, and in the other they ought not to be inserted at all. Perhaps the Home Secretary will tell me the purpose and object of the words.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna)
I am not sure I quite understand the point put forward by the hon. and learned Member. One, of course, appreciates his statement that the amount of the tithe rent-charge is always reckoned upon the septennial average. If his point would be met by inserting after the words "according to the septennial average" the words "for the time being," it would have no effect upon the Bill, and I would agree to accept those words.
§ Sir A. CRIPPS
I think it would meet my point. The words then would be merely surplusage, but they would meet the point. I was afraid the words in the Clause might refer to another septennial average.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. McKENNA
I beg to move, in Subsection (1) after the word "average"["according to the septennial average"], to insert the words "for the time being."
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Sir ALFRED CRIPPS
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "such sum as may be allowed by the Welsh Commissioners for cost of collection, rates, and other outgoings," and to insert instead thereof the words "all rates, taxes, and charges assessed upon and payable out of such tithe rent-charge."
This Amendment, in my view, is one of great importance, and I want to make my point quite clear to the Committee. As the Bill stands, the amount to be deducted from the tithe rent-charge, in its net form, is a sum to be allowed by the Welsh Commissioners in respect of the cost of collection and other matters. My first objection is that the amount to be deducted ought not to depend upon the decision of the Welsh Commissioners. I do not want to make any attack on those gentlemen. We do not know who they are to be. But 1917 we are dealing here with a matter of property and the deduction to be made ought not to be a deduction such as the Welsh Commissioners may allow, but it ought to be the actual deductions which are, in fact, being made from the tithe rent-charge under existing conditions and having regard to existing liabilities. I will explain to the Committee in a moment why I have put my Amendment in this form. Surely it must be wrong, when ascertaining the amount to be paid over as commutation for tithe rent-charge, that, instead of deducting the actual charges which would have been paid if that rent-charge was still being paid, you were to substitute some other deductions allowed by or at the discretion of the Welsh Commissioners. I think that must be wrong. The words of my Amendment are taken from the Irish Act; they are taken verbatim, and in order that I may make my point clear the deductions under my Amendment would be—
"all rates, taxes and charges assessed upon and payable out of such tithe rent-charge."
These words are taken from the Irish Act; they arc words which were not included as charges which, at the present time, are made against the tithe rent-charge, and which have to be deducted from the tithe rent-charge before you come to the net amount. When you come to the net amount, it is that net amount which has to be paid to the person at the present time entitled to the existing tithe rent-charge. We all know what these charges are. There is the Poor Rate, the Land Tax, the Highway Rate, and the Property Tax, and there are no other charges which ought to be deducted except those which would be assessed in the ordinary way, and would be ascertained by the various rating authorities. They are not meant to be ascertained by the Welsh Commissioners, but by the existing rating authority, who will make an assessment of the charges on the tithe rent-charge, and then you will get the actual amount which ought to be levied on the tithe rent charge deducted on that basis. Surely that is the true way of approaching this question. The only point which is omitted in my Amendment is that there is no amount allowed for the charge of collection. But how can that be ascertained by the Welsh Commissioners'! As regards the matter of collection in a large number of cases at the present time, the owner of the tithe rent- 1918 charge, who is the incumbent, collects it himself. That is particularly so in the case of the poorer owners, and it is extremely important to them that they should get every farthing they can out of the produce of the tithe rent-charge. It may be in some cases, indeed I know there is a charge for collecting, but, surely, under these circumstances that is not an amount that will have to be paid. You seek to make a charge of this kind against existing owners of the tithe rent-charge, but, probably, at the present time, he is not subject to any such deduction at all, and if it is subject to that deduction it is probably a mere nominal amount. I appeal strongly to the Home Secretary not, in a case of this kind, to bring in the Welsh Commissioners in any sense as the deciding authority, but to take the actual rates, taxes, and charges which are assessed by the local authority, and let them be deducted, and thus come to the proper net sum. I think I may appeal to the Home Secretary to tell us why there should be a difference drawn between the Welsh and the Irish cases. Why introduce an allowance by the Welsh Commissioners, when the amount of rates, charges and taxes can be actually deducted according to the assessment made by the rating' and local authorities. I do not think this is a calculation that comes into the general question of tithe rent-charge. This question of tithe rent-charge, apart from any question as to its origin, has always been dealt with as though it were a land interest. Ever since the time of Queen Elizabeth, with regard to the poor rate, and as regards rates imposed by other rating authorities, right down to the present day, it has always been looked upon as land in regard to which certain deductions have to be made for rates and other charges. The Home Secretary appears to take a different view. We are not now dealing with the income derived from other sources. We are dealing with a land income which is subject to certain specified charges and to no other. What can be the objection of the Home Secretary to my proposal? I suggest the deducting of all rates, taxes and charges assessed upon and payable out of such tithe rent-charge. That may be a comparatively small point, but it may cause a great deal of friction and trouble as regards the poor tithe owners, because it may put upon them a new form of burden which they do not understand, and which is to be assessable by a body, the constitution of which we do not know at the 1919 present time. I appeal to hon. Members opposite that this is not one of the exciting points in the Bill. It is a business point, which, if adjusted properly, might do much to smooth the way in regard to some of the difficulties we have to discuss. I beg, therefore, to move the insertion of these words.
§ Mr. McKENNA
I would put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that, for the moment, he might suppose that the Commissioners are to be an independent and trustworthy body. I admit that hon. Members do not know the nature of the body they are being called upon to trust, but let us argue, for the purposes of this Amendment, upon the basis that those Commissioners will be perfectly trustworthy persons. What will this Clause do? It provides that a deduction shall be made from the amount of the tithe rent-charge in respect of the cost of collection of that charge, and of rates and other outgoings; and the Commissioners are to determine, those Commissioners presumably being a fair body, what is the proper allowance to deduct in respect of such collection. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that in some cases, and particularly in the cases of the poorer incumbent, they are in the habit of collecting it themselves, and there is no cost, therefore, of collection. In other cases he admits that there is such a cost, and that is why there is a provision in the Bill to leave to this body of trustworthy persons—the Welsh Commissioners—the determination as to how much should be charged in each particular case. We cannot say that nothing ought to be charged, because in many cases it is a charge which has to be borne in mind, but we do think that somebody ought to be left in authority, somebody who may be trusted, to say whether there has been any charge incurred, and what is a reasonable amount to fix for that charge. That is really the only point of substance in the case which the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised. With regard to his other point, the Bill as it stands is more favourable to the incumbent than his Amendment would be. We charge upon the incumbent the rates and other outgoings, and I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that the other outgoings should be construed as being outgoings in ejusdem generis. will take an out going which cannot be -charged under the Bill, but which would 1920 be chargeable under the hon. Member's Amendment. Take the case of irrecoverable tithes. In the case of this Amendment, allowance would have to be made for irrecoverable tithe.
§ Sir A. CRIPPS
My words are "all rates, taxes, and charges assessed upon and payable out of such tithe rent charge." They are the narrowest words possible.
§ Mr. McKENNA
I thought the hon. Member moved the Amendment Which stood in the name of the hon. Member for South Salford (Mr. Montague Barlow).
§ Sir A. CRIPPS
No; I said I moved the Amendment in the form in which I had put it down, and that I had taken the words from the Irish Act itself.
§ Mr. McKENNA
Then I withdraw that observation. I think the hon. and learned Member will agree with me that the balance of the argument is in favour of the Clause as it stands. There is an appeal from the Commissioners, if they do not decide properly what is the right amount to be deducted for rates and similar outgoings. There is an appeal from them to the Privy Council. But under the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal every point can be brought up separately and immediately before the Courts of Law. I think, on the whole, it is more desirable that these matters should, in the first place, be settled by the Commissioners, who, I would submit, might really be trusted to deal fairly in every case with due regard to the interests of the existing incumbent. For these reasons I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman not to press his Amendment. Except with regard to the cost of collection, I really cannot think that his Amendment would be in favour of the incumbent, and in regard to that particular point we really cannot admit that in those cases where the cost is now borne by the incumbent—the usual charge being 5 per cent.—he should be relieved of that charge in the future.
§ Sir A. CRIPPS
May I make my point quite clear to the Committee? Of course, so far as the appeal to the Privy Council is concerned, that is a hopeless remedy as regards the ordinary incumbent. To appeal about a small sum and to spend hundreds of pounds in so doing would be really absurd. I want to put in words which would take away all possibility of any question of appeal, and the object of 1921 my appeal and the object of my Amendment is to provide that you shall take the actual rates, charges, and taxes assessed upon and payable out of such tithe-rent charge, as they stand in the rate book, and that you shall deduct them and thus ascertain the amount. Is not that fair as regards a poor incumbent, who does not care anything about the decision of the Welsh Commissioners? If that decision is wrong, the appeal is practically useless. If the sum is properly assessed, in the rate book or otherwise, you have a properly ascertained figure, and no question can arise. You deduct it in the easiest form, and there is no question of legal procedure. I ask the Home Secretary whether he does not think that in a case of this kind you ought not to leave open a matter which may possibly go to the Privy Council, but ought to have it determined on actual facts as they are, with regard to which there can be no question.
§ Mr. McKENNA
Do I understand that the hon. and learned Member gives up his point with regard to the cost of collection?
§ Mr. McKENNA
Then, of course, we differ upon a substantial point. If the hon. and learned Member gave up that point, I should be quite willing to consider his words from the other aspect.
§ Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES
I should like to ask the hon. and learned Member (Sir A. Cripps) whether the words he uses in this Amendment cover all the possible outgoings or deductions from tithe rent-charge, apart from the cost of collection? The words he uses are—
"all rates, taxes, and charges assessed upon and payable out of such tithe rent-charge."
I understand him to say that he has, for the reasons he has explained, made his Amendment as narrow as possible. The hon. and learned Member said, and I quite agree with him, that for a great many years tithe or tithe rent-charge has been treated as a land income. If it is to be treated as a land income, and the incumbent is the owner of a freehold interest, as he is, in that land income, is it not possible that there may be charges—I do not say in every parish, but in some parishes. either by custom or otherwise, imposed upon this land income? I am not. at 1922 present prepared to say exactly what the rights of an incumbent are in regard to the leasing of tithe rent-charge, but may it not be that the incumbent, as the owner for life of a land interest, has imposed some burden upon the income? I should like to know from the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is perfectly clear that there may not be outgoings from the tithe rent-charge which have nothing to do with the cost of collection, but which are not included in the term "rates, taxes, and charges." I am not prepared at the present moment to say that there may not be outgoings of another character, and I assume that it is because of the possibility of such other deductions from what the hon. and learned Gentleman has called the land income having to be made, that I think the Bill as drafted is perfectly fair, because it uses words as to which there can be no possibility of mistake. The words in the Clause are—
"all other outgoings."
That, of course, means outgoings to which the owner at the time of the passing of the Bill is liable in law.
§ Sir A. CRIPPS
That was not the Home Secretary's view. He said outgoings which were of the same character as rates.
§ Sir. D. BRYNMOR JONES
I do not want to raise a legal question between the hon. and learned Member and myself. It is possible that the doctrine of the words ejusdem generis might not be adopted by Commissioners or by the Privy Council, or by the Court of Law before whom the question might come. I do not think there is any question between the hon. and learned Member and myself about this, but I am not at all sure that his words, even according to his own principle, are not too narrow. There may be outgoings to which the owner of this land income may be liable at law which are not covered by the words of his Amendment. With regard to the cost of collection, he has clearly not met our point. I do not think, having regard to the Clause as a whole and to the arrangements contained in the Bill, that it is fair to say that the cost of collection of this tithe rent-charge should be placed wholly upon the county council. If that be so, I do not know in what better way the matter can be ascertained than by going to the Welsh Commissioners. I said the other day upon another Amendment that these Commissioners will be in the position of judges, and if you look at the preceding Clauses of the Bill, 1923 you will see that the Commissioners, to all intents and purposes, form a Court of Record. I can see no fairer way of determining what ought to be allowed for the cost of collection than by giving the decision to the Commissioners. Even taking the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman, may I point out that questions may continually be arising? Supposing the owner of a tithe rent-charge at the present moment may be in a position to dispute the validity of the rate, or that some question arises under the Tithe Rent-Charge Act, 1888, which gives considerable relief to incumbents, in all the circumstances by what tribunal could any such question be determined better than by the Welsh Commissioners'! Upon the whole, though I have no desire in the least to press hardly upon any incumbent in regard to this matter, I think the words of the Bill are quite as favourable to the incumbent as the words proposed by the hon. and learned Member.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
The last observations of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir D. Brynmor Jones) bring us up against the point that we on this side do not trust the Welsh Commissioners. We do not know who they are to be. We have not been told. They may be a body exceedingly hostile to the Church, and we do not accept them, as we do not know their names, and possibly we should not if we did know their names, as a body to whom a really important matter of this sort ought to be referred for decision.
§ Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES
My emphasis was on judicial character of the Welsh Commissioners. I said that they formed a Court of Record. If that is the case, if they do misbehave themselves, either by writ of certiorari or in some other way, their proceedings can be questioned in the High Court of Justice.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
That is a legal point. Putting aside legal technicalities, the right hon. Gentleman must see that the question as to what is to be taken from the incumbent for the cost of collection is to be referred to a tribunal the composition of which we do not know. We object to that point being left to their free discretion. If the Government had told us who the Commissioners were to be, the position might be different. There is a great deal in what my hon. and learned Friend (Sir A. Cripps) said that in a 1924 great many cases the poor Welsh clergy collect their own tithes. There is no cost of collection, so that if the Welsh Commissioners were to lay down that a certain proportion of tithe, some small figure, no doubt, is to be taken on the average as the cost of collection, it would be very hard on those particular clergymen who, before the passing of the Bill, had been in the habit of collecting their own tithe, and from whom no deduction was possible. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir D. Brynmor Jones) suggested that the words proposed by my hon. and learned Friend were too narrow, and possibly did not specify all the outgoings which exist at the present time. He suggested that there might be some charges on the tithe that had been created by the existing clergy. If these charges have been created by the clergy, surely they would remain a charge on the income paid to the clergy in substitution for the tithe rent-charge. In that case, it would be most unfair to deduct such a charge in advance. If that were done, the possibility is that the charge would be deducted twice over—first of all in advance by the Welsh Commissioners, or rather by the county council, as allowed by the Commissioners, and, secondly, the clergyman may have to pay it as a charge on his income. I do not think any such charges as the right hon. Gentleman suggests would arise under this Clause. They would be a charge on the income transferred to the incumbent in view of the tithe.
All we have to look to are those particular outgoings, which are a legal charge upon tithe rent-charge at the present moment. I am not a lawyer, and I do not pretend to say whether the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend is comprehensive in its catalogue. I should have thought it was, because I can conceive of nothing else, apart from the cost of collection, which we are not at all willing to leave in the hands of the Commissioners, which is a legal charge on tithe rent-charge at the present moment. If that is so, why should we leave this great power of making a deduction for unspecified things, like the cost of collection, in the hands of the Welsh Commissioners? I would appeal to hon. Members opposite who represent Welsh constituencies. They are always professing that they do not want under this Bill to do any damage to the Church, yet whenever a concession, however small it may be—this, although important, is a small point—is asked for 1925 from this side of the House, we find they are always absolutely adamant in their resistance, which is a position entirely inconsistent with their general professions, both in this House and in the country. I do not think that any possible harm can accrue or that any county council would be damaged if the words of my hon. and learned Friend were accepted, whereas they might prevent serious injustice being done to the poorest of the clergy, who may have considerable sums deducted for the cost of collection and other outgoings, which is a very vague term indeed. I earnestly hope that the Government may give way on this somewhat small Amendment.
§ Mr. ELLIS DAVIES
The proposal of the Mover of the Amendment is that in future the cost of collection shall not be taken into account. It is seldom that the cost of collection of tithe in Wales at present is less than 5 per cent. Owing to the very large number of owners of property, from whom the sum actually received varies from a shilling to a few pounds, and owing to the difficulty which often arises owing to the settlement of estates, the cost of collection of tithe in Wales at present is exceedingly heavy. More than that, the right of distress has gone, and in substitution for it there is now only recourse to the County Court. It has been suggested that the refusal of this concession would be mean and petty, and I think the hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) said it was a very small concession. But is it small? If the cost of collection is 5 per cent., it means a sum of at least £6,000 a year to the clergy of Wales, and I have yet to understand that an annual sum of £6,000 a year, capitalised by twelve years' purchase, is a small sum in any way. I know from experience that the cost of collection of tithe at present is certainly not less than 5 per cent., and what the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes really is that, as a further concession to the Church, for which I am quite sure we shall have no gratitude, we shall make a present of at least another £60,000. Under commutation it will mean, of course, at least £60,000. The real importance of the Amendment comes in under the question of commutation. If the proposal which was made last Friday for commutation of the tithe is to be accepted by the other side, and, so far as I understand, there is no evidence that they are likely to accept it—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I think the hon. and learned Gentleman 1926 and most of his colleagues very carefully indeed decided last Friday that they would not bind themselves by the proposal which was made from this side of the House.
§ Mr. ELLIS DAVIES
May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, on behalf of the Church in Wales, he accepts the principle of commutation?
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
I said last Friday that I was generally favourable to commutation, but, of course, we could not say what commutation we would expect. It must depend upon the terms.
§ Mr. ELLIS DAVIES
We never had that assertion on Friday, but I am glad to have it now. They would not then even bind themselves to accept any scheme. The importance really of this proposal is that if commutation is to take place at all, it must, of course, take place as to the existing value of the tithes to the receiver, and the real proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman is that that value, whether for the purpose of an annual payment or for the purpose of its future commutation, should be reduced by at least 5 per cent. In other words, we are really asked to make a further concession to the Church which will cost us £60,000.
§ Mr. LANE-FOX
I agree that it is very difficult until we know the terms of the commutation to know exactly what this Amendment would mean, but how the hon. Member gets at his figures I have been utterly unable to follow.
§ Mr. ELLIS DAVIES
I put the cost of collection at 5 per cent. The amount of tithes in Wales is, roughly, £120,000. The cost of collection is therefore £6,000 a year. That, multiplied by twelve times for the number of years purchase, really comes to more than £60,000.
§ Mr. LANE-FOX
I will leave the figures for the hon. and learned Gentleman, who can no doubt deal with them better than I can. When the hon. Member suggests that the hon. Member (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) announced this afternoon for the first time his favourable consideration of the principle of commutation, he forgets that he seconded the Amendment which proposed that commutation.
§ Mr. LANE-FOX
Two completely conflicting arguments have been used from the opposite side of the House against the Amendment, We have the argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Brynmor Jones) who held that this Amendment would place the Church in a less favourable position than the actual words of the Bill, and he argued, I am sure with all sincerity, that it would be much better for the Church to leave the Bill as it is rather than accept the Amendment. Then we had the argument of the Home Secretary and of the hon. Member (Mr. Ellis Davies), who took a very different line and said this was a much too big concession which they could not possibly accept, and that it would not be fair to other interests in Wales that it should be accepted. When a position is defended by two utterly conflicting arguments like that, we realise that there cannot be much strength in the case.
§ Mr. McKENNA
I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to do an injustice either to my hon. Friend or to myself. Neither of us said that. I said distinctly that, leaving out the cost of collection, the Bill would be more favourable than the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I asked him whether he was willing to leave out the cost of collection.
§ Mr. LANE-FOX
I am quite aware that that is what the Home Secretary said, but I think he will remember what was said by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Brynmor Jones). He was not excluding cost of collection, but he was dealing with the argument as a whole.
§ Mr. LANE-FOX
I am glad to hear it. The right hon. Gentleman made the further remark that this would be better for the Church, because the Commissioners would be in the position of judges and there would be an appeal from them, and he mentioned such things as a writ of certiorari, and an appeal to the Privy Council, and so on. I am not enough of. a lawyer to know exactly what all these serious processes may involve, but I know they involve a very heavy cost, and I am quite certain that many of them would be absolutely impossible for the ordinary incumbent to resort to, and that is sufficient condemnation of the argument which he used. The real reason why we would rather have the words of the Amendment 1928 than the words of the Bill is that until we know who these Commissioners are going to be it is impossible for us to absolutely accept the assurance of the Home Secretary. He says let us argue it from the point of view that these Commissioners are men who are absolutely to be trusted. It is a very natural point of view for him to argue it from—the only point of view from which he can 'argue it—but those who are anxious to defend property which may be unjustly 'taken away very naturally want to have a little more security before we leave the absolute discretion and jurisdiction in the bands of men whose names we are not informed of. There is very wide discretion in the words of the Clause, and when the Home Secretary assures us that they will cover outgoings of a similar character I think he must see that there is reason for considerable suspicion and distrust on our part until we actually have the names of these Commissioners before us.
In answer to the hon. Member's last point, the Home Secretary did state that he would be willing to alter the final words of the Clause to words similar to those proposed in the Amendment. Therefore, there is no stress to be laid upon the indefiniteness of the words "other outgoings." The Government are apparently quite willing to make these words more definite. The Amendment as it stands seems to me to be open to certain criticism. With regard to the cost of collection, there is no serious ground of complaint apart from the fact, which we have been told, that the bulk, if not nearly all, of the tithes is collected, and the cost of collection is not paid. As the Clause is drawn, the incumbent gets the net tithe raised by the county council. If the tithe costs more to collect—and I do not see why it should—the cost must fall upon someone. If it does not fall on the Church it will fall on the county council. I do not think you have any more right to make it fall on the county council than on the Church, and I do not see that there is any serious injustice. The hon. and learned Gentleman argued as though the incumbent who collected his own tithes was entitled to have it without cost of collection. Where an incumbent has been in the habit of paying a percentage for the cost of collection that percentage ought to be paid, but the Amendment proposes that in both cases there should be no reduction for the cost of collection. Not only is a man who has collected his 1929 own tithe to get it free of cost of collection, but the man who has been in the habit for years of getting this money less cost of collection after Disestablishment is to get it plus cost of collection—that is to say, it proposes to apply out of the Welsh National money some additional endowment of these particular incumbents. It seems to me that if he wants to obtain what he says, in justice he must find some other form of words than those he has put down here. But if there is any trifling injustice done—and I do not think there is—the Church is as a whole not badly treated, and the incumbents are not badly treated. There is tithe which is not always recoverable, but they are free from any risk of that kind. Their tithe will be regularly paid and any loss which accrues must fall upon the county council.
§ Mr. CHARLES BATHURST
I do not know whether we are entitled to accept the assurance that has just been made, that the Home Secretary is prepared to insert some words before the word "outgoing" to make it perfectly clear that that expression shall be ejusdem generis with the words which go before it. If he is, I do not feel the same objection to the Clause that I should otherwise feel, but I am bound to say that the Clause as it stands does breathe of pettiness in its dealing with the existing incumbents of benefices in Wales. After all, the object of the Clause, as of the Clauses that preceded it, is to safeguard to these poor incumbents their existing stipends, which are in many cases very small and do not admit of any substantial deductions being made from them. It is perfectly true that in some cases these incumbents have employed other persons to collect their tithe, and have paid as much as 5 per cent. for the process. I am quite certain, however, that there are a considerable number, including those who arc least able to bear the cost of collection, who have either collected tithe themselves or secured the voluntary services of others in their parishes to do so. In any case, if the Government wish to save for these incumbents the whole of their small stipends during the period of their lives, surely it is to some extent an act of pettiness to squabble over such trifling details as to what will be taken out of the fund which will eventually pass into their hands.
When I hear it stated that this matter is to be treated ejusdem generis, I should like to ask whether that is to apply to the words which have gone before or only 1930 to the word "rates"? If it is intended to be ejusdem generis of the expression "collection," it is conceivable that there may be a considerable amount of money which will fall through this sieve set up by the new Commissioners. It is common knowledge that these Departmental Commissions are extremely expensive bodies, and no doubt it would involve office expenses, printing, and the like, as in the much larger case of the National Insurance Commission. It seems very hard if deductions are to be made for those luxuries which the Commissioners and their officials are to enjoy at the expense of the incumbents. After all, what is it? It is a small matter all told. I cannot conceive that it will amount to anything like the very large sum to which the hon. Gentleman opposite referred. These deductions will only be made during the continuance of the lives of those individuals. It is not like a permanent deduction, for which the county council will be made to suffer for ever hereafter.
I think the Government might approach the matter in a generous spirit, and allow the incumbents to enjoy the whole of their small stipends in the future as in the past. We are told that the remedy will be an appeal to the Courts of Law, including the Privy Council. I am sure the Home Secretary will see that the suggestion is somewhat ridiculous. Can you conceive a poor Welsh parson going through all the cumbrous machinery and expense, for the sake of a few pounds, by the procedure which the right hon. Gentleman suggests as the proper course for him to take in order to recover these deductions'? It seems to me as regards the word "collection" that there is a considerable outlet for the expenditure of money. After all, the function of the Commissioners in this respect will be very similar to the function of trustees acting for a beneficiary. It is common knowledge that deductions are made from, we will say, the trust of settled estate for the costs incurred in the office of the solicitors who act on behalf of the trustees. It is quite possible that-similar costs may be incurred on behalf of the Commissioners, and it would be very hard that the Welsh clergy should suffer in consequence. I venture to hope that the Home Secretary will approach this matter in a spirit of generosity and allow the incumbents to retain the whole of their small stipends.
Sir ALFRED MONO
It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman opposite does 1931 not conceive the real significance of the Clause. He seems to be under the impression that the cost of collection would fall on the Welsh Commissioners, and that they would be allowed to charge the whole, or a large proportion, of their Establishment charges in respect of cost of collection. I would point out that the collection will be carried out by the county council. The Clause says that the county council is to be allowed a reasonable sum for the cost of collection.
§ Sir A. MOND
No, it does not make it worse. The county council has nothing to do with the Welsh Commissioners. It seems to me that this is a very simple business proposition. If hon. Members want to have the gross tithe rent-charge and to leave the cost of collection as a charge on the county council, the Government perfectly rightly want to pay over the net tithe rent-charge which in the great majority of cases the clergy are now getting under the present arrangement. I cannot quite follow the arguments used by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They appear to me to be of a double character. One of the arguments is based on want of knowledge of who the Welsh Commissioners arc to be. They say, "We do not know who the Welsh Commissioners are. They may be unfair to the Church and to a lot of people. and they may use this Clause in order to deduct sums they are not entitled to deduct." Supposing that was the case, it seems to me that this Amendment does not in any way meet it. We have no Amendment before us at present saying that if the cost allowed for collection is unreasonable, there should be an appeal to any Court of Law, or party, or arbitrator. We have an Amendment before us which would not enable the Commissioners to allow any cost of collection whatsoever to the county council. The whole of the words relating to the cost of collection would simply go out if this Amendment were accepted.
§ Sir A. MOND
I still cannot follow the argument that the fact that the Commissioners are not known makes the Clause unacceptable as it stands. It seems to me that the personality of the Commissioners is not an clement in the question, good, bad or indifferent. The argument which 1932 has been addressed to us by several hon. Members is this: "If we knew who the Commissioners were to be, we would form our judgment as to whether they would allow a reasonable amount for the cost of collection, but as we do not know who they are, we will not allow any deduction for cost of collection whatever." That is an unreasonable position. I say if they are merely dissatisfied as to the amount of the deduction, they ought to introduce an Amendment giving an appeal if they consider the amount is unreasonable, but it is no argument to say that because they do not know who the Welsh Commissioners are the Committee should strike the words relating to the cost of collection out of the Bill altogether. We heard a great deal on Friday about commutation. I observed that the hon. and learned Gentleman with the usual acuteness characteristic of him in these matters, immediately the word "commutation" was mentioned referred to 5 per cent. for management expenses. So soon as any money is coming to the Church, we must not deduct anything. I do not think we can be charged with being petty or unfair if we apply to a proposition of this kind the same principles which hon. Gentlemen opposite naturally apply to any fund they deal with on behalf of their clients. They cannot say, "We must have additional money to pay our costs of management," and, on the other hand, say if they are put in the position of collectors, "You must pay the cost of collection out of your own pockets."
Some hon. Members opposite have spoken with considerable personal knowledge of these matters which I do not possess, but I should have thought that nowadays these men might have gone round collecting their own tithe rent-charge. If you employ agents for this work, they will no doubt charge a substantial profit. [say that the cost of collection through the county council will be less than it is today, for the county council will make no profit out of the transaction. They will simply charge the bare cost of collection, and therefore I think under the Bill the incumbent will receive a larger sum than he has received in the past. If the principle of commutation was carried out, probably a great deal of what has been said in this discussion will fall away altogether. I confess that I am not clear as to how much the Bill will be altered in connection with the matter of commutation. It seems to me that under the Bill as it stands at present the incumbents, on the 1933 whole, will be better off than they have been. The county Council will collect the tithe rent-charge and the incumbent will receive more money when the Church is Disendowed than he has had in the past.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDY
The hon. Baronet (Sir A. Mond) seems to mix up two points. The question of the cost of collection should be regarded from a different point of view from the question of who are to be the Welsh Commissioners to decide these matters. In a great many cases there is no cost at present, and it would be only generous on the part of the Government if they, knowing that, did make a slight concession in this matter, and put out of consideration altogether the cost of collection. As to the practice in England, I know from my experience in paying tithe, as I have to do in several parishes, that in four cases the vicars or rectors collect it themselves, and only in one case is the collection placed in the hands of an agent. I am informed that very much the same thing prevails in Wales, notwithstanding what has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Is it fair in those cases to fix the charge for collection when you arc utterly unable at the present time to say what that charge will be. It will be a charge which, in any case, will diminish the amount the clergy are to receive under this arrangement. Another objection is to having an indeterminate and unknown authority to decide matters of this sort. If we did know the names, we should be able to judge whether they are a suitable body or not; but at present we are absolutely in the dark. That is why we say we arc unaware what the Government mean by the words which appear in the Bill as drafted. We desire to press this question upon the Government. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he intends that a vicar who now collects his tithe without any expense whatsoever is to have a charge placed upon him by the county council? Is each case to be treated in detail, or is some average to be taken as indicating the charge which is to be made throughout the country? We want to know the meaning of the Government's own words. What are they? What is this cost of collection which is to be decided by the Welsh Commissioners? What are these outgoings which are so extremely vague under this Clause? The words in the Irish Act are a great deal clearer, because the Commissioners were distinctly told how they 1934 were to direct their attention to the charges. They were told, if the charges increased, they were to see that the owner of the interest did not suffer, and they took care to preserve the full rights of the owner in the commutation. We ask that the same rights should be preserved in this particular case, and the Government should make a further statement to see if they cannot meet us. It is not a large question, and we may rightly claim generosity on their part in reference to it.
§ Mr. McKENNA
The right hon. Gentleman has asked for a definite answer to a definite question, and I will give it quite fully and quite shortly. We intend by this Clause, as the words very clearly state, that each case should be considered by the Welsh Commissioners on its merits, and in considering these cases we contend that the Welsh Commissioners are then allowed to apportion and allow the cost of collection. I have no doubt that where there is no cost of collection the Welsh Commissioners will allow nothing.
§ Sir A. CRIPPS
If the collecting body is a county council, you must have cost of collection, whereas if it is the incumbent himself, you do not have cost of collection.
§ Mr. McKENNA
If the county council were dealing with the matter in the first instance, on the principle of commutation, directly with the representative body and paying a lump sum, I have no doubt that a fixed allowance would be arranged for the average cost of collection over the whole area. When the representative body or county council comes to deal with each individual incumbent, then the Welsh Commissioners will take into account the circumstances of the incumbent, and I do not of course suppose for a moment that they will fix a general charge in every case for the cost of collection. The words are, "there shall be paid to each person who has an existing interest a certain sum after allowing such sum as may be allowed for the cost of collection." I think that to leave this matter, which must be determined, to the discretion of the Welsh Commissioners is much the wisest course for us to take. It is not a small matter. To talk of this as a mean and petty part of the Bill is really not to speak according to fact. If we assume that 5 per cent. is paid in bulk, as it is, for collection of the tithe rent-charge, we may assume it is paid on about £100,000 a year out of £120,000 a year—that is to say, the cost of collection amounts to £5,000 a year. 1935 If, as my hon. Friend rightly says on the commutation of the tithes twelve years' purchase is the right amount to allow, this mean and trumpery point would actually work out at no less than a capital sum of £60,000. That is not a matter which is so small as to be left. out of the consideration of this Bill. The Welsh Commissioners looking at it in each individual case will do justice as regards the cost of collection. Upon the other point I should be perfectly willing to accept the words in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford instead of what hon. Members regard as the vague words "other outgoing," but I would suggest to hon. Members that it would not be in the interest of incumbents to take those words instead of the words in the Bill. If they speak on behalf of the incumbents, in my judgment, provided we do not give way, as we cannot give way, on the first point of the cost of collection, hon. Members would be far better advised to leave the words of the Clause as they stand.
§ Sir J. D. REES
If the right hon. Gentleman had spent last Sunday, as I did, in his own constituency visiting rural and urban churches there, I think that he would understand better what is the strong objection felt by incumbents to leaving the deduction to be such sum as may be allowed by the Welsh Commissioners. He would also understand why the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Bucks is considered preferable by those who think that money should not be taken from the Church to that of the hon. Member for Salford. The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman does not take into account the apprehensions of those concerned at the effects of this Bill. Take the case of an incumbent of a very hilly parish who lives miles from anywhere. He and his wife probably perform most of the domestic functions of the home as well as the ministrations in the Church on Sunday. Those people will have taken away from them that on which they live; they do not know what will be given back; neither do we; we do know that it will be less than they have at present.
§ Mr. McKENNA
No, the intention and object of this Bill are to preserve to the 1936 full extent every life interest now held by the incumbent, and if it can be shown tome that any portion of this Bill does not preserve that interest, we shall be quite happy to consider it, but there is nothing in this Clause which takes away from the incumbent anything which he now has.
§ Sir J. D. REES
That is only the life interest. The right hon. Gentleman begs the question. It absolutely affects the-whole of the question. They do not know what is going to become of their glebes. The incumbent is in a state of alarm and dread. In one of these Churches age had dimmed the painting on one of the windows. The question arose which Saint it was, and it was decided very emphatically that it was not Saint McKenna. As it was a thirteenth-century window, that probably was true. I do say in all seriousness that the right hon. Gentleman does not take into account the circumstances. He should have a broad point of view in this matter and understand the feelings of those affected. I would say precisely the same if money was being taken away from a Free Church. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Welsh party said that by a writ of certiorari the incumbent would get justice. He must have overlooked Clause 11, which says:—
"Subject to such appeal as is hereinafter mentioned, the Welsh Commissioners shall have full power to decide all questions, whether of law or of fact, which it may be necessary to decide for the purposes of this Act, and shall not be subject to be restrained in the due execution of their powers under this Act by the order of any Court, nor shall any proceedings before them be removed by certiorari into any Court."
That Clause seems to answer that point completely. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary offered, in turn, the Privy Council. To these suggestions I think the only proper answer would be that which was given by a learned judge in explaining to a petitioner for divorce some time ago what procedure he had to follow to get a divorce by private Act of Parliament. He said, "True, this will cost £l,000, and you will tell me that you have not got twopence, but I can only tell you that that is the law." That is the law which the right hon. Gentleman is preparing to make for the wretched incumbents of these parishes who are barely able to live as it is, who are miserably poor, who frequently are absolutely the 1937 only ministers over wide hilly areas in Wales, and who are admittedly making the best possible use of the funds they have. I see that the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Ivor Herbert), smiles at that, but I do not think he is likely to contradict it. Perhaps he is laughing because it comes from me. All I say is that if it were proposed to take the money from a Free Church I would say every word which I say now with regard to taking it from the Established Church. Then what becomes of the appeal to the Privy Council? I suppose that the procedure by certiorari is given up in view of Clause 11.
§ Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES
A Court of Justice takes full care that this House shall not oust its jurisdiction. Similar words are inserted in Statutes and yet Courts of Justice have been able to control the proceedings of an inferior Court.
§ Sir J. D. REES
It seems to be that Clause 11 is rather fatal to the contention that it is open to an incumbent to move for certiorari. I cannot understand if tithes are not sacred, if they are to be taken away from the Church, why they are sacred in the hands of anybody else. I cannot distinguish between the position of the tithe owner when it is not devoted to sacred purposes and the tithe owner when it is. If there is any distinction it should be in favour of the sacred as against the lay purpose. I do urge that the limitations of my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment are such as will on every score be appreciated, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, having quite recently come from his own constituency, though he will not take me as possibly the, best reporter, yet from the point of view of those affected by this Bill the words of the hon. and learned Member would give great satisfaction, because of their precise limitations, and because they define exactly what deductions can be made by the Welsh Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman should not resent the objection taken by those who think that Endowments should be respected and preserved, whether they be Endowments of Free or Established Churches. The objection is to a blank cheque given to the Welsh Commissioners, because of the feelings which have been excited by the abstraction of Church property which very naturally cause the belief that those Commissioners appointed under this Act will be likely to make the deductions as large as possible, or at any rate will be inclined that way, whether by intention or in- 1938 advertence. Those affected would infinitely prefer the words of the hon. and learned Member which I urge upon the right hon. Gentleman to accept. It is no use for him and others to urge that this is being done in a friendly manner. You cannot take money from other people in a friendly manner, and when a Free Church minister close by makes a speech in which he says Disestablishment and Disendow-ment—
§ Sir J. D. REES
I will leave that now. I felt I should be stopped. My only excuse is that on the last occasion you succeeded in stopping me, and this time I hoped you would fail; I hoped I might be there before you. It was a very short quotation, and I withdraw it after the objection to it, but I may be allowed to repeat, that it is the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member that should be accepted, and not that of the hon. Member for Salford, nor the words of the Section to which strong objection is taken by those concerned.
§ Lord HUGH CECIL
I do not think any hon. Member on this side of the House is disposed to differ from the principle which the Home Secretary laid down in his reply, and we should be quite satisfied if the Government really carried out the object which they have in view. But this is a question not of Church property, but of private property, which we are seeking to defend, and which I think the Government recognise and respect. The aim of the Government is that the incumbents personally shall not be impoverished, and the question really is whether the words in the Clause carry out the intention of the Government. The objection to the words of the Clause is that they traverse the great principle of legislation, the principle to which all Governments are ready to appeal, in that they do not give control to the person who has to pay for what is done. The county council will determine the sum charged, while the Welsh Commissioners will have to judge whether the amount was rightly the cost of collection; nevertheless the county council will have to determine what money is actually to be expended for the purpose of collection. They will undertake the duty of collection: they will settle whether it is worth while to go against a small tithe payer for a small debt by an expensive legal process; and they will settle all the details of the 1939 process of collection. They send in their Bill, as it were, for the cost of the collection, and it would be liable to be checked by the Welsh Commissioners, who, however, will only be able to say that the county council must not charge the amount because they had spent the money extravagantly in collecting tithe. It would not be on any business theory really a wise thing to spend so much money in ineffectively trying to get back a small amount of tithe. Therefore the county council will be put in this position, that they will be spending somebody else's money, and they might prolong the legal process to any extent for a purpose not in the least commensurate with the object in view.
The Welsh are a very litigous people, and it is not impossible that a Welsh county council might have a quarrel with a landowner, or might have some dispute over some question at the time, and the expenses of the county council might not be justified by policy and might have been prompted by passion. The county council would conduct the whole affair out of the pocket of the incumbent, and that is why I say the words of the Clause are unreasonable; they give the control to the county council while the payment has to be made by the incumbent. My hon. Friend truly pointed out that you cannot escape from the cost of collection when a public body is engaged. In the case of a large landowner the cost of collection is nothing: it is merely the cost of sending a letter; but the county council will have to employ an agent to collect and to send in the bill, so that there must always be a certain cost of collection. In some particular cases there is no cost of collection at all at present. but there will always be -some cost of collection in the future. If there were a general fixed charge on the whole of the incumbents they would know where they were. But if each particular bill is separately charged to each incumbent. then on a very small income a very considerable sum might be charged for a collection which had been extravagantly conducted. The Commissioners have no option; it is not open to them to say that the cost is unreasonable, and they are obliged to allow the county council to take the cost of collection from what was to be handed over to the incumbent. Something ought to be clone to relieve the incumbent. When we came to the management of commutation, we asked that the cost of it should be added to the commutation. We 1940 asked that a fixed sum should be assigned, and there was no suggestion that a representative body should be allowed to manage it as they liked, and then charge whatever they liked to the Commissioners. What was proposed was that a certain fixed sum should be allowed for management, and, parrallel with that, would be the allowing of a certain fixed sum for the cost of collection of tithes. That would be much better, in respect of considering each case on its merits, and the incumbents would know where they were, and would not be exposed to any particular action on the part of the county council. It is open to the Government to make this concession—namely, that the cost to the county council of collection should, in effect, be thrown on the National Exchequer, and if, in addition, Sub-section (3) of the Clause were dropped, I think it would immensely improve it. The county council would gain by the withdrawal of Sub-section (3), and they would obtain more than they could possibly lose in respect of the cost of collection. If the Government did these two things, it would not injure the county council at all. The National Exchequer would find the money, and a very small sum would be involved. Or, if the Government are not prepared to adopt that suggestion, would the Home Secretary consider this, namely, that the Commissioners should consider, not the actual cost of collection, but what would be the cost of collection which would have been incurred by the incumbent if he himself had proceeded to collect his own tithes? The object of the right hon. Gentleman is that the incumbent should not be worse off, and I submit that the incumbent ought to have words protecting him from extravagant management on the part of the county council. This Clause throws the cost of collection on the county council; but if Sub-section (3) is dropped. I believe the Home Secretary, in following that course, would turn the edge of the anxiety which this provision certainly arouses in the minds of the incumbents.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDY
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, if he will consider the insertion of these words, "as ascertained in each case at the time of the passing of this Act." That would make it clear that it was only the cost which fell upon each incumbent in each special case that was to be dealt with.
§ Mr. McKENNA
The right hon. Gentleman put his construction on the Amend- 1941 ment, and his words are on an entirely-different footing from what was advanced by the Noble Lord. I would prefer to leave the matter to the discretion of the Commissioners. Their discretion is not limited, as the Noble Lord thinks. He conceives that year by year the county council will send in a Bill showing the actual cost of collection, and that the Commissioners will then be bound to deduct that amount from the total amount of tithe, and charge it to the incumbent.
§ Mr. McKENNA
Showing the money really spent, and the Noble Lord suggests that the county council may conduct the collection extravagantly and charge the cost of their extravagance against the incumbent. If the Bill did that it would be a serious defect, but it will not do it. I would remind the Noble Lord that the Welsh Commissioners are a temporary body. They may make this allowance
§ once for all, and hereafter have nothing to do with what the county council may spend on collection. The county council may go on spending as much more on collecting tithe rent charge as they think fit. The allowance by the Welsh Commissioners will be made once for all. That allowance would have regard to the actual cost of collection at the present time, and really the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in my judgment do nothing more than carry out the existing reason and purpose of the Clause. However, shall be very glad to consider those words at a later stage of the Bill, but he must understand that I could not accept them across the floor of the House in that way.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 152.1945
|Division No. 517.]||AYES.||[5.28 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Cullinan, John||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)|
|Adamson, William||Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)|
|Agnew, Sir George William||Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry|
|Alden, Percy||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)||Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Hayward, Evan|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Hazleton, Richard|
|Arnold, Sydney||Davies, ML Vaughan- (Cardigan)||Helme, Sir Norval Watson|
|Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)||Dawes, J. A.||Hemmerde, Edward George|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||De Forest, Baron||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Delany, William||Herbert, General Sir Ivor (MON., S.)|
|Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Higham, John Sharp|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)||Devlin, Joseph||Hinds, John|
|Barton, William||Donelan, Captain A.||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.|
|Beale, Sir William phipson||Doris, William||Hodge, John|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Duffy, William J.||Hogge, James Myles|
|Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Holmes, Daniel Turner|
|Bentham, G. J.||Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)||Holt, Richard Durning|
|Bethell, Sir J. H.||Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Hudson, Walter|
|Black, Arthur W.||Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus|
|Boland, John Plus||Essex, Sir Richard Walter||Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Esslemont, George Birnie||Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Falconer, James||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Brace, William||Farrell, James Patrick||Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Ftrench, Peter||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Field, William||Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)|
|Burns, Rt. Hen. John||Fitzgibbon, John||Joyce, Michael|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Keating, Matthew|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd||Kellaway, Frederick George|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)||Gilhooly, James||Kilbride, Denis|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Gill, A. H.||King, J.|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Ginnell, Laurence||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon.S.Molton)|
|Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)||Glanville, H. J.||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Goldstone, Frank||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)|
|Clough, William||Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)|
|Clynes, John R.||Greig, Col. J. W.||Leach, Charles|
|Collins, G. P. (Greenock)||Griffith, Ellis J.||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Guiney, Patrick||Low, Sir F. (Norwich)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Hackett, John||Lundon, Thomas|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Lynch, A. A.|
|Crean, Eugene||Hardie, J. Keir||McGhee, Richard|
|Crumley, Patrick||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.|
|MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)||O'Shee, James John||Sheehy, David|
|Macpherson, James Ian||O'Sullivan, Timothy||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Outhwaite, R. L.||Shortt, Edward|
|M'Callum, Sir John M.||Palmer, Godfrey Mark||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook|
|McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Parker, James (Halifax)||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)|
|M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding)||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)||Snowden, Philip|
|Marks, Sir George Croydon||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Marshall, Arthur Harold||Pointer, Joseph||Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert|
|Mason, David M. (Coventry)||Pollard, Sir George H.||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Meagher, Michael||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W, H.||Tennant, Harold John|
|Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.)||Thomas, James Henry|
|Middlebrook, William||Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Millar, James Duncan||Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)||Toulmin, Sir George|
|Molloy, Michael||Primrose, Hon. Neil James||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Molteno, Percy Alport||pringle, William M. R.||Verney, Sir Harry|
|Mond, Sir Alfred M.||Radford, G. H.||Wadsworth, J.|
|Money, L. G. Chiozza||Raphael, Sir Herbert H.||Walsh, J. (Cork, South)|
|Morgan, George Hay||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)||Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)|
|Morrell, Philip||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)||Walters, Sir John Tudor|
|Morison, Hector||Reddy, M.||Walton, Sir Joseph|
|Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Redmond, John E. (Waterford||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Munro, R.||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)||Wardle, George J.|
|Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.||Rendall, Athelstan||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay|
|Nannetti, Joseph P.||Richards, Thomas||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Needham, Christopher T.||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Neilson, Francis||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Watt, Henry Anderson|
|Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Webb, H.|
|Nolan, Joseph||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Norman, Sir Henry||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)||White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)|
|Norton, Captain Cecil W.||Robinson, Sidney||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Nuttall, Harry||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Roche, Augustine (Louth)||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|O'Brien, William (Cork)||Roche, John (Galway, E.)||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Roe, Sir Thomas||Wiles, Thomas|
|O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Rose, Sir Charles Day||Wilkie, Alexander|
|O'Doherty, Philip||Rowlands, James||Williams. John (Glamorgan)|
|O'Donnell, Thomas||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|O'Dowd, John||Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|O'Grady, James||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)|
|O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)|
|O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||Scanlan, Thomas||Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)|
|O'Malley, William||Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.|
|O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.||Illing worth and Mr. Gulland.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy|
|Amery, L. C. M. S.||Chambers, James||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Clive, Captain Percy Archer||Horner, Andrew Long|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major William||Cooper, Richard Ashmole||Houston, Robert Paterson|
|Astor, Waldorf||Courthope, George Loyd||Hume-Williams, W. E.|
|Baird, John Lawrence||Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)||Ingleby, Holcombe|
|Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)||Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian||Jessel, Captain H. M.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Croft, H. P.||Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Dalziel. Davison (Brixton)||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr|
|Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)||Duke, Henry Edward||Kimber, Sir Henry|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Ciement|
|Barrie, H. T.||Falle, Bertram Godfray||Lane-Fox, G. R.|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)||Fell, Arthur||Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes||Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lieut.-Col. A. R.|
|Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-||Forster, Henry William||Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee|
|Bigland, Alfred||Gardner, Ernest||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S.Geo.,Han.S.)|
|Bird, Alfred||Gastrell, Major W. Houghton||MacCaw. William J. MacGeagh|
|Blair, Reginald||Gibbs, George Abraham||Mackinder, Halford J.|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)||M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)|
|Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||Magnus, Sir Philip|
|Boyton, James||Coulding, Edward Alfred||Malcolm, Ian|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Grant, J. A.||Mason, James F. (Windsor)|
|Bull, Sir William James||Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Guinness, Hon.W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)||Middlemore, John Throgmorton|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Moore, William|
|Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)||Hamersley, Alfred St. George||Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)|
|Campion, W. R.||Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Mount, William Arthur|
|Cassel, Felix||Helmsley, Viscount||Newman, John R. P.|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)|
|Cator, John||Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)||Norton-Griffiths, John|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Hewins, William Albert Samuel||O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hickman, Col. Thomas E.||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)||Hill, Sir Clement L||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)||Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l., Walton)||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Peto, Basil Edward||Smith, Harold (Warrington)||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Pollock, Ernest Murray||Stanler, Beville||White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)|
|Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Quilter, Sir William Eley C.||Steel-Maitland, A. D.||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud|
|Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Stewart, Gershom||Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)|
|Rawson, Col. Richard H.||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Rees, Sir J. D.||Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Remnant, James Farquharson||Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)||Worthington-Evans, L.|
|Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Talbot, Lord E.||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Rolleston, Sir John||Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)||Yate, Colonel C. E.|
|Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)||Younger, Sir George|
|Sanders, Robert Arthur||Touche, George Alexander|
|Sanderson, Lancelot||Tryon, Captain George Clement||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir|
|Sandys, G. J.||Valentia, Viscount||A. Cripps and Mr. Hoare.|
|Sassoon, Sir Philip||Walker, Col. William Hall|
Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. MOUNT
I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "paid"["there shall be paid"], to insert the word "half-yearly."
The object of this Clause is to ensure the payment of the same amount to the existing interest, and the object of my Amendment is to ensure the payment at the same intervals as heretofore. The tithe-rent charge is transferred to the Commissioners, and by them to the county council, and is payable, under the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836, half-yearly, on the 1st July and the 1st January, in each year. It has been so paid to the incumbent, but there is nothing in this Bill to make it certain that the money which will be paid in substitution of the tithe-rent charge shall in future be paid half-yearly, as in the past, to those incumbents. It is a question of trusting the Welsh county councils, and I am bound to say the past history of the Welsh county councils, and the attitude of those councils with regard to the Church of England, does not lead us to believe that we can trust them without taking every precaution to see that the interests of the Church are properly safeguarded. I would further point out there is the danger that pressure may be put on the county councils by the tithe-payers to make the position of the Church, at any rate not easier than it has been in the past. If this money is being paid as it is every half-year to the county council surely there is no hardship in asking the county council to pay incumbents half-yearly the amount which is due. This is a matter of considerable importance to the clergy in Wales, most of whom are extremely poor men, and to whom a delay in the payment of their very small stipend might be a very serious matter. I hope the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment, and render some small measure of justice to incumbents in Wales.
§ Sir A. CRIPPS
I beg to move' at the beginning of Sub-section (4) to insert the words "so long as the amount payable under this Section is so paid."
§ Sir A. CRIPPS
I hope this Amendment will be dealt with in the same satisfactory way as was the last Amendment. I am sure the Home Secretary does not intend that the liability to repair ecclesiastical buildings should continue after the in-come in respect of which that liability arises ceases, and that the Bill does not 'mean that when the incumbent has not got the income derived from old sources that he should be under the old liability in reference to ecclesiastical buildings to which the other incumbent was subject. I think it must be right to introduce words of this kind to make the point quite clear. I hope he will insert these words to make the point quite clear.
§ Mr. McKENNA
I have no objection to accepting the Amendment, but I can only point out that doing so may affect the next Amendment, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen).
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
If this Amendment is adopted now I think the following Amendment will be out of order.
§ Sir A. CRIPPS
May I point out what you are dealing with here is that after the tithe has been transferred then the county councils are to become liable for the repairs of ecclesiastical buildings. I do not understand that Sub-section (4) means that that liability should be undertaken while the existing incumbent is 1947 getting the benefit derived from that source of income. The one is a permanent matter, while my Amendment only refers to a temporary provision while the existing incumbent is getting the benefit. If you rule the next Amendment out of order I would rather give up my Amendment than prevent my hon. Friend from moving his.
§ Mr. McKENNA
Perhaps the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment at this point and move it in the next Subsection after the words "shall be construed," when I will accept it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (4), and to insert instead thereof
(4) A county council shall, as respects any tithe rent-charge transferred to them under this Act, be subject to any liability to repair any ecclesiastical building to which the owner of such tithe rent-charge was subject immediately before the passing of this Act.
I am very much encouraged to hope—
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
I was about to say that I was much encouraged by the fact that the Home Secretary has accepted two Amendments, to hope that he would accept the third and do the "hat trick." I am afraid, however, from his interruption that my hope is not well founded. This Amendment raises a larger point than either of those we have just discussed. As is well known, the possession of great tithe, that is, tithe belonging usually to the rector, carries with it, not universally but in a great majority of cases, the obligation of the repair of the chancel. That obligation attaches to tithe not only in the hands of the clergy at the present time, that is to great tithe attached to a benefice, but also to great tithe which has been alienated. When the Church was plundered in the time of Henry VIII., which I suppose is the nearest approach to what is happening at the present moment under this Bill, the person to whom the tithe was given or who purchased it was subject to the obligations attaching to it. My Amendment, which is a very simple one, proposes that where tithe to which this obligation attaches is alienated, the obligation shall follow just as it did at the time of the Reformation Therefore, if a county coun- 1948 cil becomes the owner of tithe which carries with it the obligation to repair ecclesiastical buildings or any part of them, the county council will have that obligation as a condition of holding the tithe. Clause 8 (2) provides that property transferred under this Bill shall be transferred subject to all tenancies, charges, and incumbrances which exist at the time of the transfer. It is quite true that that Subsection is limited by the words "save as otherwise provided by this Act." I imagine that those words would enable us to remove that charge upon the tithe transferred. But I do not see why that exception should be made. If a county council is to obtain a free grant of this large amount of property, to which it is really not entitled, which comes as a windfall, and which was applied to other purposes before, surely it is only natural and proper that the property should be held subject to the same obligation that rested upon the previous possessor.
If that is so, what is there unreasonable in asking that this obligation should remain on the tithe in those cases where it exists at present? The Government are very careful to compel existing lay impropriators to continue the obligation that they now have. Why should the county council be treated differently from any other lay impropriator? You are not getting rid of the tithe; tithe will have to be paid just the same as before; but instead of being devoted to spiritual purposes, it is to be taken away from the clergy, and the county councils will become, to all intents and purposes, lay impropriators. That being so, why should you relieve the new lay impropriators of the burden of which the old lay impropriators have never been relieved? I am prepared to admit that it might be an inconvenient arrangement that a secular body such as the county council should have the repairing of the chancel; but I do not know whether it would be any more inconvenient than it is in the case of certain lay impropriators now. In any case, I suppose it would have to take place in accordance with the views of the representative body. Even if that argument is put forward, it will be met by the scheme of commutation which the right hon. Gentleman suggested last Friday. If there is to be commutation, I imagine that all these interests will be commuted. It is very easy to ascertain in how many cases the tithe transferred to the county council carries with it the obligation to repair the chancel, and it is equally easy to estimate 1949 what the cost is likely to be over an average of years. Therefore, the obligation can be commuted in the same way as any other interest. I am disappointed to learn that the Home Secretary is not anxious to accept this Amendment. It would not be a large concession. If you give to the county councils this sum of money which they had no right to expect, for which they have really no purpose, and for the application of which there is no definite purpose in the Bill, you ought to transfer with the money the obligation which now rests upon the present holders. I beg to move the Amendment.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith)
In whatever form the Amendment is put before the Committee, the point of substance is whether or not the liability to repair which now attaches to certain tithes shall pass with those tithes when they depart from the present owners into other hands. I accept what the hon. and gallant Member says as to the kind of tithes that are subject to this charge. Speaking generally, they are rectorial tithes. Whether those tithes belong to rectors who are lay persons or spiritual persons, the liability to repair attaches to them. I do not think that the county council entirely corresponds to the lay impropriator mentioned in Clause 27 (1) of this Bill. There is one very obvious difference. The lay impropriator has got the property, not by Act of Parliament, but by certain private arrangements into which it is not wise to inquire at this time. Besides, the lay impropriator has the money for his own personal and private use, whereas the county council will get it, at any rate, for public purposes. The hon. and gallant Member will probably agree that the obligation to repair was, as a matter of history, imposed upon the rector, be he lay or be he spiritual, because he was the owner of the chancel. The hon. and gallant Member has reminded the Committee that in Clause 27, wherever that liability is now imposed upon a lay impropriator, the Bill does not touch it. The liability to repair will remain after the Bill passes. Therefore the point of substance is whether, where the rector is a spiritual person and in receipt of the tithes the liability to repair the chancel shall, or shall not, attach to the tithes when they have passed out of his hands into secular hands. I think this is the right way to look at the matter. The commutation principle was not abso- 1950 lutely settled; certain offers were made on another occasion, but they were not quite accepted, and the matter is still open. Therefore, I think, that in arguing this question we have to take two alternatives: first, where there is no commutation; and. secondly, where there is commutation. Assume for a moment that there is no commutation under this Bill-Under these circumstances we on this side-contend that the spiritual rector will continue during his lifetime to receive the money which he now receives. That being so, during that period—I take it that this is common ground, especially after we accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Cripps)—the liability to repair would fall on the spiritual rector as long as he received the tithes. Supposing, on the expiration of that life interest, the tithes go away from the uses of the Church to the uses of the county council, shall the tithes in the hands of the county council be liable to repair, or shall they be free from that liability? I submit, and I think the hon. Member will agree, that the obligation in the first instance arose from ownership; that is, the rector was the owner of the chancel.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH
Indeed he was. The hon. and gallant Member is mistaken. He has certain rights, of which I need not remind the hon. and gallant-Member. The lay rector has a right to a chief seat in the chancel, and he has a right to be buried there, although I do not think that that is commonly put forward now. But if you are going to transfer the liabilities of the lay rector to the county council, what rights you will give to the county council! I do not intend to enter into that; I was led astray by the interruption of the hon. and gallant Member. After the life interest ceases, we have to consider what becomes of the liability to repair. From the date of Disestablishment the ownership of the church and of the chancel passes away from the rector, as I understand it, to the representative body. Therefore, if the liability to repair is something which attaches to ownership, it ought prima facie at any rate, to attach to the representative body. Although I quite understand that the hon. Member thinks this is not a fair Bill, it must be remembered that although an Amendment was moved from this 1951 side as to the cathedrals, all the Ecclesiastical fabrics, both cathedral and parish churches, under this Bill pass from the rectors and from the Church to the representative body. Therefore we are submitting that as to the condition of the churches themselves the least that should be done is what we suggest. Take the other alternative, supposing there is commutation? If there be commutation, as the Committee is aware, the plan that we suggested the other day was that a certain sum of money should be given to the representative body, and that the representative body should themselves make whatever arrangements they though fit with those who held the life interest. There may be a spiritual rector whose income of so many hundred pounds a year is subject to liability for repair. There is an immense difference in the liability between one church and another; some churches being in a good state of repair and others being dilapidated. As I understand the position, the representative body would take these circumstances into account in fixing what is the proper sum for which to commute this life interest. The substance and fact of the case is that whether there is commutation or whether there is no commutation that as this liability to repair in the first instance was placed upon ownership and that ownership now passes to the representative body, I think on reflection that hon. Members will see that this liability should not attach to the tithes secularised in the hands of the county council, and that this is an Amendment which really the hon. and gallant Gentleman could not possibly hope that we should accept.
§ Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON
I would ask the Committee to approach this subject with a somewhat broader view than the Under-Secretary has done. I do not, in the first place, agree with him—though I speak with diffidence, not having recently looked it up—that the lay impropriator is the owner of the chancel. I do not agree, therefore, that the liability to repair is necessarily based upon ownership. I quite agree that the lay impropriator has certain rights in the chancel of a somewhat melancholy character. But that is another matter. The broad facts of this case are that a public body is going to receive as a windfall a very considerable sum of money, and is going to receive it out of the scheme of the Bill divorced from and divested of 1952 the obligations which it had when it was in the hands of the clergy. The Under-Secretary gives as a reason for divesting the county council of this obligation that it is a public body. That is precisely the reason why I would ask the Committee to transfer this obligation to the county council. The parish church—and after all a great many Nonconformists think so—is a public building; in many cases a public building of great antiquity, and regarded with great sentiment by all the members of the parish. Marriages are often celebrated there, even the marriages of Nonconformists. It has very often an architectural and antiquarian interest as a place where old documents and parish records are kept. I say without fear of contradiction it has a sentiment attached to it, and it is regarded in the highest degree by Churchmen, and I would hardly exaggerate if I said all the parishioners. In that case the county council, having got this large sum of money without any expectation of its transference, surely it is in the interest of the public in the highest sense of the word that these ancient fabrics should be kept in order? When, as there unhappily will not be, sufficient money in the hands of the Church to keep that fabric in order, I submit that it would be in the highest degree in the interests of the public, and therefore a proper function of the county council, to discharge that duty, and hand down these ancient fabrics in a condition such as we all—members of either party—desire to have them handed down to posterity. On these grounds I most earnestly hope that the Government will reconsider their views.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
I would like to make one or two observations. I was much interested by the speech of the Under-Secretary. It is very curious to listen to the Under-Secretary on this Bill. He is rather like the villain in a melodrama. His apparent position always is one of great fairness and generosity to the Church, but he cannot help little "asides" escaping him every now and again, showing that underneath he is moved by the bitterest hostility towards the Church. I only mention this, in passing, because there were several asides in the speech which the hon. Gentleman has just addressed to the Committee. He very justly said that the asides were irrelevant to the Amendment. The Amendment, it seems to me, has a great deal of logic, though I admit I have a little difficulty with the view in the Amendment of the intrusion 1953 of the Welsh county council, as they are for the most part at present constituted, into the parish churches. Except for that, I must say that upon logical grounds my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment appears to me to stand in a very strong position. Putting aside ail legal technicalities, we all know that the rector, be he lay or ecclesiastical, has been maintained in his duty of repairing the church because he has had the tithes to do it. If I understand this Sub-section aright—I would like to call the attention of the Government to it—the Government propose to keep the legal obligation alive in respect of ecclesiastical repairs. Am I right in saying that that is the effect of the Sub-section? Because, if so, I really do not understand why this single exception to the principle of Disestablishment should be made.
As I understand the principle of Disestablishment is to sever the Church from the fetters of State. You are going specifically to repeal all ecclesiastical statutes. You are repealing, as I thought, all legal obligations resting on the Church; but this particular obligation—why I cannot imagine!—is being kept alive. Why? What is the argument that this remnant of Establishment alone should survive the general destruction? I cannot understand the logic of this Sub-section. Though I might, perhaps I shall, have a little difficulty as to this specific Amendment, I shall vote for the excision of this Subsection in the most light-hearted way. I cannot understand on the principle of this Bill why you should preserve an obligation to repair the parish church when you destroy all other forms of obligation and all other forms of statutory privilege in the officers of the Church. I cannot square that with the rest of the Bill in any way. Therefore, I shall certainly vote for the Question if the Question is put from the Chair to leave out this Sub-section.
§ Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES
I think the Noble Lord has rendered some service to the Debate upon this Amendment by calling attention to its exact terms, but I rather think he has misconstrued the terms. He talks as though this Amendment only applied to the church or to a portion of the church—the chancel. I do not read the Amendment so. I do not wish to dogmatise as to its meaning, but just let me call the attention of the Committee to the exact words:—
"A county council shall, as respects any tithe rent-charge transferred to 1954 them under this Act, be subject to any liability to repair any ecclesiastical building to which the owner of such tithe rent-charge was subject immediately before the passing of this Act."
First of all, as to an ecclesiastical building. Is it only an ecclesiastical building when it refers to the chancel of the church? It may refer to the rectory or to appurtenances of the rectory. It may refer to some small chapel-of-case or to an annexe of the church. Therefore what is really being asked for if some extended meaning of the term ecclesiastical building than the mere church or portion of the church which is called the chancel is involved? The real meaning is that the obligations might be transferred to the county council or might not. I think the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley himself really contemplated by his Amendment, if I follow his argument aright—
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
I may say at once that my Amendment means any liability which the possession of this tithe, whatever it may be, entailed upon the previous owner.
§ Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES
If the hon. and gallant Gentleman only means the obligations from ownership of the tithe rent-charge to apply, then I do not know what the meaning is. The obligation, whatever it may be, upon the incumbent of the benefice is not imposed upon him because he is the owner of the tithe rent-charge, but because he is the parson of the parish. That is really most material to the question. Why on earth should the liability to repair or any other kind of liability then attach to an owner, not of the tithe rent-charge but the owner of the benefice? I think, even adopting the principle which the hon. and gallant Gentleman was urging upon the Committee, the words are really not apt. I can believe there are parishes in which there is no tithe rent-charge at all received by the vicar, parishes in which the rector receives the whole of the tithe, and in which the stipend of the vicar, who is the actual incumbent, depends entirely upon glebe, upon some aid from Queen Anne's Bounty, or some other quite proper source. Therefore, if the literal words of the Amendment are taken, you may have this extreme position that the incumbent of one parish, who, because he receives a stipend from tithe rent-charge up to the time of Disestablishment of £100 a year, 1955 becomes, if this Amendment is carried, not liable to repair the chancel, while in the adjoining parish the vicar or incumment, or whatever he is called, who docs not receive any tithe rent-charge, is still liable for the repair of the chancel. Let us see whether we are agreed as to the nature of the liability in question, because that is, I think, relevant to the broader question which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's asked us to address our minds to. As I understand it—and I am quite willing to accept correction from my hon. and learned Friend opposite—the general rule is, and has been, that the incumbent of the parish is liable to repair the chancel. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]
§ Sir A. CRIPPS
I do think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is inaccurate, but I do not want to answer him by interruptions across the floor of the House.
§ Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES
The hon. and learned Gentleman does not mean to answer me at once. I think the rector is liable to repair the chancel, and the parishioners are liable to repair the nave. I think the law backs up that view. I prefer to put it on the ancient character or form of words that were used. The rector or somebody in the parish, the rector, together with the parishioners, were formerly liable to repair the fabric of the church. Perhaps the liability varied at different times. It might have been quite different before the complete aspect of parochial organisations in this country, and it might have been, and has been, no doubt, varied from time to time by Statutes. But that is the real position. and it is not fair for the hon. and gallant Member (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) to represent it as an obligation due to the ownership of the tithe rent-charges or any particular item of the income of the rector, vicar, or incumbent; and that is the only thing relevant to the argument I amusing. That being so, let me deal with the general question raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square. That brings me back to the division of the property. We have drawn in Clause 8 a line between certain classes 1956 of property. I am assuming for the purposes of my observations what I may call the general principle of the Bill.
We have drawn a line between property which is to be handed to the Church or the representative body of the Church—and perhaps for the convenience of Debate I may call it the representative body—a line between the property of the dissolved corporation which is to be handed to the representative body, and property which is to be handed over to the Universities of Wales on certain trust or to the county councils of Wales and district. On what principle have we drawn that division? I endeavoured on a former occasion to explain that in dealing with that property of this dissolved corporation we ought to proceed upon a general equitable principle analogous to those which are followed by the Charity Commissioners and by the Court of Chancery in reference to the formation of new schemes which come within their jurisdiction. I think if we had pursued the original course we could have made a good case for taking over the cathedrals and parish churches of Wales as part of the property to be handed back for general purposes to the Welsh nation. We had a disputation the other day about the form. and I was one of those who in no way went back upon the decision embodied in the Bill. I assert still that, proceeding logically, we might have claimed the four cathedrals and all the parish churches upon a thoroughly sound principle. Of course, hon. Members opposite do not agree. Why do I assert that if we were going to make a new scheme in regard to the property of this dissolved corporation it was, in my judgment, fair to hand over these churches to the representative body. We are dealing with property not in our own discretion, but we are dealing with property which we believe to be in effect, though not technically, national property. Before I could consent to hand over the four cathedrals to the representative body I had to satisfy myself it was the just and proper course to pursue. The reason I ventured to give, and I think all hon. Members on this side of the House will assent to it, is that we are handing over this property to the representative body partly because the Church represented a continuous religious tradition.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I am afraid the right hon. and learned Gentleman is rather going back on previous decisions. The question of repairs is what we are on now
§ Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES
Quite so, and I was explaining that we handed the churches back because we contend that upon whomsoever the legal obligation of repair fell of the four cathedrals and churches, the repairs had been done by the voluntary subscriptions of generous people throughout the length and breadth of the Principality. That is the basis. We handed these churches to the representative body because we recognised the great sacrifices the genuine and zealous adherents of the Church in Wales had displayed in regard to their maintenance and repair. You have repaired them; you treat them as your own building; we. are giving them to you as your own building. and we are offering these buildings upon these terms. Why should you now turn round and say to us that we must undertake the burden of repairing the buildings we hand you over? That is the argument. If the representative body is not ready and willing to take upon itself the burden of repairing the four cathedrals and parish churches of Wales, then I do not think they ought to be given them at all. You have taken them and you assent to the acceptance of these buildings with full notice of the Clauses of this Bill, and now I assert you have no right to turn round and endeavour to cast upon us the burden which you well knew when Clause 8 was passed would fall upon the representative body.
Let me follow the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Suppose we acknowledge, for the purposes of his argument, that these are national buildings. He also says that the tithe is national property, yet he keeps the tithe for county council purposes, while he hands back the buildings. He keeps the tithes, which have been from time immemorial used for upkeep. If his argument is to be followed out he must see that the just course to be pursued would be to accept this Amendment. There is no question of obligation on the incumbent. Certain obligations fall upon the incumbent of a parish, such as the repair of the house and the upkeep of the land, and so on. He has further duties because he is rector, and he is rector in view of his holding of the rectorial tithe. He may be a perpetual incumbent, but that is rather because he holds the rectorial tithes. These tithes do not make him owner of the chancel, but lay upon him the burden of keeping it in repair, not because he is incumbent of the parish, but 1958 because he holds the rectorial tithe. Whoever holds the rectorial tithe is bound to keep the chancel in repair. If you take away the rectorial portion you have also to take away the burden upon the rectorial portion. The Bill does not say so. The Bill particularly says the rectorial tithes of the lay impropriator are to be kept the same as heretofore. All those who support the Bill have acknowledged that the rectorial tithes are bound to repair the chancel, and whoever holds rectorial tithes ought to do that work. I rather agree with the Noble Lord that it is very incongruous for county councils to be called upon to repair the chancels of churches, but it is still more incongruous that county councils should hold rectorial tithes at all. The speech to which we have just listened was a very interesting speech, but wandered a great way round to try to justify the position. The right hon. and learned Gentleman himself has admitted that rectorial tithes have rights which they ought to fulfil. If so, why should rectorial tithes in the hands of county councils be free from the responsibility which rectorial tithes, both before and after the Bill, must perform?
§ Sir A. CRIPPS
I shall attempt to deal with what was said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, because one must acknowledge that throughout these Debates, at any rate on legal matters, he has taken great care to be as accurate as possible. Now what he said as regards liability in connection with ecclesiastical buildings really does not exist at all, except in his imagination. Let us see what the truth is. The incumbent, as such, has no liability at all for the chancel, nave, or any other part of the church with regard to repairs. He has no liability of any sort or kind. Let us see where that liability is. There is no one now liable for repairs at all. It is quite true they have been done by voluntary and private subscriptions. They will have to be done exactly in the same way after the Bill is passed, if it is passed, as they are done at the present moment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had to go back to the old days when there were rates for church repairs, but that has been abolished, and since church rates have been abolished there has been no fund whatever, except that provided by private subscriptions for the repair of the church. There is no liability anywhere. It has been done by private subscription of the Church people in the districts. As regards 1959 the chancel, I must point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he is under a complete misapprehension. The chancel stands upon an entirely different footing from the rest of the church. The liability is not upon the incumbent but upon the owner of the tithe—I mean by that the tithe in the ordinary sense—the ownership of the rectorial tithe. That is a matter of ecclesiastical and common law of this country for the last five or six hundred years.
§ Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES
I may be quite wrong in my law, but I am rather surprised at the statement the hon. and learned Gentleman has made, because no less an authority than Lord Coke says that the chancel is to be repaired by the parson. Of course Coke may be wrong and the hon. and learned Gentleman may be right.
§ Sir A. CRIPPS
That is a very ancient authority, but the word "parson" there, I may tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman as used by Lord Coke, means the owner of the rectorial tithe. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that that is so. The passage which he has quoted from Coke's "Institutes" is an isolated passage which, taken by itself, might be misleading, but I challenge him to find either in Coke or any other ecclesiastical or common law lawyer dealing with these matters whoever said that the incumbent as such has ever been held liable for the repair of the chancel. We know, of course, that in some cases the rectorial tithes are held by laymen, and in that case it is the layman in respect of his ownership of the rectorial tithes who is liable for the repair of the chancel. It does not matter whether a man is a layman, clergyman, parson, or an incumbent, the one test of liability is the ownership of the rectorial tithes. Let me deal for a moment with the application of this Amendment. Hon. Members opposite are generally in favour of attaching to the ownership of land all its obligations, and that is the view put forward by them on many occasions, and yet they are coming forward in a Bill of this kind to detach from the ownership of land an obligation which for centuries has been attached to that land. It is the essence of the ownership of rectorial tithes that you have this obligation, and it is a new doctrine on the part of hon. Members opposite to say that we want the owner- 1960 ship of land to be detached from the obligations which have heretofore been placed upon it. But for the accident that this is an ecclesiastical Bill there is not a single hon. Member opposite who would not say that where you have ownership of land that an obligation of this kind which is attached to it ought to be fulfilled. It is common knowledge that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, as owners of rectorial tithes, repair a large number of chancels. Why should these obligations be taken away? I do not care into whose hands the land happens to be, the obligations upon it should be fulfilled.
I do not suppose anyone would argue that because land comes into the hands of a county council it ought to be free from all the obligations attached to it. Suppose a county council becomes the owner of such land, with the obligation attached to it of maintaining the ancient fabric. Are you going to say that because they have become the owners of that land they ought not to be liable to that obligation? This is a very serious general proposition. I contend that where you have obligations attached to the ownership of land, they ought to be fulfilled, no matter into whoso hands the land happens to be at the time. That is a very strong principle, which we ought on all occasions to enforce to the utmost. I should be very much averse to the notion of a county council going into a church for the purpose of repairing the chancel. I have indicated to my hon. and learned Friend that if these words are to be left out I could not accept his Amendment without words being inserted providing that the money should be handed over to the representative body, who would carry out the obligations as regards the repairs of buildings. I understand that my hon. and learned Friend will be prepared to accept that Amendment when his Amendment becomes the substantive question. I should be out of order in proposing an Amendment to the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend at the present moment, but I want to indicate that if the existing words are omitted I shall ask to move an Amendment of that kind, because I could never assent to the proposition that as regards our churches the county councils should by right have access to them for the purpose of repairs to the chancels. This ought to be done by the Church, and it should be the representative body to whom the funds should be transferred. I cordially support this Amendment.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."1962
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 281; Noes, 147.1963
|Division No. 518.]||AYES.||[6.35 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Fitzgibbon, John||Manfield, Harry|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Markham, Sir Arthur Basil|
|A damson, William||Gilhooly, James||Marks, Sir George Croydon|
|Agnew, Sir George William||GUI, A. H.||Marshall, Arthur Harold|
|Alden, Percy||Ginnell, Laurence||Meagher, Michael|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)||Gladstone, W. G. C.||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Glanville, H. J.||Middlebrook, William|
|Arnold, Sydney||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Millar, James Duncan|
|Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.||Goldstone, Frank||Molloy, Michael|
|Baker, H. T. (Accrington)||Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)||Mond, Sir Alfred M.|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Greig, Col. J. W.||Money, L. G. Chiozza|
|Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Morgan, Georgo Hay|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)||Griffith, Ellis J.||Morrell, Philip|
|Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)||Gulney, Patrick||Morison, Hector|
|Barton, William||Gulland, John William||Munro, R.|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Hackett, John||Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Needham, Christopher T.|
|Bentham, G. J.||Hardle, J. Keir||Nellson, Francis|
|Bethell, Sir J. H.||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Nolan, Joseph|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||Norman, Sir Henry|
|Black, Arthur W.||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Norton, Captain Cecil W.|
|Boland, John Pius||Hayden, John Patrick||Nuttall, Harry|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Hayward, Evan||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Hazleton, Richard||O'Brien, William (Cork)|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Brace, William||Holme, Sir Norval Watson||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Hemmerde, Edward George||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Donnell, Thomas|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Henry, Sir Charles||O'Dowd, John|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||O'Grady, James|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Higham, John Sharp||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Hinds, John||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||O'Malley, William|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Hodge, John||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)||Hogge, James Myles||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Byles, Sir William||Holmes, Daniel Turner||O'Shee, James John|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Holt, Richard Durning||O'Sullivan, Timothy|
|Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)||Hudson, Walter||Outhwaite, R. L.|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Illingworth, Percy H.||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Clough, William||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Clynes, John R.||Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)||John, Edward Thomas||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||Pointer, Joseph|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||Pollard, Sir George H.|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.)|
|Crean, Eugene||Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)||Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)|
|Crumley, Patrick||Joyce, Michael||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Cullinan, John||Keating, Matthew||Radford, G. H.|
|Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)||Kellaway, Frederick George||Raphael, Sir Herbert H.|
|Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)||Kilbride, Denis||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||King, J. (Somerset, North)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Molton)||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Rendall, Athelstan|
|De Forest, Baron||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Richards, Thomas|
|Delany, William||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Leach, Charles||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Devlin, Joseph||Levy, Sir Maurice||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)|
|Dickinson, W. H.||Lewis, John Herbert||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Donelan, Captain A,||Low, Sir F. (Norwich)||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Doris, William||Lundon, Thomas||Robinson, Sidney|
|Duffy, William J.||Lyeil, Charles Henry||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Duncan, C, (Barrow-in-Furness)||Lynch, A. A.||Roche, Augustine (Louth)|
|Duncan, J. Hardings (Yorks, Otley)||McGhee, Richard||Roche, John (Galway, E.)|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Maclean, Donald||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford)||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Rose, Sir Charles Day|
|Essex, Sir Richard Walter||MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)||Rowlands, James|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||Macpherson, James Ian||Rowntree, Arnold|
|Falconer, James||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Farrell, James Patrick||M'Callum, Sir John M.||Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.|
|Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||M'Kean, John||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Ferens. Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Ffrench, Peter||M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Field, William||M'Laren, Hon.F.W.S. (Lincs.Spalding)||Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.|
|Scott. A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)||Verney, Sir Harry||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Sheehy, David||Wadsworth, J.||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Sherwell, Arthur James||Walsh, J. (Cork, South)||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Shorn, Edward||Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)||Walters, Sir John Tudor||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)||Walton, Sir Joseph||Williams, John (Glamorgan)|
|Snowden, Philip||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Soames, Arthur Wellesley||Wardle, George J.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)|
|Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)||Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)|
|Tennant, Harold John||Watt, Henry Anderson||Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)|
|Thomas, James Henry||Webb, H.|
|Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)||Wedgwood, J. C.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Toulmin, Sir George||White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)||G. Howard and Captain Guest.|
|Trevelyan, Charles Philips||White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Mount, William Arthur|
|Amery, L. C. M. S.||Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert||Neville, Reginald J. N.|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes||Newman, John R. P.|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major William||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)|
|Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)||Forster, Henry William||Nicld, Herbert|
|Balcarres, Lord||Gardner, Ernest||O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)||Gastrell, Major W. Houghton||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Banbury Sir Frederick George||Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Goulding. Edward Alfred||Pryce-Jones, Col. E.|
|Barrie, H. T.||Grant, J. A.||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)||Guinness. Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)||Rawson, Col. Richard H.|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Hall, Fred (Dulwich)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Hamersley, Alfred St. George||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)|
|Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-||Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence||Sanders, Robert Arthur|
|Beresford, Lord Charles||Harris, Henry Percy||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Bigland, Alfred||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'pl., Walton)|
|Bird, Alfred||Helmsley, Viscount||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Blair, Reginald||Henderson, Major H. (Berks)||Stanier, Seville|
|Boyton, James||Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hewins. William Albert Samuel||Staveley-Hill, Henry|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hickman, Col. Thomas E.||Steel-Maitland, A. D.|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Hill, Sir Clement L.||Stewart, Gershom|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Hoare, S. J. G.||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)|
|Butcher. John George||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)|
|Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)||Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)||Talbot. Lord E.|
|Campion, W. R.||Horner, Andrew Long||Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Houston, Robert Paterson||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)|
|Cassel, Felix||Hume-Williams, W. E.||Touche, George Alexander|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.||Tryon, Captain George Clement|
|Cator, John||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Valentia, Viscount|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Kimber, Sir Henry||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Walrond. Hon. Lionel|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)||Lane-Fox. G. R.||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)||Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W,||Lockwood. Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||White, Major G. D. (Lanes Southport)|
|Chambers, James||Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Clive, Captain Percy Archer||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo.,Han. S.)||Willoughby. Major Hon. Claud|
|Cooper, Richard Ashmole||Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)||Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)|
|Courthope, George Loyd||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh||Welmer, Viscount|
|Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)||Mackinder, Halford J.||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian||M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)||Worthington-Evans, L.|
|Croft, H. P.||Magnus, Sir Philip||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)||Malcolm, Ian||Yate,, Colonel C. E.|
|Duke. Henry Edward||Middlemore, John Throgmorton||Younger, Sir George|
|Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.||Moore, William|
|Falle, Bertram Godfray||Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir|
|Fell, Arthur||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)||A. Cripps and Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen.|
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Sir A. CRIPPS
I beg to move, in Subsection (4), after the word "Wales," to insert the words "so long as the amount payable under this Section is so paid."
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
I am very anxious to understand what exactly this Clause means, and though, owing to the 1964 procedure under which we are working, there is very little time indeed to ascertain that, I trust we shall have the benefit of the assistance of the Government. If I understand rightly, what we have done so far is to take away the tithe from the Church, and in Clause 18 we are going to enact that the tithe in the hands of the county councils or of the Welsh Commissioners is to be applied to certain 1965 secular purposes. That is an absolute trust affecting the tithe in the hands of the county councils and of the Welsh Commission under Clause 18, and it will operate immediately after the date of Disestablishment. Therefore, every penny of the tithe they receive they will have to apply to those secular purposes. We are asked in Clause 15 to enact that a sum, not the tithe itself, but a sum in substitution for and in satisfaction of the interests which the incumbents at present have in the tithe shall be paid to the incumbents, and that sum shall be made good out of the county funds. I cannot see any other interpretation, and, if I am right, the result will be that the moment the Bill passes, the county councils will have to apply the tithe to certain purposes which are to be afterwards defined, and which we in these Debates have called secular purposes. At the same time the county councils will have to find, out of the county fund, money to pay the income which heretofore was paid out of the tithe to the incumbents who are actually there. The result will be that in each county there will be an addition to the rates equal to the amount of the tithe heretofore raised, which will have to be levied and paid to the existing incumbents. I cannot believe the Government mean that. It seems to me an insane proposal, but I cannot see what it does mean if it does not mean that. It seems quite definite. I know it is very difficult to get the Government to follow these points, but it is very important they should.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY Of LANCASTER (Mr. Hobhouse)
I did not catch what the Noble Lord said; that was all.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
I know it is very difficult. The tithe by this Bill will be handed over through the Welsh Commissioners to the county councils, and it will be impressed with a trust to be applied to the secular purposes therein set out. That trust will take effect from the date of Disestablishment. By the Clause we are now discussing it is proposed to impose upon the county councils the duty of paying the existing incumbents the income they have got from the tithe. That is made a charge on the county fund, and will have to be levied on the rates. The result will be that they will not be able to apply the tithe they are going to receive to the payment of the incumbents. They are not allowed to do that. It is impressed with a trust for secular purposes by Clause 18, but they are compelled none the less to 1966 pay the salaries of the incumbents out of the county funds. The result will be that they will have to raise the rates to pay the existing incumbents of the Church of England in Wales. A more flagrant instance of a State-paid Church it is impossible to conceive. I want to know whether that is what the Government intend, and, if it is not, what on earth the Clause means. There are many other objections I have to this Clause. I think this would be a very suitable opportunity to raise a discussion on the commutation scheme of the Government. We were promised it should be laid before us not later than Saturday or Monday, but it has not been done so yet. That is the way the House will always be treated by a Government working under a guillotine. I venture to assert this Clause could not be passed at all except for the guillotine. The Government, but for it, would have had to have some drastic Clause to put the matter right.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
The Noble Lord, so far as I can see, has rather conjured up an unnecessary spectre of the results of the Bill. I do not think there is any such difficulty, either in practice or in theory, as he seems to suggest would be the result! of the passing of this Clause. He asks me, first of all, what is the meaning of the Clause, and he complains it is not the tithe itself which is to be handed over, but some sum which is in substitution of the amount now collected from tithe rent-charge. If he would look back to Clause 8, Sub-section (2), he would see the concluding words of that Sub-section are as follows:
"and in the case of such tithe rent-charge to the obligation to make such provision as is hereinafter mentioned in lieu of such existing interests."
Therefore, we have already passed a Clause which has necessitated, not the payment of tithe, but of some sum in substitution for the actual tithe. Then, he says, the tithe will be paid over for secular purposes, and the county fund will be liable for the annuities payable under the Act. I know of no county, or, indeed, any central exchequer, which actually takes the sovereigns it has received from one particular quarter or source and pays them over for the purpose which is implicated by the Bill which provides for their payment. All that is said, is that the sum which is collected and paid into the treasury shall be collected for that purpose, and that then payments shall be 1967 made out for another purpose. That is precisely what takes place with respect to this Clause. A sum will be collected hereafter by the county officers from the payers of tithe rent-charge, and it will be paid into the county treasury, and from out of that county treasury there will be money paid in satisfaction of the annuities payable under the Act.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to see my point. It is that the tithe rent-charge will be entirely applicable to the secular purposes of Clause 18, and will not therefore be available for paying the stipends of the clergy; those will have to be found out of the rates.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
If the Noble Lord would look at the first words of Clause 18 he would see it is "subject to the provisions of this Act."
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
The provision is for the payment of the annuities. That is the governing provision of the whole of this Bill—that the collection of tithe by and for ecclesiastical purposes shall cease; that in substitution for existing interests payment shall be made by persons to whom the tithe rent-charge is transferred, and that as those existing life interests die out the amount which is collected from the tithe rent-charge by the county councils shall be used for secular purposes. Those secular purposes do not arise so far as the tithe rent-charge is concerned until these interests are extinguished.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDY
The right hon. Gentleman read the last lines of Clause 8, Sub-section (2). Surely they have to be read with the words higher up in the Clause—in the case of all such property, except tithe rent-charge transferred to a county council, to the existing interests of all persons who at the passing of this Act hold ecclesiastical offices in the Church in Wales.The reference to the tithe rent-charge is—to make such provision as is hereinafter mentioned in lieu of such existing interests.That is the point; the tithe rent-charge has been severed from the other matters.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I am afraid I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I think not merely the intention, but the provisions of the Bill are as I have pointed out, and I do not think anyone who has followed the Bill closely can really have any doubt about the matter. The Noble Lord said these annuities are made a charge upon the county fund, but they are only made a charge upon the county fund subject to the provisions of the Bill.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I cannot too clearly repeat that, so far as these annuities are paid, they are the first charge upon the tithe rent-charge. It is merely a collection by one hand into the local treasury, and a payment out from the local treasury by the other hand. I think the intention is quite clear, and is quite indisputable. It is to be found in the words of the Act without any ambiguity of any sort whatever.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDY
I really think the Committee ought,. as the right hon. Gentleman has introduced Clause 8, to have in mind the words of the Clause. I will read them to the Committee.
(2) Save as otherwise provided by this Act, all property transferred under this Section shall be held subject to all existing public and private rights with respect thereto, and all tenancies, charges, and incumbrances which may at the date of transfer be subsisting therein, and in the case of ail such property, except tithe rent-charge transferred to a county council, to the existing interests of all persons who at the passing of this Act hold ecclesiastical offices in the Church in Wales, and in the case of such tithe rent-charge to the obligation to make such provision as is hereinafter mentioned in lieu of such existing interests.That is, all the other property goes to satisfy the existing interests of all persons. In the case of such tithe rent-charge there is an obligation to make such provision as is hereinafter mentioned in lieu of such existing interests. That brings us to the Clause we are now discussing, in which we find that tithe rent-charge is not to go 1969 to the existing interests, but to the county councils, who are to pay out of the county funds the equivalent of it. It is therefore evident the Government themselves have made an exception. They have put this in Clause 8 for some reason which we do not yet quite understand, and it seems to me the Noble Lord's contention is right, and whether the Government mean it or not, they are involved in this proposition.
§ It being Seven of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 28th November, 1912, to-put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 292; Noes, 167.1973
|Division No. 519.]||AYES.||[7.1 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Duffy, William J.||Kilbride, Denis|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness)||King, J.|
|Adamson, William||Duncan. J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S.Molton)|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Crilcklade)|
|Agnew, Sir George William||Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe|
|Alden, Percy||Essex, Sir Richard Walter||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)||Esslemont, George Birnie||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Falconer, J.||Leach, Charles|
|Arnold, Sydney||Farrell, James Patrick||Levy, Sir Maurice|
|Baker, H. T. (Accrington)||Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Firench, Peter||Lundon, Thomas|
|Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Field, William||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)||Fitzgibbon, John||Lynch, A. A.|
|Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)||Flavin, Michael Joseph||McGhee, Richard|
|Barton, W.||Gilhooly, James||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Gill, A. H.||MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Gladstone, W. G. C.||Macpherson, James Ian|
|Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, S. Geo.)||Glanville, Harold James||MacVeagh, Jeremiah|
|Bentham, G. J.||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||M'Callum, Sir John M.|
|Bethell, Sir J. H.||Goldstone, Frank||M'Kean, John|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald|
|Black, Arthur W.||Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)||M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)|
|Boland, John Pius||Greig. Colonel J. W.||M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding)|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Manfield, Harry|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Griffith, Ellis J.||Markham, Sir Arthur Basil|
|Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)||Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)||Marks, Sir George Croydon|
|Brace, William||Guiney, P.||Marshall, Arthur Harold|
|Brady, P.].||Gulland, John William||Martin, Joseph|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Hackett, J.||Meagher, Michael|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Meehan. Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)|
|Barke, E. Haviland-||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Middlebrook, William|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Hardle, J. Keir||Millar, James Duncan|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Molloy, M.|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||Molteno. Percy Alport|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Hayden, John Patrick||Money, L. G. Chiozza|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Hayward, Evan||Morgan, George Hay|
|Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)||Harleton. Richard||Morrell, Philip|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)||Morison, Hector|
|Clough, William||Helme, Sir Norval Watson||Munro, R.|
|Clynes, John R.||Hemmerde, Edward George||Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.|
|Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Henry, Sir Charles||Needham, Christopher T.|
|Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Herbert. General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||Nellson, Francis|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Higham, John Sharp||Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Hinds, John||Nolan, Joseph|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Norman, Sir Henry|
|Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Hodge, John||Norton, Captain Cecil W.|
|Crean, Eugene||Hogge, James Myles||Nuttall, Harry|
|Crumley, Patrick||Holmes. Daniel Turner||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Cullman, J.||Holt, Richard Durning||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)||Hudson, Walter||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)||Illingworth, Percy H.||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Davies, E. William (Eifion)||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||O'Donnell, Thomas|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)||O'Dowd, John|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||John, Edward Thomas||O'Grady, James|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)||Jones, Rt. Hon. D. Brynmor (Swansea)||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)|
|Dawes, James Arthur||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)|
|De Forest, Baron||Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||O'Malley, William|
|Delany, William||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Devlin, Joseph||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||O'Shee, James John|
|Dickinson, W. H.||Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)||O'Sullivan, Timothy|
|Dillon, John||Joyce, Michael||Outhwaite, R. L.|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Keating, Matthew||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Doris W.||Kellaway, Frederick George||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Roche, John (Galway, E.)||Walsh, J. (Cork, South)|
|Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Roe, Sir Thomas||Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)|
|Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.||Rose, Sir Charles Day||Walters, Sir John Tudor|
|Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)||Rowlands, James||Walton, Sir Joseph|
|Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Rowntree, Arnold||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Pointer, Joseph||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Pollard, Sir George H.||Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.||Wardle, George J.|
|Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay|
|Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Price. Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||Scanlan, Thomas||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Braford, E.)||Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.||Watt, Henry A.|
|Primrose, Hon. Neil James||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)||Webb, H.|
|Pringle, William M. R.||Sheehy, David||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Radford, G. H.||Sherwell Arthur James||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry||Shortt, Edward||White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)|
|Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)||Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Reddy, M.||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Snowden, Philip||Wiles, Thomas|
|Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Rendall, Athelstan||Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert||Williams. J. (Glamorgan)|
|Richards, Thomas||Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Richardson, Albion (Peckham)||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)||Williamson, Sir Archibald|
|Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Tennant, Harold John||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Thomas, J. H.||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)|
|Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)||Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton)||Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)|
|Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)||Toulmin, Sir George||Young, William (Perth, East)|
|Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Robinson, Sidney||Verney, Sir Harry||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Roch, Walter F.||Wadsworth, J.||G. Howard and Captain Guest.|
|Roche, Augustine (Louth)|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred||Locker-Lampson, G.(Salisbury)|
|Amery, L. C. M. S.||Croft, H. P.||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Dalziel, D. (Brixton)||Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major William||Duke, Henry Edward||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)|
|Astor Waldorf||Eyres-Monseil, B. M.||Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)|
|Baird, J. L.||Falle, Bertram Godfray||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh|
|Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)||Fell, Arthur||Mackinder, H. J.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)|
|Baltour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)||Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert||Magnus, Sir Philip|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes||Malcolm, Ian|
|Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Middlemore, John Throgmorton|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Fleming, Valentine||Moore, William|
|Barrie, H. T.||Forster. Henry William||Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Clone, E.)||Gardner, Ernest||Mount, William Arthur|
|Bathurst. Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Gastrell, Major W. H.||Neville, Reginald J. N.|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Gibbs, G. A.||Newman, John R. P.|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||Nield, Herbert|
|Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-||Goulding, Edward Alfred||O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)|
|Beresford, Lord C.||Grant, J. A.||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Bigland, Alfred||Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Bird, A.||Guinness, Hon.W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)||Pryce-Jones, Col. E.|
|Blair, Reginald||Gwynne. R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Quilter, Sir William Eley C.|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Hall, Fred (Dulwich)||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)||Hamersley, Alfred St. George||Rawson, Col. R. H.|
|Boyton, James||Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)||Rees, Sir J. D.|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Bull, Sir William James||Harris, Henry Percy||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Rolleston, Sir John|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Helmsley, Viscount||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)|
|Butcher, J. G.||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)||Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)||Hewins, William Albert Samuel||Sanders, Robert A.|
|Campion, W. R.||Hickman, Colonel T. E.||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Hill, Sir Clement L.||Sandys, G. J.|
|Cassel, Felix||Hoare, Samuel John Gurney||Sassoon, Sir Philip|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)|
|Cator, John||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Smith, Harold (Warrington)|
|Cautley, H. S.||Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)||Stanier, Beville|
|Cave, George||Horner, Andrew Long||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Houston, Robert Paterson||Staveley-Hill, Henry|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)||Hume-Williams, William Ellis||Steel-Maitland, A. D.|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)||Hunter. Sir C. R.||Stewart, Gershom|
|Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Ingleby, Holcombe||Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)|
|Chambers, J.||Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.||Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)|
|Clive, Captain Percy Archer||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Talbot, Lord E.|
|Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham||Kimber, Sir Henry||Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)|
|Cooper, Richard Ashmole||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Terrell, H. (Gloucester)|
|Courthopc. G. Loyd||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)|
|Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)||Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)||Touche, George Alexander|
|Tryon, Capt. George Clement||Williams. Col. R. (Dorset, W.)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Valentia, Viscount||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud||Yate, Col. Charles Edward|
|Walker, Col. William Hall||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)||Younger, Sir George|
|Walrond, Hon. Lionel||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)||Wood, John (Stalybridge)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Major|
|Wheler, Granville C. H.||Worthington-Evans, L.||Morrison-Bell and Lord N. Crichton-|
|White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)||Wright, Henry Fitzherbert||Stuart.|