§ The Welsh Commissioners, if application is made to them within six months after the passing of this Act by or on behalf of any person who or whose predecessor in title was at that date entitled to any right of patronage of any benefice affected by this Act, shall, at the expiration of two years from the date of Disestablishment, or, if a vacancy in that benefice occurs after the date of Disestablishment but before the expiration of that period, on the occurrence of the vacancy, pay in compensation for the extinction of that right such an amount as the Welsh Commissioners may think just, so however that the total amount paid by way of compensation in respect of any benefice shall not exceed one year's emoluments of the benefice taken on an average of the three years immediately before the passing of this Act:
§ Provided that—
- (1) His Majesty shall not, nor shall any corporation, sole or aggregate, dissolve by this Act, nor shall any trustees, officers, or other persons acting in a public capacity, be entitled to any payment under this Section for or in respect of any right of patronage; and
- (2) Where any person would, but for the provisions of the Statutes affecting Roman Catholics in reference to conformity to the Established Church, have had at the passing of this Act any such right of patronage he or his successors in title shall be entitled to compensation there for in the same manner as if it had been then actually vested in him; and
- (3) A trustee or other person occupying a fiduciary position shall not be bound to make an application under this Section; and
- (4) The compensation paid under this Section shall be paid out of or charged on the property vested in the Welsh Commissioners under this Act, other than burial grounds and the property to be transferred to the representative body, in such manner that the burden thereof may be distributed amongst the University of
1974 Wales and the several county councils in proportion to the value of the property transferred to them respectively.
§ Mr. HOARE
I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words—"if application is made to them within six months after the passing of this Act by or on behalf of any person who or whose predecessor in title was at that date entitled to any right of patronage of any benefice affected by this Act, shall, at the expiration of two years from the date of Disestablishment, or, if a vacancy in that benefice occurs after the date of Disestablishment but before the expiration of that period, on the occurrence of the vacancy,"
and to insert instead thereof the words
"shall, so soon as may be after the passing of this Act, ascertain and by order declare the amount of compensation which ought to be paid to any person or body corporate who or which shall within two years there from make application in writing to this effect for or in respect of any advowson, right of presentation, or nomination to any benefice or cathedral preferment vested in or belonging to such person or body corporate, and affected by the provisions of this Act, and out of any moneys for the time being in their hands."
This Amendment is followed by consequential Amendments, and perhaps the Committee will allow me to read the main part, so as to show how it will stand in the event of it being carried in its entirety. It will read thus:—
"The Welsh Commissioners shall, so soon as may be after the passing of this Act, ascertain and by order declare the amount of compensation which ought to be paid to any person or body corporate who or which shall within two years therefrom make application in writing to this effect for or in respect of any advowson, right of presentation, or nomination to any benefice or cathedral preferment vested in or belonging to such person or body corporate, and affected by the provisions of this Act, and out of any moneys for the time being 1975 in their hands, pay in compensation for the extinction of that right such an amount as they may think just."
Then all paragraphs after the words "passing of this Act" will be omitted. The complicated provisions under the Section are got rid of and the question as to what compensation should be paid is placed entirely in the hands of the Welsh Commissioners, it being provided that no inconvenient conditions shall be imposed on lay patrons in the way of having to make application in so short a time as six months, nor should any maximum or minimum of compensation which the Commissioners can pay be placed in the Subsection. It is to be left to them to decide what is the fair value of the living concerned, and to give compensation on that basis. Let me remind the Committee that this is almost verbatim the procedure which was adopted in the Irish Disestablishment Act. It was found to work with little friction, and I fail to see why, in the present case, it should not be adopted again. In discussing this question, we are placed in a somewhat difficult position by the fact that Clause 1 was only partially discussed, and that that part of it which deals with the abolition of private patronage was not discussed at all. It would be quite out of order to go back on a Debate that might have taken place had we been allowed to have it, on Clause 1, but two points connected with the general question do have a very direct bearing upon the question of compensation. In the first place, if it can be shown that the abolition of private patronage has nothing to do with the question of Disestablishment at all, I think that the lay patrons have a very strong case for generous compensation when you are quite unnecessarily depriving them of certain property.
Secondly, I believe that if it could be shown that private patronage is a scandal, the Government would have strong grounds for saying, in accordance with the precedents of the past, that it is unnecessary to give full compensation to lay patrons. Let me also say in passing, what I think can be proved, that there is no connection between Disestablishment and the abolition of lay patronage. The fact is that in Ireland, where the Church is Disestablished, there are still cases where lay patronage is in force, and in Scotland, where the Church is Established, lay patronage is abolished. Although we may have different opinions as to whether 1976 or not lay patronage is an ideal system in the Churchy the fact is incontestable that in point of law and usage lay patronage has been regarded as legitimate property from a very early time up to the present moment. Let me substantiate that statement by certain examples, which I take first of all from Statute law and secondly from actual cases, some of which are within the memory of Members of this Committee. First, take the case of law. Yon have a number of Statutes, from the earliest times up to within a few years ago, under which the right of lay patronage is unquestioned. That is made the stronger from the fact that only recently in the Benefices Act, 1898, certain abuses connected with patronage were abolished, and on that account I think the right of patronage was certainly strengthened. I could quote other Acts of Parliament, but I do not think it is necessary to do so, because I do not suppose that anyone in this Committee will deny the truth of the statement that in point of law private patronage is regarded as heritable property. I find that even a body like the Liberation Society recognises this fact, for in one of their pamphlets, which I own was published some years ago, but which I believe has not since been repudiated by them, they made this statement:—Rightly or wrongly, patronage in private hands has been considered, both by law and usage, as property of which the holder cannot equitably be deprived without an equivalent.Let me go on from the position in point of law to what has actually happened in practice. Let me take, first of all, the Irish case, and compare the compensation and the conditions under which it was given in that case with what the Government propose to do under this Sub-section. There, instead of offering the maximum of one year's value of the living, I find that in actual practice the Commissioners gave something more than ten years' value. One year's value of the livings would have amounted to the sum of £55,000 a year, whereas in actual practice I find that the reports of the Church Temporalities Commission show that no less a sum than £775,880 was given—in other words, more than ten years' purchase for the rights. I am aware that since that date there is another case which apparently points in the opposite direction, namely, the Scottish precedent. There, under a Conservative Government, only one year's value was given for a living to a lay patron, but I venture to think that any Member of the Committee who studies 1977 the case of Scotch patronage as debated in this House in 1874 will find that there is really no analogy between the two cases. In the first place, private patronage in Scotland had always been regarded as a modern accretion. Twice it was abolished in the course of two centuries, and twice, against the wish of public opinion in Scotland, it was restored by Parliament, and, as every Member of this Committee must know, its restoration led to a whole series of difficulties culminating in the secession of Dr. Chalmers and his followers in the middle of the nineteenth century.
It therefore came about that when Parliament discussed the question in 1874 and decided that private patronage should be abolished its abolition was, first of all, in accordance with Scottish history; secondly, in accordance with the unanimous demand of the Church as expressed in representative Assemblies; thirdly, it was in accordance with the practice of the Crown, which possessed 360 livings, but though the Crown might have directly appointed, it allowed election in all those 360 livings; and, fourthly, it was in direct accordance with the desire of most of the great holders of private patronage. In one instance the Duke of Argyll, who held ninety advowsons, declared in the House of Lords that he was very anxious that he should be relieved from the responsibility for these appointments and was quite willing to make over his patronage without any compensation at all. The result comes to this, that what the Member of the Government who introduced the Bill in the House of Lords said was absolutely true, that "there was not the slightest similitude whatever in the position of lay patronage in the two countries." Having touched upon these two precedents, let me come to the case of Wales. In Wales there are 290 livings in the hands of laymen—38 livings in the diocese of St. Asaph, 26 in the diocese of Bangor, 123 in the diocese of Llandaff, and 112 in the diocese of St. David's. I have a list of them here, and I find that most of them are small livings of no very great value. possibly averaging about £200 a year. What will happen if the provisions of this Sub-section are carried through without Amendment? The owners of these livings will receive a very inadequate compensation. It would be particularly hard in certain cases, to one or two of which I will draw the attention of the Committee. Take, for instance, 1978 the case of the parish of Seven Sisters, in the diocese of Llandaff, where a certain Churchman has quite recently built a church at the cost of £6,000, and has built a vicarage and endowed the parish with £360 a year.
§ Mr. HOARE
What would happen if the Sub-section went through in its present form would be that this gentleman would lose the patronage of this living, which has only recently been handed to him, and would only receive one year's value of the living for the very large sum he has recently spent upon it. There is another case also in the diocese of Llandaff, that of Llansawel. There, again, a private benefactor has recently endowed a parish, and under this Sub-section would receive most inadequate compensation for what he has lately done. Take another group of cases, where livings have been transferred from private persons to trustees on the condition of receiving grants from the Ecclesiastical Commission. There, so far as I can see, under Sub-section 2 there will be no compensation at all. That point comes up more directly upon the next Subsection, when I will put before the Committee certain specific cases. What is important in the consideration of what is or is not fair compensation is the actual practice which has been adopted by the Government in the past. Under the Iord Chancellor's Augmentation Act, 1863, the. Crown can sell livings, provided that the proceeds of those livings go to the augmentation of the Endowments. I asked the Home Secretary a question in the summer with reference to cases in which this practice has been adopted and the answer which he gave me was as follows:—There have now been seven cases in which the Crown has sold livings under the Lord Chancellor's Augmentation Act.
Those livings are, first of all, Grosmont, in the county of Monmouth, where the gross income of the living is £222 17s. 2d. The price which the Crown received was £l,200, in other words, about six years' purchase. The next living was that of Herbrandston, in the county of Pembroke, of the gross value of £264 a year. There the price paid was £2,200 or about nine years' purchase. 1979 The next living is that of Ilston, in the county of Glamorgan, of the value of £284 13s. a year, the price paid being £2,222, or eight years' purchase. The next living is Pwllerochan, in the county of Pembroke, with a gross income of £203 14s. 4d. a year, and the price given was £l,100. The next living is Kegidoc, in the county of Denbigh, where the income is £292 12s. 6d., and the price given was £2,500. Montgomery, in the diocese of Hereford, with a value of £516 l1s. 9d., and the sum given was £4,000. In St. Martin, in the diocese of St. Asaph, where the value is £373 a year, and the price given was £3,370. In other words, when the Crown was selling livings to private persons it received, I suppose, on an average eight years' purchase. What makes the case even more marked is the portion of the Act under which these livings were sold which establishes the right of the private person who has bought them. It conies in the Second Schedule of the Lord Chancellor's Augmentation Act. It is in these words:
"Know all men, that by virtue of the power given to me by the Statute passed and in consideration that the value of the property hereby granted is required by the State and duly secured and paid, I, the undersigned A. B., Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, do hereby appoint and grant unto C. D. and his heirs all the advowson. etc., subject to the present incumbency to hold under the said C. D., his heirs and assigns for ever for an absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance."
With these words in the Act and with the actual prices which the Crown has received for its own livings it seems to me to be nothing short of unjust to say to these private persons, "having given 'these seven or eight years' purchase, and having in the Act this specific statement that the right to your property is indefeasible we will only allow you a maximum of one year's value in compensation." Further, it seems to me, too, to be in direct contradiction to many statements which have been made by Members of the Front Bench during the course of these Debates. We have surely been told often that anyone who can show that he has a legal interest in property shall receive full compensation for it. That was the ground upon which the case of the curates was refused last Friday, that they had not gat a legal right. But here 1980 you have the case of men who, whether we approve of the system or not, have an unquestioned legal right through the whole course of our legislation and actual usage, and I cannot see the justice of your proposals to give them less than full value for their right. I do not regard this as one of the most important Clauses in the Bill, nor do I regard my Amendment as in any way a critical one to its safety. It is not critical to the safety of the Bill. It seems to me to be chiefly valuable as providing a further example of the meanness of the compensation Clauses in the Bill generally. It looks as if the one aim and object of the Government was to get as much money in their hands as ever they can. The general question as to whether private patronage is right or is wrong does not come up at all, and the only point to which I wish to draw attention is that this property is recognised legally as indefeasible, and on that account I claim that the Commissioners should be allowed a free hand to settle what is full and fair compensation for the property which the provisions in Clause 1 will take.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
The hon. Member read out a list, which was perfectly accurate, of livings which had more or less recently been sold under the Lord Chancellor's Augmentation Act, but he forgot to mention that the prices given in every case for sale by persons who purchased these advowsons went in entirety for the benefit of the benefice concerned.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I did not hear it. I am sorry. What I think was not mentioned was that from one's own knowledge of that kind of transaction the purchaser of an adowson in a case of that sort, knowing that the price which he gives for the adowson goes not to the advantage of some individual for his own private benefit, is willing to give a higher price than he otherwise would in order that he may increase the Endowment of the living in which he personally for one reason or another is interested. I think that must not be forgotten, and I think if you took each of these seven or eight cases the hon. Member has alluded to that would be found to be a very substantial consideration in the price paid for the individual living.
To come to the actual Amendment. The hon. Gentleman said the provisions of the Clause are very complicated, and he proposes an Amendment which will very 1981 greatly simplify them. The time under the Clause was only six months, and he wishes to get rid of the maximum which is included in the words of the Clause. His Amendment provides neither maximum nor minimum, but leaves the whole thing to be settled by the Welsh Commissioners. It is quite impossible in considering this matter to forget what was the experience of the Irish case. There was a Report by the Commissioners of Church Temporalities in Ireland upon this very point, and they pointed out that they had been compelled to pay very large sums indeed, far greater than their own judgment would have led them to pay, and far greater than they thought the presentation was worth to the patron, and an enormous sum, which the hon. Gentleman rightly placed at something like £780,000, had to be paid away in order to compensate private patrons for livings which in that case had practically had no market value at all up to the time of the compensation being paid to these lay patrons. I am one of those who think that if it was proposed as a new thing to compensate persons who had the right to appoint persons in holy orders to take spiritual charge of a number of people collected together, there is not a Member of the House who would say it was a desirable practice. In fact, I believe the system is, in many of its aspects, as repulsive a system as could possibly be found. But what happened in the case of the Irish Church when it was free from the system of private patronage? It did not even leave the patronage in the hands of the diocese. It took it entirely out of the hands of any private individual, and a diocesan board was arranged for, consisting of members partly clerical and partly lay, who took over the patronage and administered it partly in conformity with the needs of the diocese and partly in conformity with the wishes of the actual parishioners.
Here we have a system of private patronage in existence in Wales which, I think, no single person would introduce for the first time if it was proposed to do so to-night, and the hon. Member has pointed out that there are 299 of such private owners. If this were compensated for on the Irish scale it would cost something like £750,000, to be taken either from the public Exchequer or from the revenues of the Church. I cannot contemplate any proposal under all the many Amendments which have been presented to the Bill which would be more harmful 1982 to the Church if payment was to be made from Church funds, or more unjust if they were to be taken from the pocket of the taxpayer of this country. The hon. Member quoted the case of a new church built by private munificence and endowed handsomely, and he said, "You are going to deprive the patron of this church of the right to present in future, and you are only going to give him one year's compensation." I think the first person who would repudiate that it had ever been in his mind that he should receive more than the merest nominal acknowledgment of his right to present in the future would be the person who had so munificently endowed this church. The hon. Gentleman did not for a moment contend that when he was endowing this church, with full knowledge that this Bill was in existence and was coming before the House, the question of compensation to him for taking away his right of patronage in the future entered into his mind for a single moment. I understood the hon. Gentleman to ask—why is it necessary to deprive these persons of their right of patronage? You cannot contemplate private persons presenting hereafter persons in Holy Orders to livings in a Disestablished Church.
§ Mr. HOARE
There are cases in Ireland where that does go on still. The right to-do so is specially preserved under the Irish Church Act.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
Would the hon. Gentleman contend that any private patron desires to do that in Wales? I do not believe there is a single person connected with the Church in Wales who would desire such an arrangement for a moment, and I shall be surprised if any such claim is put forward by anyone who has a right to speak from the point of view of the Church of England in Wales—anyone living in Wales and knowing the wishes of the people there. The hon. Gentleman rather argued as if we were making no recognition of the legal right. There is a right, and we are making recognition of it. You may say that the recognition is inadequate. I think a person who claims to have personal property in the right of presentation ought not to be given more than, at the outside, one year of the yearly value of the living. He is compensated amply, and more than amply, by the receipt of that sum.
§ Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON
I do not wish to speak with any great enthusiasm 1983 in favour of private patronage, but it must be remembered that this Bill abolishes private patronage in Wales, and if it is the view of anybody that it is for the public benefit to do so, manifestly on every principle ever recognised in this House or outside compensation is due. That is recognised by the law, by statute, and by universal practice wherever there is a legal interest. That recognition is made by one of the provisions of the Bill by giving one year's purchase to the lay patrons who are deprived. The right hon. Gentleman failed absolutely to answer the extraordinarily cogent case made by my hon. Friend (Mr. Hoare), not for prescribing large compensation, but for leaving to the Welsh Commissioners—the nominees of the Government, men whom they are never tired of extolling in this House as people who are likely to be the very quintessence of justice—the decision of the question of how much compensation the lay patrons should have. My hon. Friend's proposal is that that should be left to their unfettered discretion. I do not think that a rag of argument has been brought forward against that proposal. There was absolutely nothing said by the right hon. Gentleman so far as I could gather against it. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the system which he supposed, I am afraid not accurately, was set up in Ireland, and which resulted in exaggerated compensation being given in that country. The case in Ireland was not parallel to the one we are now dealing with. The Bill in Ireland left this subject of compensation to the Irish Commissioners, subject to arbitration. The Temporalities Commission, who reported on this matter afterwards, never said a word against the Irish Commission, but deplored the exaggerated values given by arbitration. What has that to do with the present case? Nothing. If the matter had been left to the Irish Commission, I venture to assume that no such result would have ensued. I think some of us know something of the somewhat generous hand with which Irish Commissioners give in making their awards. The single argument given by the right hon. Gentleman in respect of the Irish case therefore falls absolutely to pieces.
The proposal in the Amendment is that the Welsh Commissioners themselves should have unfettered discretion. What could be fairer? In the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman he took cases 1984 which were decided by my hon. Friend (Sir A. Cripps) under the Lord Chancellor's Augmentation Act of 1863. The right hon. Gentleman admitted with perfect accuracy that my hon. Friend gave no less than seven cases of actual purchase, each averaging about seven or eight years' purchase. The right hon. Gentleman said it would make the Church in Wales unpopular if such generosity were shown there. He said nobody would advocate so much as that, but there is an enormous margin between a maximum of one year's purchase and eight years' purchase. What argument did the right hon. Gentleman adduce for cutting down that which practice has shown to be the period in England? One wishes, especially in this connection, to be entirely reasonable. If I were the tribunal, or if I were appearing before the tribunal, I should not myself advocate eight years' purchase. But that is a different thing from saying that you are only to give a maximum of one year's purchase. Reference has been made to the case of the Seven Sisters Church. It is perfectly right, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that it is a matter of conjecture whether the munificent en-dower of that living would wish compensation for his own private purposes. But when he has spent no less than £20,000 on the equipment of the living, I think he might consider himself entitled to some payment, so that he might give it to the Church. There is no earthly reason for saying that a man who has spent such a sum as that should not be given the alternative of taking from the Government, or the taxpayers if you please, such sum as will enable him to make a large contribution to the Church which is at present receiving such hard measure. Let me refer to a matter with respect to which no answer whatever has been given. There are hon. Gentlemen opposite who hold the opinion, and I dare say there are many on this side, that by abolishing private patronage no great harm is done, and that perhaps a public good is done. But if a public good is done at the expense of private property, do not present it in the eyes of the community as the act of somebody wishing to do good, and niggardly grudging the compensation given for the private patronage.
§ Lord HUGH CECIL
I listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and I thought there was the tribute due to him which is always due to those who are struggling with very 1985 great difficulties. Though I respected the zeal and devotion with which he undertook his particular task, I cannot say that he succeeded very well. Indeed, his speech was altogether irrelevant and altogether ineffective. No part of it combined the elements of relevancy and effect. The first argument he used was that people who had given from religious motives large prices to buy what Parliament described as an indefeasible right, were not entitled to receive compensation, except on a merely nominal scale for the right they had purchased. That is to say, if a person has not only bought an indefeasible right, but is acting generously into the bargain, his right may be treated with less respect than is due to a man of business who is driving a hard bargain. The right hon. Gentleman cited the Irish example, but from his own speech it appeared that the Irish Commissioners did not approve of the prices paid, and yet he adduces that Irish case to show that the Welsh Commissioners ought not to have power to decide the compensation in this case. On the face of his argument it was contradictory. Thirdly, he gave a general discourse on the evils of buying and selling advowsons. It may be an undesirable practice, but not only is it undoubted that people have bought and sold advowsons as matters of property, but the Government admit that there is a legal right in them. You cannot say that the Government is in a dilemma. If it is Simony, you ought not to give a penny, but if it is not, you ought to give fair compensation. But the Government say, "We do recognise the legal right." They do indeed, and I wonder if even in comic opera there ever was a more comic system of doing it. These arc the words of the Bill:—
"…pay in compensation for the extinction of that right such an amount as the Welsh Commissioners may think just, so however that the total amount paid by way of compensation in respect of any benefice shall not exceed one year's emoluments of the benefice taken on an average of the three years immediately before the passing of this Act."
The saving Clause can only have any meaning or force whatever when the Welsh Commissioners think that the price is unjustly small, and when they would be anxious to give more. Was there ever a more absurd way of recognising a legal right than that? To put in a provision securing by law that injustice shall be 1986 done, and to secure that what the Commissioners think injustice shall actually take place is to do something which the Government ought to be ashamed to put in a Section of the Bill. The Government inform the Commissioners that they shall be entitled to estimate what is just, and then forbid them carrying that into effect. That is surely of all absurdities the most scandalous. How ought this matter to be dealt with? Surely it ought to be dealt with by saying, if you please, that no such legal right ought to have been allowed to accrue. The State has admitted the right for centuries, and it has said that you must pay a fair sum to those who suffer by the abolition of what ought never, perhaps, to have been set up. My hon. Friend adduced the case of the Lord Chancellor's livings, but there are other similar cases which are overwhelming. It is actually the case that people have invested money for their relatives by purchasing advowsons. I know an English case where a man bought the value of an advowson with the view to its being kept and sold hereafter for the benefit of his wife and children. I do not think that that is at all a desirable thing to do, but many people do it and they do it lawfully with the full consent and approbation of the State, and it is an outrage to come down on them and to say, "We arc only going to give you nominal compensation." My hon. Friend proposes that the Welsh Commission shall determine. They will determine no doubt in the light of modern opinion, which we all more or less share, that this is an undesirable practice, and it is not at all likely that they will give exorbitant or extravagant compensation. Probably, if they err at all, they will err on the side of being too near, but at all events let us leave it to them to determine what is fair, and not put in this provision as to a maximum standard above which by Act of Parliament they are not to be allowed to go.
§ Mr. H. T. CAWLEY
The Noble Lord has said that the Commissioners are not to be allowed to give what is fair. I suggest that it is not at all improper to have words very similar to these in an Act of Parliament to lay down distinctly what this House thinks is just, and that what is aimed at is to show that in the view of this House nothing more than one year's purchase should be paid. Personally, I should like nothing more than a nominal some to be paid. I do not think there is 1987 justly more than a nominal value in these advowsons. In the first place, we have the cases where the money was paid by people who knew that it was going to swell the revenues of the Church, and they secured that object.
§ Mr. CAWLEY
That is quite true, but for the actual money which they pay they have already got a consideration other than the right to presentation.
§ Mr. CAWLEY
I do not agree for a moment. The bulk of the Endowments are still left. I do think it is not absolutely clear in this Bill where that money does go, but it is money that was paid recently. It is not ancient Endowment, and if it is not clear where that money does go, then it should be made clear in the Bill that the money does go to the Church. On the principles of this Bill I think that this money ought to go to the Church. There is then another case in which money is paid for these advowsons. I think, no doubt, people do buy these advowsons in order to keep them out of the hands of other people, and for that reason in those cases they have got under this Bill that object achieved, because they will be in the hands of the Church body, and not in the hands of members of another Church. The real reason why I think the amount should be nominal is this: If the person who presents presents the fittest person there is no value at all. If he presents a relative who is not a fit person he is doing something which is a gross wrong, and something which this House has no right whatever to recognise. There is no right to compensate a man for a power to present the wrong person. I agree there is something in the feeling that a man has that he is the fittest person to present to a living. That is as far as I can see the total value of an advowson, and I think that that right is adequately compensated by one year's purchase.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
Perhaps the Home Secretary will tell me what is going to happen to the money which is derived from the sale of those advowsons under Lord Westbury's Act. We have been told that we need not give a very full compensation to those people who bought 1988 under that Act and gave eight or nine years' purchase, on the average, because they gave more inasmuch as the money was going to augment the stipend of the clergy. Is it clear that that money will be confiscated under the Bill? It will come under the First Schedule as far as I can see: "Property vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners which is deemed to be Welsh ecclesiastical property." It will come down, as far as I can see, in Subsection (2) of that Schedule:—
"Property which belongs to, or is appropriated to the use of, any ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation in the Church in Wales, or the holder of any such office as such, and which is or has been derived from sources other than Grants made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners."
It is money now appropriated to the use of certain benefices, but is derived from proceeds other than grants made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The question arises, Will it not be saved as private benefactions? I submit that it must, because it was money given for the purpose of an ancient property. It was derived from money which was the product of or from the sale of an ancient property. It was not new money. Therefore, it is perfectly clear that the decision on this point will affect very much the view we take on this Amendment. As the hon. Member opposite admitted, if this money is to be confiscated, the whole position is changed, and another Amendment ought to be introduced to safeguard this particular money if the present Clause is persisted in. I want it to be made perfectly clear whether this money is to be confiscated or not. Otherwise the position is most absurd. The Chancellor of the Duchy argued that there was no injustice in giving only one year's compensation to people who purchased an indefeasible right and paid six or seven years' purchase, because they got their quid pro quo elsewhere, because they have the sense that they benefited the Church. But this Bill takes that benefit-away. At all events, the Committee are entitled to know where we stand. If this money, derived from the sale of these advowsons under Lord Westbury's Act, is confiscated under the Bill, some alteration must be made in the present Clause.
§ Mr. McKENNA
The hon. Gentleman has put a very fair question. Inasmuch as this money was given out of private resources, and that the value of the thing that was bought was for the benefit of the 1989 Church at the time, we hold the view that this money, after the Act comes into operation, should go to the Church, and if the Bill is not clear upon that point it shall be made clear. There is no wish, nor has there been the slightest wish, on the part of the Government or on the part of any of my hon. Friends to claim this money. Our view has always been that under Lord Westbury's Act excessive prices, as we all know far beyond what were usually given in the open market, were given for these advowsons, deliberately with the intention of endowing the Church. If the Bill is not clear upon the point I will consult my advisers on the subject, though I do not admit that it is not clear. But should I be advised hereafter that for the sake of safety it is desirable to put an Amendment in paragraph (2) of the First Schedule, such Amendments shall be made. I will give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking upon that point. I agree so far there is some substance in the argument that is being addressed to us. The point put forward by the Noble Lord is absolutely without foundation. He says what precedent is there for such a proceeding as this? That if they are entitled to anything they are entitled to full legal value, and that Parliament has never heard of such a proposal as fixing the limit upon what he describes as the sense of justice of the Commissioners. In this Bill we have followed the precise precedent of the Conservative Government. In 1874 a Conservative Government in the Scottish case had to decide the value of the Scottish advowsons. The hon. Member for Chelsea, the whole of whose speech I regret I did not hear, referred to the Scotch case. That is a precise precedent for what we are doing.
§ Mr. McKENNA
The hon. Member endeavoured to distinguish between the two cases, but the facts of the two cases are very much the same. We are all agreed that the sale of an advowson is an undesirable thing, and that when we Disestablish the Church in Wales we ought to get rid of this anomaly. The old outstanding question is how much money, if any, ought to be paid. We do not wish to be wiser than what is written, and we refer to the precedents. We have two precedents, the Scotch case and the Irish case. We find as an historical fact, which anyone can 1990 verify for himself, that in the Irish case the question of settling the amount to be paid for these advowsons gave the very greatest difficulty to the Irish Commissioners. We do not desire, if we can avoid it, to give the same difficulty to the Welsh Commissioners. In the Irish case I think upwards of three and a quarter million pounds of public money was paid in order to buy out 331 advowsons. I know it is difficult to say to the Commissioners what price ought to be paid as the value at any moment of these gifts, but no doubt if the matter were left open in the Bill the Commissioners would be bound to have regard to the price paid under Lord Westbury's Act. We want to avoid that. We think that Lord Westbury's Act affords no guide at all, and we say the prices paid under Lord Westbury's Act were paid for the purpose of Re-endowing the Church. We say that the value ought to be no more than the nominal value, and that in no case should the value be more than one year's emoluments, to be given for these advowsons. I think that limit is reasonable, and I hope that hon. Members will abate their interest in this subject when I assure them that so far as the sales of the Lord Chancellor's livings under the Lord Westbury Act are concerned, they shall go to the Disestablished Church.
§ Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS
I have listened with the closest attention to the Home Secretary, but he does not seem to me to have touched the question raised by the Amendment. In this Clause you recognise the existence of a legal right. It seems to me that you have felt yourselves obliged to recognise the existence of that legal right, though you do not like it. You have not got the courage to abolish it altogether, and so you compromise with your conscience and determine that although you must recognise the existence of this legal right you will give as little compensation as possible. It is common knowledge that under the protection of the law this right to presentation exists; sometimes it has been bought, and it has been regarded as a property. If you thought that wrong you should have stopped it. But you have not stopped it. The thing exists, and is recognised as a species of property, and you cannot do away with it altogether without some form of compensation. The body whom you have appointed you boast of as an independent body of men, in whose hands you place the duty of doing what you say is 1991 "just." If that be so, why limit it, and limit it to such a sum as one year's emolument, if you have any confidence in these gentlemen? Why use the word "just"—it is an unfortunate one for you—give such compensation as seems to them "just"—if you limit the amount. The cases must differ tremendously. In one case, it may be, that a very few pounds would be ample, while there may be other cases in which more would be required. A case was cited by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare), in which a man had recently spent as much as £20,000 in the interest of the Church, and who may be bitterly aggrieved because the Church, as a whole, is being Disestablished and Disendowed. He may have been perfectly willing to endow the Church in the circumstances in which he did so, and he may be extremely unwilling to have this presentation taken from him.
The Commissioners might think it just, or they might not think it just, but if you have any confidence in them at all, in the name of common sense why limit their powers in the way you seek to do in this Clause? I cannot follow the present attitude of the Government unless they have in mind the thunders of the so-called revolting Welsh Members, which have not yet been heard. In fact, the only splendid and heroic figure that remains is that of the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Llewelyn Williams), who occasionally stands and flashes defiant lightnings at the Home Secretary, and carries his independence almost to an extreme. A little time ago in my hearing he publicly announced in this House that things had come to such a pass that in future he should vote as he pleased. That was such a startling departure. I presume, from the ordinary practice of himself and his Friends that he justified the emphasis which he gave it. I think that the suggestion made by my hon. Friend is just, and I press it upon the Home Secretary.
Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW
With regard to the question of the Scotch Church, the Mover of the Amendment made it quite clear that there was no parallel between the Scotch case and the present case. The only parallel which he adduced was the fixed maximum rate of one year's purchase. What are the facts with regard to the Scottish case? The matter was very fully debated in the House of Lords, where the Duke of Richmond, in the course of his speech made these three 1992 points quite clear. First, he said the English and Scotch cases are not parallel; secondly, in Scotland the presentation at that time was only worth one year's purchase, while in England it was worth sixteen years' purchase; thirdly, he went on to say, in Scotland there were then 300 Crown livings, and 1,100 private patrons, of whom at least one-half did not exercise their private right of patronage at all. The Duke of Argyll, in a very strong speech, dealt with the subject. He said:—The only complaint I make is that in assigning one year's stipend of the living as the amount of compensation. my Noble Friend is giving patrons very much more than they could ever get in the market.Nobody can suggest that of the Government proposals of to-day. He went on to allude to the parishioners' right of veto, which imposed limitations on the patron's rights. The right of veto which existed in Scotland gave to the residents in a parish the right to refuse the nomination of the patrons, and, owing to the existence of that right, the patron's right was unsaleable. In fact, he used these words:—And the qualifications were so serious that patronage has practically become unsaleable. I hardly ever hear of livings being sold at all. No doubt patronage is transferred with an estate or exchanged for other patronage. I have never heard of their being sold for money, and if they were they would bring nothing.It is perfectly idle after that evidence as to the Scottish case to suggest that there is a parallel as between the Scottish precedent of 1874 and the one year's limitation proposed in this Bill. It is true that in the Benefices Act of 1898 there were very considerable limitations intended to enforce the trust character of advowsons, because advowson has been admitted to be a kind of property which is saddled with a trust, and the Act of 1898 did a good deal to emphasise the trust character of advowsons. It is quite right that you have to an extent restricted the property value of the advowson, but it is quite clear to anyone of any conscience that the market value of the advowson is considerably more than one year's purchase suggested in this Bill.
The Chancellor of the Duchy referred to the case of the Irish Commissioners, and said that they complained that the arbitration proceedings under the Act had forced up the price too high. It is notorious that under the Act the Commissioners themselves, quite apart from any case of arbitration, were going to propose eight years' purchase, and therefore the fact that arbitration forced the number of years' purchase up to ten does not in any way entitle the Chancellor of the Duchy to 1993 use that, because the Commissioners themselves would have given a great deal more than is proposed on this occasion. The Chancellor of the Duchy said, "Look at the case of Ireland, which did not revert when it had the chance to private patronage." I have had, as many interested in Church matters have had, to consider the Irish case pretty fully, and especially Irish patronage practice. I will say this, that there are many who have reason to think that the system in Ireland at present suffers from considerable defects. I am not one of those who agrees with the present arrangements in England with regard to advowsons. I would like to see them seriously modified, if not altered altogether, but the two Royal Commissions that sat within the last few years and inquired into advowsons both said the same thing, namely, that the present system of private patronage does secure an infusion of new life in various parts of England, into parishes which other systems do not secure. When the Chancellor of the Duchy said that the Irish Church did not revert to private patronage, he leaves it to be assumed that they have got a perfect system, but he appears to be quite ignorant of the criticism which is levelled at the Irish system by those who have to work under it, namely, that you have a system by which you do not get fresh blood into the diocese, but that all promotions and appointments are of the nature of diocesan arrangements.
I should just like to answer one or two points on the general question of patronage raised by the Chancellor of the Duchy; and then I will put a case to the Home Secretary, and I want him to consider it in connection with the point he has conceded as to Lord Westbury's Act. The great point made by the Chancellor of the Duchy was that patronage was impossible or unthinkable in the theoretic realm of the free Church. I ventured to interject, "What is the fact?" Under Section 70 of the Irish Act the rights of private patrons in regard to endowed chapelries where the money was given privately, or as the result of private benefaction, were expressly secured and maintained. You have to this day in Ireland this very right of private patronage exercised in certain cases, a right which the Chancellor of the Duchy said was theoretically incompatible with the existence of a free Church altogether. Not only that, but it is a very curious fact, which like a good many others seems to have escaped the notice of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that when this matter was 1994 discussed in the Bill of 1895, and when attention was drawn to this matter, and to the notice of the present Prime Minister, who was in charge of that Bill, he at once said, "Very well, we must make an arrangement when we come to the Clause to see that a similar provision is made in the Welsh Bill to safeguard the rights of private patrons, who have given money for the endowment of churches under the same conditions as money was given under Section 70 of the Irish Act." That Clause was never reached in the Bill of 1895 for certain very obvious reasons relating to the very happy demise of that Bill. The fact remains and is on record, and I can give the reference, that the Prime Minister said he would make that concession and that it was obviously right to make it.
We are told that it is impossible to have private patronage in a free Church. Why not? The condition of things which made old canon lawyers lay down the provision as to advowsons from which our present law as to adowson is derived, was this, that it was a perfectly right and proper principle and one which accorded with the facts of human life for the Church to say if any man comes forward and builds and endows a church he is a proper person to have the right of suggesting to the bishop the name of a man who would be a fit and proper clerk to discharge the duties. The bishop has a veto, and the arrangement is one which, both in equity and common sense, is perfectly right and reasonable. Something very like that is growing up in the Free Colonial Churches at this very day—that is to say, those who have by their acts of munificence helped to endow the church have their wishes considered in the nomination of a fit and proper person.
So far as the instance I have in mind goes the law of the new Churches is not sufficiently developed on the point. The case put against us was that under no circumstances ought a private person to have any right of nomination whatever. I say that the growing practice of Free Churches is to recognise some right of nomination. How far it goes at the moment is not quite clear.
I beg the Home Secretary's pardon; I speak about things of 1995 which I know, and I tell him there is a practice of this kind of which I can give him several instances.
I do not think it is necessary for the Home Secretary to instruct me as to the nature of an advowson. What I do say is this, that a position of affairs where you recognise in the private individual some right of nomination is not a state of affairs incompatible with a Free Church.
Episcopal Churches. That does not make any difference. For the purposes of this argument an Episcopal Church is a Free Church. In the Garden City at Hampstead you will find an arrangement recently made very much on these lines. Now with regard to Lord Westbury's Act, the Home Secretary has stated that he will see that a Clause is inserted securing to the Church the capital sums given under that Act, and which went under the Act to the Endowment of the Churches in connection with which the money was paid. There are many cases of a kind not at all dissimilar under the Church Buildings Act and the New Parishes Act, where money was given in connection with the building and endowing of the Churches, and where in consideration of that money having been given, the patronage was assigned to certain persons. It will be put against me that, generally speaking, the patronage in these cases is put into trust. I hope we shall be allowed to discuss the next Clause relating to public trustees. It is extremely difficult under a recent decision of a Court of Appeal to say what is a public trust of patronage and what is not. If that decision is correct, and no steps have been taken to amend the law as laid down by it, these so-called trusts are not trusts at all, and the individuals hold as individuals and not as trustees. There must be a good many cases of 1996 trusts of this character in connection with the Welsh Church. Not only so, but there are a certain limited number of cases where individuals who have given funds for Churches in connection with their Endowment or construction have had the patronage handed over to them directly. If money given under Lord Westbury's Act constitutes a strong case, and I gather that the Home Secretary thinks it docs, these cases, where money is given in connection with a particular Church and the patronage or advowson has been handed over to individuals as a result of their gifts, constitute equally strong cases. I hope that the Amendment when drawn will be in such wide terms that it will include cases of this kind, if there are any, and I believe there are, within the area of this Bill.
Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS
This Debate has brought out one or two very extraordinary facts. The first that struck me was that the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil) should have got up to defend a practice which I always understood his school of ecclesiastical thought looked upon as simony. I fully expected him to denounce the whole practice, instead of which he denounced the Government for being stingy in recognising the value of the private presentation of benefices. The other fact is so extraordinary that it is worth putting on record. We have had, almost for the first time, the private secretary of a Cabinet Minister speaking in support of this Bill. I know it is not the first time the hon. Member has done so; but it is such a rare occurrence that it quite startled me. It also so startled the Opposition that they kept interrupting my hon. Friend all the time he was speaking. I hope that his excellent example will be followed, and that in the near future we shall have, shall I say the private secretary to the Prime Minister and the private secretary to the First Lord of the Admiralty, and other private secretaries. Who knows but that by the time the discussion of this Bill comes to an end we may get an Ecclesiastical Commission appointed by the Government standing up in favour of some Clause or other of this Bill? It may be that we will have the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the Spen Valley Division (Sir T. Whittaker), who has received honours and dignities at the hand of the Government since they adopted the principle of Disestablishment and Disendowment.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean)
This is rather wide of the particular Amendment under discussion.
Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS
I will bring that portion of my remarks to a close. I heartily concur with what the Home Secretary said in regard to cases under Lord Westbury's Act. I confess that I thought those cases were provided for under the Bill. If they are not, every Welshman will agree that provision should be made in regard to them. An hon. and learned Member opposite taunted me with the fact that I had attacked the Home Secretary. I have never said a word against any proposal of the Home Secretary as adumbrated in the Bill. I have been loyal to the Bill; I have been almost too loyal to it; that is the head and front of my offending. I am delighted to hear that the Home Secretary, with his usual genial good nature, is willing to meet any possible fear that may exist on the other side with regard to the fate of those gentlemen who became patrons of livings under Lord Westbury's Act. But I take leave to doubt very much whether any of these private patrons in Wales wish to be compensated further than they are compensated by the Bill. I am glad to see one representative of a Welsh constituency on the other side who takes sufficient interest in this portion of the Bill to be present during its discussion. I would like to ask him whether he has received any protest from any private patron in Wales about the provisions of this Clause. Personally, I have never heard a single such protest; I have never seen a letter in any paper; and if my hon. Friend opposite knows of any such instances I should be glad if he would give us the benefit of them. I believe that private patrons are amply satisfied with the provisions of this Clause. What happens now? My knowledge of the private patronage of ecclesiastical livings is limited, but the little that I know tends to make me believe that private patrons do not like to exercise the right of presentation. They have outgrown the musty ecclesiasticism to which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Barlow) seems to pay a tribute even at this time of day. What has happened every time that a private living has become vacant within my experience of late years is that the private patron has handed over the patronage to the bishop—a very proper way of doing it. When 1998 hon. Members talk about precedents, especially the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University, I confess I am a bit amazed. There are, so far as I know, three precedents only, two of which have already been mentioned in the course of the Debate. The last one was in 1874, and was the precedent which the Home Secretary has already alluded to. The provisions of the Act of 1874, passed by a Conservative Government at a time when the Conservative Government was under the leadership of one of the greatest of its leaders, Mr. Disraeli, contained a provision precisely similar to the provision of this Clause. The provision in the Irish Act of 1869 was different, but everybody agrees that that precedent was one which ought never to be followed again in any circumstances by this House. There is another precedent, a very much older one, the precedent where Parliament deprived the Roman Catholics who were private patrons of their right to present the livings. The first Act, if I remember rightly, was passed in the time of James I. There was another in the time of William and Mary, another in the time of Queen Anne, and the last was either in the reign of George II. or George III. What was done with private patronage in the case of Roman Catholics was the taking of it away and giving it partly to the University of Oxford and partly to the University of Cambridge.
So far as I know, not a penny was paid in compensation for the invasion of that right, so that Parliament has never looked upon advowsons as being private property in the ordinary sense of the term. In view of the fact that private patrons today in Wales have never made any protest against the provisions of this Bill, I do not see why the Government should be asked to depart from precedent. As a matter of fact, this is only another instance of the way in which hon. Members opposite want to deprive the Welsh people of what belongs to them. They say now that they are very anxious to look after the private patron. As I pointed out, that is not the history of the question of this country. Mr. Disraeli once said in this House that "treason to be successful must be patrician." I am beginning to believe that if Disendowment is to be thorough, it ought to be carried out by aristocracy. Because in the time of James I. and of William and Mary—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
They would possibly be in order on a discussion that the Clause stand part, but not on this Amendment.
Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS
I was just referring to the fact that in the time of James I. and of William and Mary that there was no talk of giving compensation to private patrons.
The hon. Member challenged me on this point of no compensation. What happened was that so long as the living remained in Catholic hands the right of presentation was given to either Oxford or Cambridge, but the property in the living remained in the hands of the owner. Therefore, if he disposed of it, he required the purchase price. That is con
§ clusively recognised by the present Bill, because the present Bill pays compensation for the proprietary rights.
Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS
The Catholic was deprived from that time till now of the right of presentation unless he became a Protestant. I say it is not care for the interests of the private patron that animates hon. Members opposite, but the spirit of revenge against the people of Wales because they dare to ask for religious liberty.
§ Colonel PRYCE-JONES
The hon. Gentleman opposite asked me whether I have received any protests from private patrons. To their credit be it said I have received none. They are quite prepared to leave the matter to Parliament, but I hope that these private interests will be treated fairly and generously in the interests of patrons of the Church.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 99.2001
|Division No. 520.]||AYES.||[8.53 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Cullinan, J.||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Adamson, William||Davies, E. William (Eifion)||Hayward, Evan|
|Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.||Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Hazleton, Richard|
|Agnew, Sir George William||Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Dawes, James Arthur||Hemmerde, Edward George|
|Alden, Percy||Delany, William||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)|
|Allen. Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Devlin, Joseph||Higham, John Sharp|
|Arnold, Sydney||Dillon, John||Hinds, John|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Donelan, Captain A.||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Doris, W.||Hodge, John|
|Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Duffy, William J.||Hogge, James Myles|
|Barnes, G. N.||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey|
|Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)||Duncan. J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)||Hudson, Walter|
|Barton, W.||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Illingworth. Percy H.|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus|
|Benn. W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)||Esslemont, George Birnie||John, Edward Thomas|
|Bentham, G. J.||Farrell, James Patrick||Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)|
|Bethell, Sir J. H.||Firench, Peter||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Field, William||Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Boland, John Pius||Fitzgibbon, John||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Gilhcoly. James||Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)|
|Boyle. D. (Mayo, N.)||Gill, A. H.||Joyce, Michael|
|Brace, William||Ginnell, L.||Keating, Matthew|
|Brady. P. J.||Gladstone, W. G. C.||Kellaway, Frederick Govge|
|Brocklehurst. W. B.||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Kilbride, Denis|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Goldstone, Frank||King, J.|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)|
|Burke, E. Havlland-||Greig, Colonel J. W.||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Griffith, Ellis J.||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Guest, Major Hon. c H. C. (Pembroke)||Levy, Sir Maurice|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Lewis, John Herbert|
|Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)||Guiney, P.||Lundon, Thomas|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Gulland, John William||Lynch, A. A.|
|Clough, William||Hackett, J.||McGhee, Richard|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)|
|Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Macpherson, James Ian|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Hardie, J. Keir||MacVeagh, Jeremiah|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||M'Callum, Sir John M.|
|Crean, Eugene||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald|
|Crumley, Patrick||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding)|
|Manfield, Harry||Outhwaite, R. L.||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Markham, Sir Arthur Basil||Palmer, Godfrey Mark||Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)|
|Marks, Sir George Croydon||Parker, James (Halifax)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Marshall, Arthur Harold||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Snowden, Philip|
|Martin, Joseph||Pointer, Joseph||Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert|
|Meagher, Michael||Pollard, Sir George H.||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)|
|Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)|
|Middlebrook, William||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Molloy, M.||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||Thomas, J. H.|
|Molteno, Percy Alport||Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Mond, Sir Alfred Morit||Primrose, Hon. Neil James||Toulmin, Sir George|
|Money, L. G. Chiozza||Pringle. William M. R.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Morgan, George Hay||Radford, G. H.||Verney, Sir Harry|
|Morrell, Philip||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)||Wadsworth, J.|
|Morison, Hector||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Walsh, J. (Cork, South)|
|Muldoon, John||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)||Walsh, Stephen (Lancs, Ince)|
|Munro, R.||Rendall, Athelstan||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Nannetti, Joseph P.||Richards, Thomas||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Needham, Christopher T.||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)||Wardle, George J.|
|Neilson, Francis||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Watt, Henry A.|
|Nolan, Joseph||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Norton, Captain Cecil W.||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)||White, Sir Luke (Yorks., E.R.)|
|Nuttall, Harry||Robertson, Sir G. S. (Bradford)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Robertson, John M, (Tyneslde)||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Robinson, Sidney||Wilkie, Alexander|
|O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Roch, Walter F.||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|O'Doherty, Philip||Roche, Augustine (Louth)||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|O'Donnell, Thomas||Roe, Sir Thomas||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|O'Dowd, John||Rowlands, James||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)||Rowntree, Arnold||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)|
|O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.||Young. Samuel (Cavan, East)|
|O'Malley, William||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)||Young, William (Perth, East)|
|O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Scanlan, Thomas||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|O'Shee, James John||Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.||William Jones and Mr. Webb.|
|O'Sullivan, Timothy||Sheehy, David|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Gibbs, G. A.||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Baird, J. L.||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)||Gretton, John||Pryce-Jones, Col. E.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Baring, Ma). Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)||Hall, Fred (Dulwich)||Rawson, Col. R. H.|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)||Hamersley, Alfred St. George||Rees, Sir J. D.|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-||Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence||Rutherford Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)|
|Bigland, Alfred||Helmsley, Viscount||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Blair, Reginald||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Sanders, Robert A.|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)|
|Boyton, James||Hope. Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Smith, Harold (Warrington)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)||Spear. Sir John Ward|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Horner, Andrew Long||Stanier, Beville|
|Campion, W. R.||Houston, Robert Paterson||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Hume-Williams, William Ellis||Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)||Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Talbot, Lord E.|
|Cecil. Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)||Kimber, Sir Henry||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)|
|Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Law. Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)||Touche, George Alexander|
|Clive, Captain Percy Archer||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover, Sq.)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Cooper, Richard Ashmole||Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Courthope, G. Loyd||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh||Ward, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian||Magnus, Sir Philip||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred||Malcolm, Ian||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Middlemore, John Throgmorton||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Eyres-Monsell, B. M.||Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas||Wood. John (Stalybridge)|
|Faber, George Denison (Clapham)||Moore, William||Wright, Henry Fitzherbert|
|Fell, Arthur||Mount, William Arthur||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue||Nield, Herbert|
|Forster, Henry William||Parkes, Ebenezer||TELLERS FOR THE NOES. Mr.|
|Gardner, Ernest||Perkins, Waiter F.||Hoare, and Mr. M. Barlow,|
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.