HC Deb 20 January 1913 vol 47 cc55-89

As from the date of Disestablishment first fruits in respect of any subsequent appointment to any ecclesiastical office in the Church in Wales, and tenths in respect of any such office, shall cease to be payable:

Provided that nothing in this Act shall affect the liability of any person who at the passing of this Act has an existing interest in the emoluments of any ecclesiastical office in the Church in Wales to pay tenths, but such tenths shall after the date of Disestablishment be paid to the Welsh Commissioners or as they may direct, and shall continue to be so payable so long as such person continues entitled to such an interest.


I beg to move, after the word "payable" ["shall cease to be payable"], to insert the words "Provided that the Welsh Commissioners shall pay to Queen Anne's Bounty a sum equal to fourteen times the annual value of the said tenths and first fruits circulated in respect of the fifty years preceding the passing of this Act, less the amount that is found due upon an actuarial basis in respect of existing interests under this Act."

The object of this Amendment, together with the next on the Paper, is simple. Under the Clause as drafted one of the central funds of the Church, Queen Anne's Bounty, would lose the sum of £841 1s. 8d. a year. Further, the effect, as far as I understand the Clause, would be this: Existing holders of offices which are now liable to these charges of tenths and first fruits would continue to pay them, but instead of having to pay them for Church purposes to the Queen Anne's Bounty Fund, would have to pay them to the Welsh Commissioners for secular purposes; secondly, their successors will not have to pay either of these two charges at all; and, thirdly, when all the existing holders of offices in the Church die out, the charge will cease, and this sum will then be enjoyed by the Welsh Commissioners, or the county councils, or the university institutions, which succeed to them, and as I say they will be used for secular and non-religious purposes. In any case Queen Anne's Bounty will lose a considerable body of income which amounts to a capital sum at fifteen years' purchase of £11,500. I desire to point out to the Committee' that both from the nature and history of these charges they should be regarded as a permanent charge upon the benefices and other offices for which they are now paid, and that when the proceeds of these benefices are transferred to the secular objects, the obligations for these payments should continue with them as a trust.

Let me remind the Committee what is the nature of these charges. First fruits are a payment equal to the annual value of the ecclesiastical benefice or spiritual preferment as ascertained in the reign of Henry VIII., in what is known as the King's Book, except in the case of Bishops they are payable immediately upon entry into the offices by the holders. Tenths are an annual payment of one-tenth of the first fruits. If hon. Members will look back at the history of these charges, they will find that there is much ground for my contention that they should be regarded as a permanent charge upon the benefices and other offices. The charges, as was explained on Clause 8, were originally a Papal charge paid over to the representatives of the Vatican during the early Middle Ages. One of the first acts at the Reformation Settlement was that in which Henry VHI. assumed these payments for the augmentation of the Royal Estate. Then, with a brief interval when they were restored to the Papacy in the reign of Queen Mary, they were enjoyed by the Sovereign up to the reign of Queen Anne. Queen Anne made, as is well-known, a Charter under which these funds were restored to the Church and made a permanent charge for the benefit of poor livings and poor clergy. Upon that short historical survey, two conclusions seem to me to arise. In the first place, these funds were left for spiritual purposes for all time. Let me quote the words of the Act of 1705 under which they were left by Queen Anne. The Act is intituled— An Act for the making more effectual Her Majesty's Gracious intentions for the augmentation and the maintenance of the poor clergy, by enabling Her Majesty to grant in perpetuity the revenues of the First Fruits and Tenths. The Charter which was afterwards incorporated into an Act of Parliament is equally clear. There, again, it was explicitly stated that these funds were to be a perpetual charge for spiritual purposes. It states:— Now know ye that we, to the end our said Gracious intentions may he made effectual, and that the Church may receive a great and lasting advantage from our parting with our said revenue of First Fruits and Tenths, and pursuant to the said Act of Parliament Then it goes on to state who shall be the governors of the Bounty. The fact clearly established is that these funds were intended and confirmed by Act of Parliament as a perpetual charge for spiritual purposes. It may be said that these charges are not so much a charge upon property as a charge upon particular offices and particular officials. That may be so in theory, but I venture to think that the history of the practice under which tenths and first fruits have been collected proves that they may rightly be regarded as a charge upon property, and as a charge upon property I claim that they should remain a charge when that property is transferred to the county councils and the university institutions. I think that proposition may be substantiated by two facts. In the first place, I am told it has been the unquestioned practice of the treasurer of the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty to recover tenths by, if necessary, sequestrating the proceeds of the living—certainly recovering them as they would recover any charge upon the benefice. That is borne out by a number of Statutes. I recall one which states that if the tenths are not paid the Crown may seize the tithe glebe and all the other property of the benefice. I think that points to the fact that tenths have in practice been regarded as a charge upon the benefice. But secondly—and this is a stronger argument in that direction—the Ecclesiastical Commission, when they took over the estates of many benefices and offices of the Church in the early part of the nineteenth century, did so with the charge of first fruits and tenths upon them.

4.0 P.M.

I have here a list of the tenths and first fruits which are paid by parishes and offices in the Welsh dioceses, and I find that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the estates which they hold in Wales pay a considerable annual sum out of the £841 to which I have alluded as a charge upon these benefices both for tenths and first fruits. I therefore claim that tenths and first fruits should be regarded as a charge upon the property, and that the county councils and university institutions should be under obligation to continue to pay it. I think that that is in direct agreement with several Clauses of the Bill which we have already passed. For instance, Clause 4, Sub-section (2) says that property shall be transferred— subject, in the case of all such property, to all tenancies, charges, and incumbrances, and to all rights and interests saved by this Act, affecting the property. And Clause 8, Sub-section (2) states:— (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. One further objection may be urged against my contention. The Welsh Church owing to its poverty, has received larger sums from Queen Anne's Bounty and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners than they actually paid. That is a purely accidental circumstance which does not in the least affect my contention that this property should be transferred with its present legal obligations. If that is so the question arises how best this can be done. I quite acknowledge it would be extremely inconvenient if the county councils, universities and other institutions were to collect a number of small sums, which would, I believe, number 412. It would be much better to pay a lump sum for compensation at once. The Committee will remember that this is what was done in the case of the Maynooth Grants, at the time of the passing of the Irish Church Disestablishment Act. In order to compensate Maynooth College for the withdrawal of the Annual Grant which had previously been paid to it the college was given fourteen years' purchase of the Grant, and I suggest that that would be a very fair way of compensating Queen Anne's Bounty for the £840 which they are to lose if the Clause passes in its present state. Another complication comes in. I quite see that if the lump sum is paid over at once in compensation towards this Annual Grant the Church might unfairly gain during the lives of the existing holders of the present offices liable to these charges, because their income would continue and at the same time there would be received the income from the lump sum.

You must, therefore, exclude the charges for the existing holders from the calculation altogether, and I would suggest that you might adopt one of two ways. You might give Queen Anne's Bounty a deferred annuity, to come into operation at the end of the fifteen years when the existing holders of these offices have died off, or, still better, they might get the present value of the amounts due in fifteen years and discounted at 3½ per cent., which, I am told, would amount to a sum of about £7,000. I suggest that Queen Anne's Bounty has a very strong claim to this sum. It has the direct sanction of Parliament, in the words from those Acts which I have already quoted, stating that they are to enjoy this income for all time, and in actual practice this income has been regarded as a charge upon certain property. We claim that the Committee should not advise Parliament to take back this specific gift, but should compensate. Queen Anne's Bounty to the full. We shall not then go back upon the Acts of Parliament, and upon a Royal Charter, by providing that this property, which was considered and confirmed by Parliament in its destination as devoted to the augmentation of poor livings, should be abandoned to secular purposes under this Bill. I therefore beg to move.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley)

The Amendment is not quite right in the form upon the Paper. The way in which I shall put it is to leave out all after "that" ["Provided that"] to the end of the Clause, in order to insert instead thereof, The Welsh Commissioners shall pay to Queen Anne's Bounty a sum equal to fourteen times the annual value of the said tenths and first fruits calculated in respect of the fifty years preceding the passing of this Act, less the amount that is found due upon an actuarial basis in respect of existing interests under this Act.


The hon. Member has made an interesting and learned speech upon the subject of Queen Anne's Bounty, and I think I have appreciated the point of his case. As I understand, he says that the Queen Anne's Bounty Fund was a charge upon property, the property being certain of the ancient Endowments of the Church, that that charge was a gift by Queen Anne to the Church in Wales, and that consequently, when we take away the property, we ought not at the same time to take away the charge upon the property, which was a gift. That, I understand, is the case. He put the claim for his Amendment upon precisely the same basis as it would have if the Grant of Queen Anne's Bounty was to be regarded as a private benefaction. Now as to the effect of the Bill on Queen Anne's Bounty. We take, under the Bill, the whole of the ancient Endowments, treating them, as we believe rightly, as national property. The Queen Anne's Bounty Fund was derived exclusively from a charge upon these ancient Endowments, and it would seem to follow almost as a matter of course that if you take the whole of the Endowments on the ground that the whole of those Endowments were ancient national property, the tithes which have been subsequently extracted from those Endowments must quite clearly go with the original property. Before the institution of this system the whole of this property, according to our argument, was national property, but under the practice which arose in Papal times, the first fruits and tenths were a charge in many cases payable to the Papacy. We do not admit that those first fruits and tenths ought ever to have been paid as they were paid. In fact, after the Reformation, the first fruits and tenths continued to be a charge upon what we regard as national property, but were paid to the King.

If the matter rested there it is quite clear that we should take over all the Crown rights in respect of any of the Church property in Wales, and we should take over these first fruits and tenths. Cain it be said that the grant of the first fruits and tenths back to the institution which originally held the whole of this national property can in any way deprive the Welsh nation of its original rights? I submit not, and it was not on the ground that Queen Anne's Bounty was a private benefaction or on the ground that it was ever private property of any kind which we recognise as indicating private benefactions that, at early stage of the Bill, we agreed to leave to the Church the whole of the accumulated funds which had been raised by the savings made by the Queen Anne's Bounty Fund. What we surrendered, which came to a very considerable total of about £15,000 a year, represented, we said, not the first fruits and tenths payable to-day, but the accumulations of them which might have been spent in the past but had in fact been saved; and because we said they represented savings we left them to the Church and the Church will be in the enjoyment of them. That was the sole ground. We never admitted when surrendering this large sum that first fruits and tenths should remain a perpetual charge upon national property and should be paid over to Queen Anne's Bounty. I may observe to the hon. Member that in form, at any rate, his Amendment could not stand as it is. It is inconsistent with Clause 6, but that point could easily be dealt with by substituting representative body instead of Queen Anne's Bounty. But I am not going to deal with minor points of that kind: We have to deal with the question of principle.

We say the whole of the ancient property shall be treated as Welsh National property, and is to be transferred to the public bodies on Disestablishment. This property, however, is to be transferred subject to the condition that those incumbents who have at the date of the passing of the Act any life interest shall preserve the life interest in the emoluments of their benefices. The emoluments at the present moment consist of emoluments of ancient Endowments, less such amount as is paid in first fruits and tenths. But if we abolished the first fruits and tenths at the date of Disestablishment, and at the same time preserved the life interest of the incumbent in the emoluments, we should, in fact, be giving a larger income than he now receives, and we cannot preserve the life interest and give him something more than he now receives. During the continuance of the life interest we maintain the payment of tenths, but those tenths are paid to the Welsh Commissioners, to whom the whole corpus of the ancient Endowments, in respect of which these tenths are paid, is transferred. The principal point on which the hon. Member and I differ is very shortly this: He said that the first fruits and tenths paid to Queen Anne's Bounty ought to be treated as if they were a private benefaction. We say, on the other hand, that the first fruits and tenths are a charge of a somewhat later origin upon national property; that the first fruits and tenths themselves became-national property; that when they were re-transferred to the Church they were national property, and that when there is once more full control of what we regard as national property, first fruits and tenths must follow the rest of the property. We cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment of the hon. Member.


I listened with a certain amount of legal interest to the answer given by the Home Secretary, and I think the point upon which my hon. Friend, who moved the Amendment, and the Home Secretary differ, is as to the origin of first fruits and tenths, and their present nature. The Home Secretary regards them as a part of the ancient property, as a charge— that is to say, upon the ancient property which originally belonged to the nation. My hon. Friend says, "No; this property is clearly a benefaction which has been conferred by Act of Parliament, and you have no right really to go behind the Statute which, in the reign of Queen Anne, confirmed the payment of these first fruits and tenths to Queen Anne's Bounty for specific purposes; that, inasmuch as Parliament has confirmed that right, we ought to look, not only to this accumulated corpus which is at present in the hands of Queen Anne's Bounty, but also to the actual payments as following the same purposes at the same time." I want to go back a little further than the Home Secretary. I do not quite agree with his view of the origin of these payments. They were no doubt an imposition by the Pope, but the real origin, as I read ancient history and ancient books upon it, is found in the feudal system which obtained in the early Middle Ages, when the holders of certain feudal rights and wardships, and so on, maintained their right in the ease of any ward, or in the case of any heritage, to take the first year's income because of services they were supposed to lend to the ward or other persons whom they guarded. No doubt first fruits and tenths had their origin in this practice under feudalism, and the Popes adopted the principle for the purposes of maintaining their rights. If we come to discuss whether this is really ancient property, and if we regard first fruits and tenths quite apart from the fact that they are now paid into Queen Anne's Bounty to serve useful purposes, let us see what was said about first fruits and tenths in the past. I am going to read from an Act of Parliament in the year 1404. Parliament was then sitting in Coventry, and it was the sixth year of Henry IV. It described these payments of first fruits and tenths as "a horrible mischief and a damnable custom." I said that was the language of Parliament, because I was afraid you might say it was not Parliamentary language, but the words I have quoted express what was thought by Parliament in 1404. If that be so, is the Home Secretary quite right in claiming those payments as part of ancient Welsh national property?

No; the truth is that you cannot justify the payment of first fruits and tenths as a payment out of national property. It was an imposition long protested against by those who bore it, and ultimately it was paid to the Crown under Statutes passed in the reign of Henry VIII. There was no justification for the payment of these first fruits and tenths, and no doubt public conscience at last became aware that there was no right that they should be paid to the Crown. So, while very grateful to Queen Anne for her Bounty, Parliament at last, by a Statute, did give legal and real origin to those payments, and the Act which my right hon. Friend has quoted granted them for the augmentation and maintenance of poor clergymen. That is the real basis of these payments of first fruits and tenths at the present time. There is no justification whatever for the payment of them in their naked origin; there is no justification or right to demand them as national property. They had for centuries been regarded as an imposition until the sanction of the State was given that these payments should be used for the augmentation and maintenance of poor clergymen. What does the Home Secretary propose to do? He has proposed to go behind the real sanction given by the Statute to the payment of these sums, and perhaps he has not conscious knowledge of the fact that he is once more going to take these pay- ments, which were described by Parliament in 1404 in words, the whole of which I will not quote, but which might fairly still be described as "a horrible mischief." What is the position?

Under this Bill you have got under the first portion of Clause 19, that first fruits and tenths, in respect of any office are to cease to be payable, and by Sub-section (3) of Clause 20, it is provided, "if any person so nominated or appointed to any office in pursuance of that Clause during the vacancy between the time of Disestablishment and the coming of the Act into force, then in respect of that period he is not to pay either tenths or first fruits." What is the justification for maintaining them at all? I have an Amendment on the Paper, which I should like to have an opportunity to move, to insert the words, "Further, that any sum accruing, due, or payable on account of first fruits or tenths in respect of an interest existing at the passing of this Act in the emolument of any ecclesiastical office in the Church in Wales, shall also cease to be payable." I submit that there is really no justification for holding persons bound to pay them who, under a previous contract, agreed to pay during their holding of the offices, these sums to Queen Anne's Bounty, and there is no reason why they should continue to pay them after the Church has been Disestablished, and when the tenths are not to be paid in respect of future holders of ecclesiastical offices.


I may tell the hon. and learned Member that, on considering his Amendment, I find it to be equivalent to a negative of the proviso which we are now discussing. Therefore, the proper course is to first leave out those words, and that is the Question now before the Committee. I mention that in order that the hon. and learned Member may say now anything he desires to say.


I am much indebted to you, Sir, for what you have said, because it makes my course clear. The difficulty that my Amendment was intended to strike at is that there are persons at the present time who are under contract to pay year by year to Queen Anne's Bounty in respect of first fruits and tenths due from them upon their entry into an ecclesiastical benefice. Without some actual words releasing them from that, they have still got to pay those sums. The position, as I summarise it, is this: As from the date of Disestablishment all first fruits and tenths are to cease; as regards any person appointed to an office between the date of the Act and the date of Disestablishment; but you are still going to ask persons to pay first fruits and tenths in respect of the emoluments of ecclesiastical offices which they have hitherto and are holding, and in respect of which they have hitherto paid. What is the justification for asking them to pay those tenths, not for the purpose of their being ultimately received by Queen Anne's Bounty or by the representative body, or other Church purposes, but for secular purposes?

If you look at the true origin of these first fruits and tenths, there is really no justification for asking for a contribution out of the slender Endowments of these ecclesiastical offices—a contribution to be made to the secular purposes which are contemplated by this Bill; and the truth is that unless my hon. Friend's Amendment is accepted to once more give these contributions to religious purposes, you are placing what is a very hard task upon a number of persons, you are asking them to pay a portion of their income to secular purposes—a portion of the money received from religious Endowments—and you are certainly making it very hard upon them, because they will feel, not unnaturally feel, a conscientious objection to making those payments. We have often heard from the other side conscientious objections to making payments of a particular sort. Surely we may ask for the sympathy of hon. Members on the other side when we protest against the continuance of this imposition of "a horrible mischief," the purpose of which is not the religious purpose that has now been enforced for something more than 200 years, but which is once more to be the old secular purposes, making these moneys payable to the new objects contemplated under the Bill—objects which are not in any sense religious, which are entirely secular and which really ought not to find their place at all in any scheme for the alteration of the Endowments contemplated by this Bill. Because I believe the Home Secretary has not been able to give any historical justification for once more dipping his hands into sums which are received for ecclesiastical purposes, and no justification at all for asking persons who will be left with very slender incomes to continue those payments, I entirely support the Amendment. I hope we shall have some better answer than we have yet had from the other side, and that that answer will show a little sympathy with the difficulties I have suggested, which go to the root of the payment, and which certainly go to the root of the authority of this House to require those payments still to be made.


There has been one advantage in the discussion of this Amendment, and that is that none of the speeches just delivered had any reference to the wishes of the pious ancestors. In fact it struck me that the pious ancestor is now in rather bad odour, not only from the speech delivered by the hon. Member who spoke last, but from statements made by the Bishop of St. Asaph in a book which he has written on the history of the Welsh Church. The pious ancestor is supposed to have been the giver of Welsh Endowments, but the bishop in his book says:— Many donations were given by powerful chieftains in atonement for crime. One of the Church's most powerful weapons seems to have been a primitive species of excommunication.


On a point of Order. How does the pious benefactor come in at all on this Amendment? He has nothing whatever to do with tenths and first fruits, which is a charge on the bishops and clergy.


I cannot see any connection.


As the hon. Member referred to the origin of these payments, I thought it was in order to point out that it could not be claimed that these particular moneys were given by any pious ancestor. I should be sorry to use the language from this side which the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last, quoted from what I understand to be one of the old Statutes. If the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare) is averse to having the contention of the Bishop of St. Asaph as to the origin of the Endowments, I will not press the matter further.


It is not an Endowment at all.


The hon. and learned Member dealt with the history of first fruits and tenths, but he forgot to tell us that from the thirteenth century to the time of the Reformation the money was actually received by the Pope. Under Henry VIII. it was taken possession of and became part of the revenue of the Crown.


I said so.


Mary abolished it, and Elizabeth again seized it as part of the revenue of the Crown, and in the reign of Queen Anne the money was allotted, as it is now, for the maintenance of the Church. It should not be forgotten that whatever money Queen Anne allotted to the augmentation of poor livings, she also got an increase in the money which was voted for her from the taxes of this country; so that in any event an equivalent of the money which went to poor livings was actually received from the taxpayers. I observe that the hon. Member for Chelsea has considerably altered the form of his Amendment. On Friday his proposal was merely this, that the first fruits and tenths would cease to be payable. In other words, as the Home Secretary pointed out, it merely meant that in future those who are to retain their life interest in the revenue of the Church so far from having them reduced were to have them increased by one-tenth. The hon. Member to-day has dropped that Amendment, and he now proposes not that they should cease but that the amount received on an average during the last fifty years should be commuted at the rate of fourteen years' purchase. I listened to the speech of the hon. Member and to that of the Seconder, but neither made any attempt to justify the proposals to commute on the basis of fourteen years' purchase. I should like to know on what ground that suggestion is made. The suggestion made by the Home Secretary with regard to commutation was that they should commute on the basis of 12.8 years' purchase. I am anxious to know is the Amendment of the hon. Member and the suggestion of fourteen years to be considered as the idea of hon. Members opposite of approaching the whole question of commutation?


As the hon. Member challenges me, it is the Irish precedent.


I am obliged for the information, but the hon. Member did not give it in his speech.


Yes, I did.


There is another Clause in the latter part of his Amendment in which he states that the Amendment is to be subject to existing interests. I am rather curious to know to what he refers. I understand that the present position is this, that every living or a majority of the livings are subject to a tax equal to one-tenth of the value. I understand that the life interest reserved by this Bill will under this Clause remain responsible for the payment of that tax so long as the life interest exists. If that life interest is to be commuted for fourteen years' purchase, what are the possible existing interests to which the hon. Member refers in his Amendment? There is an annual sum of £825 involved, which represents a capital value of between £10,000 and £11,000. I believe the hon. and learned Member stated that they were payable out of the slender revenue of the Church. We on this side do not concede that argument. We decline to believe that the Endowments of the Church are slender or inadequate for the work they are performing. The Bishop of St. David's pointed out that the effect of the present Bill would be to deprive half of the parishes in Wales of their Endowments, which means, of course, that since the Reformation Churchmen in Wales have contributed practically nothing by way of permanent Endowment for the work of the Church in Wales in half the parishes. I decline to believe that a Church to which-Churchmen have contributed nothing in half the parishes for two hundred and fifty years can be in that position that even a small sum of this kind would be of so much necessity to her. There is another point I should like dealt with by the Home Secretary. I understand part of the tax is a kind of commutation paid by the bishops. I understand, instead of paying one-tenth of their revenue, it has been arranged and commuted as an annual charge on the value of their sees.


By Statute.


I take the hon. and learned Gentleman's authority for that. It is not quite clear from this Clause or under the Amendment what is to become of that charge. Is it to continue to be paid by the bishops?


I quite appreciate the point. It is not provided for, but I intended to do so in my Amendment as to-which the Chairman has pointed out a difficulty in the way of introducing it.


I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will not think I am blaming him. I am addressing my remarks to the Home Secretary, and pointing out that that charge on the sees of the bishops is not met by this Clause or any Amendment. From anyone on behalf of the Home Office who takes part in this Debate I shall be very glad to know whether this charge on the bishops' salaries is to continue, and for what purpose the money is in future to be applied.


This Clause is a singularly mean one. I think if you describe the Bill as robbery, this may be described as petty larceny. The object of the Clause is twofold. The first paragraph provides that the charge at present existing on the revenue shall cease to be paid to the Queen Anne's Bounty or Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and that the whole of the income should go over to the Welsh Commissioners. The second part provides that the charge shall go on the existing life interest, so that they are to be hit both ways. As long as the Church is in possession of this income the charge is to continue, but it is not to be paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners but to the Welsh Commissioners. Therefore, the first effect of the Clause would be to disendow the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty by so much income as comes from Welsh sources during the lives of existing incumbents. For that there does not appear to be even the shadow of an excuse, and I cannot conceive on what possible ground it can be defended. Unfortunately, I was called out of the House when the Home Secretary was speaking, and I do not know what defence he put forward, but I do not imagine that he could have made any defence to that part of the Clause, which seems to me to be clearly unjust. You are leaving to the existing holders their ecclesiastical incomes. There is a charge on them for another ecclesiastical purpose at present existing, that, for some reason which I utterly fail to understand, you are going to make the existing incumbents pay on their tenths and first fruits, not to ecclesiastical purposes, but to the Welsh Commissioners. I cannot myself see that there can be any defence to that.

Let me remind the House of the essentially ecclesiastical character of these payments. I do not think there is any doubt about it whatever that their origin was purely ecclesiastical. Something may be said, no doubt, though I think most fallaciously and untruly, about the origin of tithes, but no one can doubt that the first fruits and tenths, which were originally paid to the Pope, were paid for purely ecclesiastical purposes. It is quite true that it was a matter of constant dispute right through the Middle Ages between the kings and the Pope as to whether or not the Pope had a right to these payments, and whether they should be paid to him or not. When Henry VIII. came to the throne he really did no more, as anyone acquainted with history knows, than to revive several of the old Statutes which had been discarded, and to put them into effect, being a stronger man than some of his predecessors. He took this money because he assumed, or affected to assume, a certain position with regard to the Church. It was, I think ever5'one really admits, a pure usurpation on the part of Henry VIII. He took it, and his successors continued to hold it until Queen Anne's reign. Queen Anne was troubled in her conscience, and as a matter of bounty gave it back to the Church. All this was recognised in the earlier stages of the Bill. The Government felt so-strongly about it that they considered they could not touch Queen Anne's Bounty, and they gave it back to the Church. But this miserable fragment of it they continue to take. I cannot imagine how a distinction can be drawn between the Queen Anne's Bounty, which has been given back to the Church by an earlier Amendment, and this portion of it—unless it be that the hon. Member for the Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. Llewelyn Williams) has frightened the Government.

I am not a very bold man, but I should never think of being afraid of the Welsh Radical party. They are always threatening awful things, but they never do them. The Government may disregard them perfectly safely. I do not know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer may think about it. I suppose that he has ceased to be a member of the Welsh Radical party. He is now a Cabinet Minister, which is quite a different thing. The other members of the Welsh Radical party are really absolutely negligible, and if the Home Secretary has been induced to commit this act of legislative petty larceny under terror of the hon. Member for the Carmarthen Borough and his colleagues, it is the least admirable feature in his character that I have yet observed. I really cannot understand what distinction the Home Secretary seeks to draw between this and the rest of the fund. I cannot see in what possible way he distinguishes Queen Anne's Bounty generally from this fragment of Queen Anne's Bounty—a source from which Queen Anne's Bounty has been slowly amassed. If it was right to take Queen Anne's Bounty originally, it is right to take this; if it was not right, and the Government say that it was not, to take Queen Anne's Bounty originally, it cannot possibly be right to take the trickling drops which in past years have gone to make up the capital sum out of which Queen Anne's Bounty is now paid. The matter seems too clear for argument. I hope that some better reason than has yet been given for resisting the Amendment will be forthcoming from the Government before the Debate closes.


It is all very well for the Noble Lord to say that it was Henry VIII. who did this. As a matter of fact, it was not Henry VIII. at all. It was done in the first year of Queen Elizabeth. It is true that Henry VIII., as head of the Church, took tenths and first fruits for a time. Subsequently they were restored to the Church or not paid at all. Then the blessed and glorious Revolution took place. Queen Elizabeth came to the throne, and Sir William Cecil—who, I may be allowed to say, was the greatest of the Cecils, a fine Dis-establisher and Disendower, and perfectly logical—believed that Parliament could Disestablish and Disendow the old faith, and he decided that when he was going to do it he would do it thoroughly. In the first year of Queen Elizabeth, when the Act of Uniformity was passed, he insisted on the clergy paying their tenths and first fruits, and that these tenths and first fruits should go to the Civil List, the revenue of the Sovereign. For 150 years, until 1703, these tenths and first fruits were paid in that way. If you assume that Parliament has the right, as Sir William Cecil assumed, to alter the character of the Church, to alter the doctrines of the Church, to alter the government of the Church, and to alter the beneficiaries of the money which had been paid to the Church, it logically follows that Parliament could order tenths and first fruits to be paid to any person or to any institution it liked. Queen Anne lost her children, and she thought it was a visitation of God. She mentioned the matter to the archbishop, and on the advice of the pious archbishop she decided to make the best of both worlds by returning to the Church the tenths and first fruits, while at the same time her own privy purse was not to be depleted in any way by the proceeding. It is a very easy way of showing piety to be generous at other people's expense. But though Queen Anne wanted to give back to the Church tenths and first fruits, she found she could not do it because of an Act of Parliament which had been passed. Therefore it was that she came to this Erastian Parliament to get power to return tenths and first fruits for the benefit of the Church, and that was done in 1702. Therefore, these tenths and first fruits in their nature and origin are not only national property, but have been given to the Church by a Parliamentary title.

What is proposed to be done now? I quite agree with the remarks made by the Home Secretary. He drew a very ingenious distinction. I should have liked him to have gone further, and said that the whole of the tenths and first fruits were national property. He drew a very ingenious but perfectly good distinction between the payment of tenths and first fruits after Disestablishment, and that which has gone before. He said that it would be unfair because the Church saved this money instead of spending it year by year, to ask them to give up their savings now. In other words he said that he would deal with Queen Anne's Bounty exactly as he dealt with tithes. He did not ask the Church to restore all the tithe that they have drawn during the last 250 years, they have spent it, and it would be inequitable to ask them to return the money. In the same way, because Queen Anne's Bounty has not been spent, but has been saved, although they could have spent it if they liked, it would be inequitable, he says, to ask the Church now to give up their savings. But with regard to the future, quite a different position obtains. These tenths and first fruits were a charge upon the income of the clergy. Why should they pocket the tenths and first fruits in future, since they accepted their benefices subject to these charges? It is perfectly right and equitable under these circumstances that the clergy should continue to pay tenths and first fruits. But to whom? The hon. and learned Member for Leamington (Mr. Pollock), rather complained that the clergy should not be asked to pay them to the representative body. I quite agree that if these funds were not national funds it would be inequitable to ask the Church to pay them for anything but the services of the Church. If I took the same view as the hon. and learned Gentleman, I should agree with his conclusion. But I do not. I say that they are national property in their origin and essence, and since they are national property there can be no manner of doubt that in future tenths and first fruits ought to be paid to the Welsh Commissioners.

5.0 P.M.


The arguments used on the other side might be characterised as repugnant one to the other. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Llewelyn Williams) has founded himself upon the Parliamentary title of Queen Anne's Bounty. His argument is that the fact that Queen Anne's Bounty has a Parliamentary title is equivalent to saying that it has no title worth having to the property it now possesses. I only hope that if there are any Nonconformists present who accede to that argument they will take note of it, because the Scottish Settlement was by an Act of Parliament, and in 1905 a large sum of money was voted by Parliament to the Free Church and the United Free Church. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is well founded, those two bodies, who believe themselves to be in possession of their property by a recent and indefeasible title, are in no such position. The other argument used by Members opposite deals with the question of private benefaction. I do not care which way the case is argued. I think there are very strong historical grounds for saying that in substance—though I quite agree there was a Parliamentary Grant to validate it—this Bounty was the fruit of Queen Anne's benevolence. I think the hon. and learned Member was drawing somewhat on his imagination when he ascribed it to the misfortunes which Queen Anne sustained in her family life. I believe he was wrong in ascribing it to that cause in the first place. As a matter of fact, the originator of Queen Anne's Bounty was Bishop Burnet. Macaulay tells us that the position of the inferior clergy occasioned sore uneasiness to the kind and generous heart of Bishop Burnet, who was indefatigable, and at last succeeded in his attempt to obtain from the Crown that Grant which is known by the name of Queen Anne's Bounty. That was in 1689, before Queen Anne came to the throne. Queen Anne was not famed for beneficence. She was somewhat parsimonious, and, according to the view of the time, not at all up to the mark expected by her subjects in this respect. The hon. and learned Gentleman gave us no authority, and I believe that no such authority exists, for the statement that he made. The plain fact is that by the solici- tation of Bishop Burnet the Crown was induced to grant this money for the service of the Church. If the hon. and learned Member wishes further authority on the (point he should look at the Charter, in which are recited this great solicitude for the suffering and misery on the part of the clergy and the sacrifices which the Queen made in order to minister to their wants. Therefore, in relation to Queen Anne's Bounty, I do not care which way it is. If it depends upon a Parliamentary Grant it is a Grant which ought not to be set aside. To set it aside would be to place in jeopardy some of those Endowments: which at the present time are regarded even by people of the party opposite as soundly based in public policy. If you do not regard it as originating in a Parliamentary Grant, but in private benefactions, you have ample historical grounds-for doing so. It was the greatest made by the Crown in 1700, and as such it comes after 1662 within the very principle of this Bill, and deserves to escape from the general spoliation.

The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY (Mr. Hobhouse)

I only rise to answer a question put to mo by my hon. Friend behind me. He asked what was going to happen in the case of the payments now made by the bishops in commutation of the first fruits and the tenths. It is quite clear that the provision in the Bill does not specifically mention them. They are distinct from the first fruits and the tenths paid by the ordinary parochial clergy, and ought, I think, to have been covered by a distinct and specific Clause. Recognising that fact, the Government intend to cover their case by putting down an Amendment to Clause 35, which is a definition Clause, as an addition to that Clause, allotting distinctly and specifically the first fruits payable by the bishops and devoting the tenths, which are now commuted, and are commutable by payment, both to the same purpose as we shall devote the tenths of the parochial clergy.


First fruits or tenths?


The whole thing was settled by Order in Council in 1852. The first fruits in the case of the bishops were commuted to annual payments payable at such times and in such a manner as the tenths were payable. Therefore those payments are now regarded in the same position. The tenths are now in the same position as the first fruits. The words which we will put down will make it clear that these payments, which are now paid in lieu of the tenths by the bishops, will be applied to the same purposes as the payment of the tenths.


That means that they may be applied to secular purposes?


Certainly—applied to secular purposes. Let me add a word in defence of my right hon. Friend in view of what was said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I do not think he intended to make out a Parliamentary title at all. All he said was that there was power to vary national property—assuming that it was national property—and he proceeded to give a certain Parliamentary title to certain things which Queen Anne did. He did not go beyond that. They treated it then as national property. We treat it as such. I think the distinction our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary drew was a sound and good distinction, and justifies us in the distinction which we have made.


I do not wish to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite into his disquisition as to what took place under Queen Elizabeth. The suggestion that an entirely new Church was founded then by Act of Parliament is absurd to anyone who has examined the Statute. Any alteration, in fact, made was certainly not in the status of the Church. With regard to the question as to what took place in the time of Queen Anne, I should like to associate myself with everything that has been said as to the dilemma in which hon. Members opposite are. The arguments they have used are mutually destructive. When we were debating this question of Queen Anne's Bounty at an earlier stage of the Bill, I challenged hon. Members opposite to produce any evidence whatever that Queen Anne had, in effect, received an increase in the Civil List as the result of a Grant which she made. That was suggested at that time, and it is suggested with some assurance now, but on neither occasion did we receive any evidence of what was stated to be a fact, and what I firmly believe not to be a fact at all. I have some records here, and I can find no evidence of it. One more point as to the question by the Mover of this Amendment quoted fourteen years as the period. The speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite who dealt with this point makes one despair, as indeed hon. Members opposite, whenever they quote an Irish Act, always do make one despair, of their having the slightest appreciation of the precedent in this matter of the Irish Act. When the Irish Act serves their purpose they know something about it. When it does not they have never heard of it, and if one quotes the Irish instance they ignore it altogether.

What happened with regard to the Regium donum and the Maynooth Grant was quite simple. They were provided both by the Nonconformist clergy and also by the Catholics. These life interests were safeguarded under the Irish Act. Further than that there were certain charges in favour of certain people charged upon the funds and especially upon the Regium donum. There were annual sums paid to widows and orphans, annual sums paid into a certain fund, and other annual sums paid. Section 40 of the Irish Act expressly said that those sums so charged upon the Regium donum, and the other were not to be treated on the basis of life annuities—that they should be redeemed—the series are given in this Section—on a basis of fourteen years' compensation. What we say is that for all practical purposes this is an exact parallel to the case we are arguing here to-day. It is the case of a charge, not an Endowment, upon the income of ministers of the Church. That charge ought to be redeemed at fourteen years' pruchase exactly in the same way in which the charges on the Regium donum under Section 40 of the Irish Act were redeemed under a similar length of years' purchase. If it was allowed that it should be done in the Irish case it is abundantly so in the case of a poor Church. I cannot conceive what grounds the Government, when they have, as I suppose they would suggest, made a substantial concession in the earlier stages of the Bill in regard to Queen Anne's Bounty, refuse to make this very small adjustment, which in the name of equity and common sense is the proper course for them to adopt.


First of all, I should like to offer my sincere congratulations to the reunited family party. At one time it was almost a pathetic sight to see the heroism of the hon. and learned, Member for Carmarthen Boroughs, who never hesitated to criticise the Government. Now he defends their action, and the least that the Government can do in return is to defend the history of the hon. and learned Gentleman. They both require all the support that they can mutually afford each other. As has already been pointed out the little rift between the Government and the other Welsh Members never attained large dimensions. The hon. Member for Swansea Boroughs threatened very largely, and we were told there was to be an upheaval in the country. We are still watching and waiting for it. The only people really happy are the Government. Let me say a word upon what I suggest is the real smallness, if I may say so, of the opposition of the Government on this particular question. The amount is so small that it is fair to take account of the attitude of the Government. The whole basis of the case put forward by the Government is that this is national property. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen, with his unexpected defence of the Cecil family, has, too, laid it down that this is national property. I cannot conceive how any amount of historical research, accurate or inaccurate, led to such a conclusion, because this is, after all, a contribution made by ministers of religion themselves. There can be no question here of gifts having been made, as is the case put forward by the Government. Nothing of that kind can here possibly arise. There always has been contributions made out of the stipends of the clergy to a common fund for the purposes of their Church.

You might just as well seek in logic and justice to interfere with a payment of that sort as you would, say, to interfere with the system which I think obtains in India —I do not know whether it obtains now— under which Government servants were obliged to contribute a certain portion from their salaries to a central insurance fund. You might as well say that you will take that money away and devote it to the reconstruction of the new citadel at Delhi, or something of that kind. You have no right to interfere with that at all, and you have no right to interfere with this. Let me point out how hard this is, particularly on the bishops, because I am sure I can claim the active sympathy of the hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs in any case that affects their lordships. The matter in their instance is particularly hard for this reason, that when, they took this under an Order in Council the payments were commuted. Instead of paying one lump sum in payment of the tithes, it has been spread over annual payments. If it had been paid when they were appointed in one lump sum—as it would have been but for this Order in Council—it could not have been touched by this Bill. It would not have come under the arguments of the Home Secretary. Now it is paid, and the natural consequence is that you sweep it in under this Clause and divert it from the bishops of the Church and give it to the county councils. In common sense, what possible foundation and what possible reason is there for taking away from men contributions that they are making themselves to their own support and giving it to purely different purposes to that for which they are making payment year by year? Is this to be an instance of the good feeling between the Church and the Nonconformists? Is this the sort of thing that is to free the Church and to induce that charity and amity of which we hear so much about and to which hon. Members look forward with so much hopefulness in the future? Are the clergy to know that during the acceptance of their present holdings they are to go on making payments which, instead of being returned in some form to the purposes of religion, are to be given to the county councils for secular purposes? The sum is small; the opposition from the benches behind the Government is, I will not say negligible because the opposition of those who have the votes is never negligible, but it is not as strong in this instance as it is in some others. Let the Home Secretary have the courage of his convictions, and allow this concession and allow those subscribers to have the advantage of it, instead of diverting it to other purposes.


We hear a great deal in these Debates about the beneficiaries of those tenths and first fruits. There are three beneficiaries. These have been the Sovereign, the poor, and the poor clergy through Queen Anne's Bounty. Now you propose utterly different beneficiaries. You propose to have what now forms a tax upon the clergy of Wales devoted to an entirely new object. It is perfectly clear that the origin and purpose of these first fruits and tenths have always been ecclesiastical. If they were given to a secular authority—that is, to the Civil List of the Sovereign—it was not because he was the head of a State, but as the supreme head or governor of the Church, and it is perfectly clear all through history that the beneficiaries under this system have been ecclesiastical beneficiaries. Now for the first time you introduce, not the Sovereign, not the Civil List of the Crown, not the clergy of the Church, but you propose to hand this money over year by year to the Welsh county councils, and no possible defence is made of that flagrant breach of trust, and a revolution over the character of the beneficiaries under this Clause. I say it is very harsh treatment to take this sum from a large number of the poor clergy and to devote it to secular purposes when you might make this concession quite easily. I do not know that the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen Boroughs would make much trouble if you do this, and, if hon. Members from Wales did make much fuss, why not adopt the course that was adopted in 1899 of putting some of them on the Front Bench or making them baronets or even peers? The Welsh Radical party have always been very easily placated; they have been very different from the Irish Nationalist party in that respect, and I do not think, if the Government treated this small point in a generous manner, that they would find very much trouble over it in the House.

Sir J. D. REES

My hon. Friend (Mr. Hume-Williams) made a very apposite comparision when he referred to the Civil Service Pension Fund in India. I might re-enforce what he said by saying that the Government have made quite specious efforts to get the administration of this money into their hands, but the Civil servants of India have absolutely refused to allow it to be administered by anybody but themselves, and they have been very jealous of keeping the management of it in their own hands. The whole amount here is very paltry; it is about twice the salary voted to Members of Parliament by the Government without consulting the constituencies. The hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen suggested that the Bounty of Queen Anne was something like the bounty of that public man who "out of his great bounty built a bridge at the expense of the county." He seems to think that there was no better claim for the Bounty of Queen Anne, and for that reason I should like to read the preamble to the charter of Queen Anne dealing with that Bounty. I know the Government do not like preambles, but, however, I should like to read such selections from this preamble as I feel justified in asking the Committee to hear. The preamble states:— The welfare and support of the Church of England as by law established being our greatest care, so we have since our accession to the Crown frequently reflected upon the miserable position of a very great number of the clergy of this our Kingdom by reason of the mean and insufficient provision for their maintenance which tends so very much for the ruin of the Church. And a little later down the Queen says:— We were resolved to do much as in us lay towards the earnings of the clergy, and we are graciously inclined to think that the ministers who serve these cures may in respect of their poverty be true objects of our Royal bounty, and that our Lord High Treasurer signifies our said bountiful attention by letters directed to our archbishops and bishops accordingly, and for the augmentation of their maintenance we first make a Grant of our Royal revenue arising out of first fruits and tenths which will be a great advantage to the public and very acceptable to us. I submit that that is not the language applicable to a Grant of the character which the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen Boroughs ascribed to it, but rather bears out the contention of hon. Members upon this side of the House, who contend that it is a Grant of a totally different description. I urge that these words should be taken into account by the Committee and that they should also remember that the principle has already been practically given away by the decision already arrived at upon Queen Anne's Bounty, and that having accepted that principle in regard, so to speak, to the whole, it seems somewhat unreasonable and hard to the Church that you should shy at so small an amount, which is really not twice the salary paid to Members of Parliament. It is a very small matter. It would be superfluous to urge the length of time it has been enjoyed, because that applies to all the possessions of the Church, with which the House is at present dealing, and I should not feel justified in going over the arguments which apply to this as to every other possession of the Church. But I feel I should be in order in referring to what was said by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin in regard to the Welsh Parliamentary party. I feel inclined to defend that party from the 'strictures of the Noble Lord, because that party has been an exceedingly efficient instrument for the last six years in keeping this Bill and most other Welsh business from the consideration of the House of Commons. It was suggested that the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a doubtful one upon this matter.


The hon. Member's remarks are not, I think, relevant to the Amendment.

Sir J. D. REES

How is it irrelevant for me to deal with matters which were relevant in the speech of the Noble Lord, and also in the speech of the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Ormsby-Gore)? I do not want to go at any great length into it, but I was actually engaged in defending the Welsh party.


I do not know what the ruling was that was given in regard to the observations of the Noble Lord and the hon. Member, but I do know that the observations the hon. Gentleman is now addressing to the Committee are out of order.

Sir J. D. REES

May I submit that there was no ruling upon the remarks made by the Noble Lord or by my hon. Friend, because it was not suggested by anybody that they were out of order.


The hon. Member is really only concerned with my ruling.

Sir J. D. REES

That at any rate I am quite unable to contest, and I must accordingly leave that subject upon which I really have some knowledge and might have thrown some light. However, as you say, Sir, it is your ruling that concerns me, if you rule my remarks are out of order, I will leave that part of the question. For the other reasons I have given I venture to submit that the Amendment before the Committee is worthy of acceptance, and I submit that with regard to this Clause the Committee might very well adopt the motto of a famous public school and endeavour so far as possible to carry out its principle, Donorum Dei dispensatio fidelis.


The hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen Boroughs has made a speech in which he regards Queen Anne's Bounty in a different light from that which is expressed in the Preamble read by my hon. Friend. I observe a somewhat cynical expression upon his face. The hon. and learned Member opposite in the course of his speech used the phrase that Queen Anne was generous at other people's expense. It may or may not be true, but what is the hon. Gentleman's attitude at the present moment? We on this side of the House maintain that the hon. and learned Gentleman is calmly taking away the property of the Church in order to distribute it and gain credit in the process. I fail to see any distinction between the motives attributed by the hon. Gentleman to Queen Anne and his own motives or how the same simile would not apply to himself. The real point at issue I would rather say upon this particular Amendment is as to what is the origin of first fruits and tenths. We maintain it is throughout a strictly religious origin, and that it ought not to be diverted from the Church. The Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite maintain that it is and was and ought to be national property, and therefore that they are at liberty to-confiscate it. It has been already shown more than once that the real origin of first fruits and tenths was for ecclesistical purposes. Some may tell us that that ought never to have been so, but it was so. These things were paid to the Pope as head of the Church, and all that happened when Henry VIII. appropriated that tithe was that he did so on the express ground that he was defender of the Faith and head of the Church, and that he ought to receive these tithes as substitute for the Pope, because he was in precisely the same position then as the Tope was before. So the changes made both by the Statute of Henry VIII. and by the Statute of Queen Elizabeth were to ensure that the head of the Church should receive that which was religious in character and origin, and which was paid as religious offerings to the head of the Church. That being the historic origin of tithes it seems to me that there can be no question that the proper course for this Committee to pursue is to maintain that origin by allowing the Church to retain both first fruits and tithes, and to see that they are devoted strictly to religious purposes, and not diverted to other purposes as the Government propose under this Clause. I strongly maintain that first fruits and tithes both in origin and subsequent history were essentially intended for religious purposes, that they were paid to the head of the Church as such, and that we ought to continue to devote them to-religious purposes even after this Bill has passed.


The hon. Member, who has just sat down, says that these payments were made to the head of the Church as such for religious purposes. It has also been argued that the Church as it exists now is really the same Church as that which existed when those payments were originally made, but really there was another Church brought into existence in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. There is no such thing as a corporation called the Church. Very often our arguments lose their force by talking of the Church as if it were a corporation, but if we look upon the Church as an organic institution, which has corporate continuity there is some reason perhaps for the argument which says that there was no change. If, however, you say that religion and doctrine have any part with regard to the essentials of a Church then I say there was a new Church called into existence in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The 23rd Act of Elizabeth, Chap. 1, makes it actual treason— to withdraw from the religion now by Her Highness's authority established in Her Highness's Dominion to the Romish religion. There is an old story in which the question "was asked: "Where was your Church before the Reformation?" The answer was: "You washed this morning, where was your face before it was washed?" It may be said that if a man dirties his face it is still the same face, and if it should please the Imperial Parliament to enact that in future the services of the Roman Catholic Church should be carried on in the Churches of the land, then, like the man who had only dirted his face, it would be, I suppose, the same Church.

Nothing to me seems more preposterous than to seek the identity of the Church in some corporate continuity when you find the doctrines are absolutely different. It has been said that the doctrines of the Church of England are the same as the doctrines of Pope Gregory and St. Augustine. I admit that there are many different sections in the Church of England, and there may well be a section that holds that view. The late Lord Selborne said that the application of the theological microscope would hardly find any difference between the doctrines of St. Augustine and the doctrines of the Church of England, and Gibbon had already said that the theological microscope could find no difference between the doctrines of St. Augustine and of Calvin; yet the Church has canonised the one and reprobated the other. With regard to pre-Reformation times, it is absurd to say that in regard to what is being proposed now there is any confiscation, because these funds were given to a Church which was quite a different Church to that which now exists. I have listened to these Debates with great interest, but I am bound to say that I take a much broader view than has been generally admitted. I think that this Church property is property, given for public uses, and, therefore, should be dealt with according to the principle of law which applies to public trusts. If property is given for public uses, whether ecclesiastical or secular, it must always be given subject to this condition that it is within the moral, as well as the legal, competency of Parliament to vary those uses in the interest of the community. And, after all, the basic principle of all legislation is, or ought to be, the interest of the community at large.

Therefore on this principle it is within the moral as well as the legal competence of the State to change those uses. It does not matter in the least whether the money is devoted to ecclesiastical uses or not if it is given for public purposes, and if it is for the benefit of the State to apply old Endowments to other purposes. Of course, you do not apply this principle to recent Endowments, because it would be inequitable to do that when a man gave property confident that the law was going to support him in his act. For that reason it is that in all schemes of this character you must take a time limit, and you do not touch recent Endowments, but with regard to ancient Endowments it is within the moral as well as the legal competence of the State to divert those uses as long as you divert the money to public and not to private uses. I dissent from the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. Lyttelton), who laid so much stress upon property given for ecclesiastical or religious purposes, which means theological purposes, and only a certain kind of theology. Some hon. Members talk as if the world was divided into Roman Catholics, Churchmen, and Nonconformists, and that nobody else counted at all, a proposition which I entirely dissent from. If we find that in the interests of the community and in order to secure the greatest happiness to the greatest number, property left for religious purposes ought to be diverted to other uses, then it is within the legal moral and legal competency of Parliament to make such provision.


I wish to say how satisfactory to me this Debate has been throughout its whole course. The speech of the Home Secretary was full of conciliation, in sentiment and expression, and full of firmness in decision to stick to the Clause. That is entirely a line which I approve of, and I believe that the Committee generally approves of it. As I now see two or three right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, I wish to point out

Division No. 526.] AYES. [5.40 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)
Addison, Dr. C. Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Lardner, James Carrige Rushe
Agnew, Sir George William Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Ainsworth, John Stirling Essex, Sir Richard Walter Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)
Alden, Percy Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles Leach, Charles
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson Levy, Sir Maurice
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Ffrench, Peter Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Arnold, Sydney Field, William Lundon, Thomas
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Fitzglbbon, John Lyell, Charles Henry
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) Flavin, Michael Joseph Lynch, A. A.
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsoury, E.) France, Gerald Ashburner McGhee, Richard
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Gilhooly, James Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Ginnell, Laurence Macpherson, James Ian
Barnes, G. N. Gladstone, W. G. C. MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Beale, Sir William Phipson Glanville, H. J. M'Callum, Sir John M,
Beck, Arthur Cecil Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George) Goldstone, Frank M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs,Spalding)
Bethell, Sir J. H. Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) Manfield, Harry
Black, Arthur W. Greig, Col. J. W, Marks, Sir George Croydon
Boland, John Pius Griffith, Ellis J. Marshall, Arthur Harold
Booth, Frederick Handel Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke) Mason, David M. (Coventry)
Bowerman, C. W. Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Meagher, Michael
Brace, William Hackett, John Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)
Brady, Patrick Joseph Hancock, J. G. Millar, James Duncan
Brocklehurst, W. B. Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) Molloy, Michael
Brunner, John F. L. Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Molteno, Percy Alport
Bryce, J. Annan Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.) Mond, Sir Alfred M.
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) Mooney, John J.
Burke, E. Haviland- Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Morgan, George Hay
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) Morrell, Philip
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Morison, Hector
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C, (Poplar) Hay ward, Evan Muldoon, John
Byles, Sir William Pollard Hazleton, Richard Munro, R.
Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East) Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.
Clancy, John Joseph Henry, Sir Charles Neilson, Francis
Clough, William Herbert, General Sir lvor (Mon., S.) Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Higham, John Sharp Nolan, Joseph
Collins, Stephen' (Lambeth) Hinds, John Norton, Captain Cecil W.
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Nuttall, Harry
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Hodge, John O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Cotton, William Francis Hogge, James Myles O'Brien, William (Cork)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Holmes, Daniel Turner O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot Howard, Hon. Geoffrey O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Crumley, Patrick Hudson, Walter O'Doherty, Philip
Cullinan, John Hughes, S. L. O'Donnell, Thomas
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus O'Dowd, John
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh) O'Grady, James
Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth) John, Edward Thomas O'Malley, William
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea) O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Dawes, J. A. Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) O'Shee, James John
Delany, William Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe) O'Sullivan, Timothy
Devlin, Joseph Jones, W. (Carnarvon) Palmer, Godfrey Mark
Dickinson, W. H. Jones, W. S. Glyn-(Stepney) Parker, James (Halifax)
Dillon, John Joyce, Michael Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Donelan, Captain A. Keating, Matthew Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.
Doris, William Kennedy, Vincent Paul Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

that if they go on upon these lines throughout this Bill and the other Bills which are to come before us before the Session ends, they will always be certain to receive my support.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 260; The Committee Noes, 125.

Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Roche, John (Galway, E.) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Pirle, Duncan V. Rowlands, James Verney, Sir Harry
Pollard, Sir George H. Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter Wadsworth, J.
Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Waring, Walter
Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.) Scanlan, Thomas Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham) Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E. Watt, Henry Anderson
Pringle, William M. R Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) Webb, H.
Radford, G. H. Seely. Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)
Raffan, Peter Wilson Sheehy, David White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Raphael, Sir Herbert H. Sherwell, Arthur James Whitehouse, John Howard
Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim) Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Reddy, M. Snowden, Philip Wiles, Thomas
Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Spicer, Rt; Hon. Sir Albert Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Redmond, William (Clare, E.) Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Richardson, Thomas Whitehaven) Sutherland, J. E. Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Taylor, John W. (Durham) Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)
Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) Tennant, Harold John Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) Thomas, James Henry
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Robinson, Sidney Thorne, William (West Ham)
Roche, Augustine (Louth) Toulmin, Sir George
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Gardner, Ernest Newman, John R. P.
Amery, L. C. M. S. Gastrell, Major W. Houghton Newton, Harry Kottingham
Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. Gilmour, Captain John Nield, Herbert
Anstruther-Gray, Major William Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Ashley, Wilfrid W. Goldman, C. S. Parkes, Ebenezer
Baird, John Lawrence Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Balcarres, Lord Goulding, Edward Alfred Peel, Captain R. F.
Baldwin, Stanley Greene, Walter Raymond Perkins, Walter F.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) Gretton, John Peto, Basil Edward
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Barnston, Harry Hall, Fred (Dulwich) Rees, Sir J. D.
Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.) Hambro, Angus Valdemar Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Harris, Henry Percy Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Sanders, Robert Arthur
Bird, Alfred Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) Sanderson, Lancelot
Blair, Reginald Hewins, William Albert Samuel Sandys, G. J.
Boyton, James Hill, Sir Clement L. Sassoon, Sir Philip
Bull, Sir William James Hills, John Waller Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Burdett-Coutts, W. Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Spear, Sir John Ward
Burgoyne, Alan Hughes Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Burn, Colonel C. R. Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford) Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) Hume-Williams, W. E. Swift, Rigby
Campion, W. R. Hunt, Rowland Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Ingleby, Holcombe Talbot, Lord E.
Cassel, Felix Jessel, Captain H. M. Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)
Cautley, Henry Strother Joynson-Hicks, William Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.) Kerry, Earl of Touche, George Alexander
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Tryon, Captain George Clement
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Lane-Fox, G. R. Valentia, Viscount
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) Larmor, Sir J. Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Clyde, J. Avon Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End) White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)
Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) Lewisham, Viscount Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee Wolmer, Viscount
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) Worthington-Evans, L.
Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) Magnus, Sir Philip Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott Malcolm, Ian Yate, Col. C. E.
Faber, George Denison (Clapham) Mallaby-Deeley, Harry Younger, Sir George
Falle, Bertram Godfray Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Fell, Arthur Moore, William TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Pollock and Mr. Hoare.
Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) Mount, William Arthur
Forstcr, Henry William Neville, Reginald J. N.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 123.

Baker, H. T. (Accrington) Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) O'Grady, James
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) O'Malley, William
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Hayward, Evan O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Barnes, G. N. Hazleton, Richard O'Shee, James John
Beale, Sir William Phipson Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.) O'Sullivan, Timothy
Beck, Arthur Cecil Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) Palmer, Godfrey Mark
Benn, w. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) Henry, Sir Charles Parker, James (Halifax)
Bethell, Sir J. H. Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Higham, John Sharp Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.
Black, Arthur W. Hinds, John Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Boland, John Pius Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Booth, Frederick Handel Hodge, John Pirie, Duncan V.
Bowerman, C. W. Hogge, James Myles Pollard, Sir George H.
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Holmes, Daniel Turner Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Brace, William Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Brady, Patrick Joseph Hudson, Walter Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.)
Brocklehurst, W. B. Hughes, S. L. Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)
Brunner, John F. L. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus Pringle, William M. R.
Bryce, J. Annan Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh) Radford, G. H.
Buckmaster, Stanley O. John, Edward Thomas Raffan, Peter Wilson
Burke, E. Haviland Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea) Raphael, Sir Herbert H.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) Reddy, M.
Buxton, Rt. Hon, Sydney C. (Poplar) Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Byles, Sir William Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney) Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) Joyce, Michael Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Keating, Matthew Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Clancy, John Joseph Kennedy, Vincent Paul Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Clough, William Kilbride, Denis Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) King, J. (Somerset, North) Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S.Molton) Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Robinson, Sidney
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Lardner, James Carrige Rushe Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Cotton, William Francis Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Roche, John (Galway, E.)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) Rowlands, James
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot Leach, Charles Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Crumley, Patrick Levy, Sir Maurice Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Cullinan, John Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) Lundon, Thomas Scanlan, Thomas
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Lyell, Charles Henry Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.
Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth) Lynch, A, A. Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) McGhee, Richard Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) Maclean, Donald Sheehy, David
Delany, William Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Sherwell, Arthur James
Devlin, Joseph Macpherson, James fan Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook
Dickinson, W. H. MacVeagh, Jeremiah Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)
Dillon, John M'Callum, Sir John M. Snowden, Philip
Donelan, Captain A. McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert
Doris, William M'Laren, Hon.F.W.S. (Lincs.,Saplding) Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Duffy, William J. M'Micking, Major Gilbert Sutherland, J. E.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Manfield, Harry Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Marks, Sir George Croydon Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)
Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) Marshall, Arthur Harold Tennant, Harold John
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Mason, David M. (Coventry) Thomas, James Henry
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford) Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Essex, Richard Walter Meagher, Michael Thorne, William (West Ham)
Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Toulmin, Sir George
Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson Millar, James Duncan Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Ffrench, Peter Molloy, Michael Verney, Sir Harry
Field, William Molteno, Percy Alport Wadsworth, J.
Fitzgibbon, John Mond, Sir Alfred M. Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Flavin, Michael Joseph Mooney, John J. Wardle, George J.
France, Gerald Ashburner Morgan, George Hay Waring, Walter
Gilhooly, James Morrell, Philip Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Ginnell, Laurence Morison, Hector Watt, Henry Anderson
Gladstone, W. G. C. Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Webb, H.
Glanville, H. J. Muldoon, John White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Munro, R. White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Goldstone, Frank Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Whitehouse, John Howard
Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) Neilson, Francis Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Greig. Col. J W, Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) Wiles, Thomas
Griffith, Ellis J. Nolan, Joseph Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke) Norton, Captain Cecil W. Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E) Nugent Sir Walter Richard Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Nuttan, Harry Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)
Hackett, John O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)
Hancock, J. G. O'Brien, William (Cork) Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) O'Doherty, Philip TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) O'Donnell, Thomas
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) O'Dowd, John
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Gardner, Ernest Neville, Reginald J. N.
Amery, L. C. M. S. Gastrell, Major W. Houghton Newman, John R. P.
Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. Gilmour, Captain John Newton, Harry Kottingham
Anstruther-Gray, Major William Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K. Nield, Herbert
Archer-Shee, Major M. Goldman, C. S. Ormsby-Gore, Hon William
Ashley, Wilfrid W. Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) Parkes, Ebenezer
Baird, John Lawrence Greene, Walter Raymond Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Balcarres, Lord Gretton, John Peel, Captain R. F.
Baldwin, Stanley Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) Perkins, Walter F.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond) Gwynn, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Peto, Basil Edward
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Hambro, Angus Valdemar Pollock, Ernest Murray
Barnston, Harry Harris, Henry Percy Pryce-Jones, Col. E.
Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.) Harrison-Broadley, H. B. Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Henderson, Major H. (Berks) Rees, Sir J. D.
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Hewins, William Albert Samuel Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Bird, Alfred Hill, Sir Clement L. Sanders, Robert Arthur
Blair, Reginald Hills, John Waller Sanderson, Lancelot
Boyton, James Hoare, Sir J. G. Sandys, G. J.
Bull, Sir William James Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Burdett-Coutts, W. Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Spear, Sir John Ward
Burn, Colonel C. R. Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford) Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, Nortn)
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin, Univ.) Hume-Williams, W. E. Swift, Rigby
Campion, W. R. Hunt, Rowland Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Ingleby, Holcombe Talbot, Lord E.
Cassel, Felix Jessel, Captain H. M. Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)
Cautley, Henry Strother Joynson-Hicks, William Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.) Kerry, Earl of Touche, George Alexander
Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Tryon, Captain George Clement
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Lane-Fox, G. R. Valentia, Viscount
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon, J. A. (Worc'r.) Larmor, Sir J. Wairond, Hon. Lionel
Clyde, J. Avon Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End) White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)
Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) Lewisham, Viscount Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee Wolmer, Viscount
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) Worthington-Evans, L.
Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) Magnus, Sir Philip Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott Malcolm, Ian Yate, Colonel C. E.
Faber, George Denison (lapham) Mallaby-Deeley, Harry Younger, Sir George
Falle, Bertram Godfray Middlemore, John Throgmorton
Fell, Arthur Mildmay, Francis Bingham TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) Moore, William S. Roberts and Mr. Montague Barlow.
Forster, Henry William Mount, William Arthur

Three Tellers only presented themselves at the Table.


We will take the result of the Division with three Tellers.


On a point of Order. With regard to the last Division, might we know what has happened to the missing Teller? Has some accident happened to him or will his absence be placed on record?

6.0 P.M.


On the same point, ought the hon. Member's vote to be counted? I maintain that it ought not to be counted.


The Tellers' votes are not counted.