§ If any vacancy occurs in any ecclesiastical office in the Church in Wales, between the passing of this Act and the date of Disestablishment—
- (1) His Majesty the King may in the case of a vacant bishopric, on the peti-
92 tion of the Archbishop of Canterbury, or of any three Welsh bishops, nominate a person to fill the vacancy; but any bishop so nominated shall not be summoned to or be qualified to sit in the House of Lords, and shall be subject to the provisions-hereinafter mentioned:
- (2) Any other vacancy may be filled by an appointment made by the same person in the same manner as if this Act had not passed:
- (3) A person nominated or appointed to any office in pursuance of this Section shall not be liable to pay any first fruits in respect of appointment to the office, or any tenths in respect of the office, but his interest as respects the office to which he is so nominated or appointed shall not be an existing interest within the meaning of this Act:
- (4) If the person so nominated or appointed was at the passing of this Act the holder of any other ecclesiastical office in the Church in Wales he shall, until the date of Disestablish-
93 ment, pay over to the bishop of the diocese the net income of the last-mentioned office, who shall thereout make such provision for the discharge of the spiritual duties of that office as he may think proper until the date of Disestablishment.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "the Archbishop of Canterbury, or of."
As the Amendment stands in my name, it is simply to substitute the words "shall" for "may," but my object is to ascertain which of the two alternatives is most desirable, and as my Amendment stands, the Clause will read—His Majesty the King may, in the case of a vacant bishopric, on the petition of any three Welsh bishops, nominate a person to fill the vacancy.If the Government do not like that, I am prepared to leave out the three Welsh bishops and bring in a subsequent Amendment to leave in the Archbishop of Canterbury. I want to find out what the Government think is the proper course to take to fill up any vacancy. There is another Amendment that may be necessary. Two of the Welsh bishops may die at about the same time, and, therefore, it would be necessary to make an alteration in that respect. But the definite point I want to raise in this connection is as to the actual position of the Archbishop of Canterbury in this matter. Is the Archbishop as Metropolitan abolished altogether, or do you leave his Court as the ultimate jurisdiction of the Disestablished Church? You still require his consent to certain things being done under Clause 13, but why is the Archbishop of Canterbury brought in here, and why, if you bring him in, do you put this alternative? I do not say it is likely to arise, but there might conceivably be friction between the Disestablished bishop and the Established Archbishop of Canterbury. Why should a petition be necessary to fill up a vacancy between the passing of this Act and the actual date of Disestablishment? It does not appear to me that it is at all necessary, but, if it be so, I am anxious to know on what ground the Government intend to go. Further, I would like to know what would be the jurisdiction and position of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Disestablished Church of Wales. Is it binding that the Disestablished Church should regard the Archbishop of Canterbury as its Metropolitan, 94 or is it going to be possible for that Church to set up her own Metropolitan without altering the terms of this Act?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I take it that the hon. Member, in moving this Amendment, did so in order to get an explanation as to what is our policy in this matter. During the course of his remarks he quoted certain words from the Clause dealing with vacancies which occur between the passing of this Act and the date of Disestablishment; that is to say, during the suspensory period. But if he will look back to the-first Clause of the Bill he will see that Disestablishment does not take place until after the appointed day; until, accordingly, the second period has been reached, the Church is not Disestablished and the Archbishop of Canterbury remains head of the Church in Wales and remains Metropolitan, and in the same relevant position to the bishops as at the present moment. No difference takes place at all until after the date of Disestablishment. I should have thought that there would be no desire on the part of the Church to get rid of the authority and power they may now exercise sooner than they are actually bound to do so. What would happen during the suspensory period would be-this: It is desirable, presumably, that the-vacancy in a bishopric should be filled up, otherwise the organisation of the Church might be seriously incommoded. It might result in disorganisation; therefore it is desirable, from the point of view of the Church, to appoint someone to the vacancy as soon as possible. But it is not desirable, I think, to further introduce the power of the State as a controlling connection with the Church. It is not desirable to bring in the Prime Minister for the time being. But I think it is desirable to get the opinion of the Welsh clergy as represented by their bishops or as represented by the Metropolitan. Therefore we have provided that on the petition of the Archbishop of Canterbury, or of any three Welsh bishops, the King may be asked to fill the vacancy. It is desirable to provide for an alternative as more than one> bishopric might be vacant at the same moment. It is a matter for the Welsh Church itself to decide whether it desires to continue its connection with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and we should be willing to accept its decision in that matter. But I repeat it may be necessary to reduce the number of Welsh bishops, who may have to subscribe to the petition.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I confess the right hon. Gentleman has put me in a dilemma, and, for the moment, I cannot answer his question. But after that happy intervention on his part, I wish to point out that what we desire to do is to meet the views of the Welsh Church in this matter. It may be necessary to reduce the number of Welsh bishops signing a petition from three to two. We think it ought to be more than one.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
I must say that the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman is most extraordinary. We have a definite proposal that the Archbishop and the Welsh bishops are to petition the Grown to nominate a person to fill a vacant bishopric while the Welsh Church is still Established. My impression is that in the early stages of our history it was settled, as a constitutional doctrine, that the Crown is not entitled to keep bishoprics vacant. That was, I believe, one of the matters disputed between the barons and King John at Runnymede. It was a question how long the Crown was entitled to keep a bishopric vacant. The stipend of the bishops went to the Crown while the bishopric was vacant, and, naturally, that was a strong recommendation to King John, who was always in want of money, to keep a bishopric vacant as long as he could; indeed, it was another form of Disendowment, a little cruder, perhaps, than that now before the Committee. This proposal is merely to provide that the Archbishop and three Welsh bishops may petition the Crown to do its obvious constitutional duty. That is the whole of this case. It cannot be right. It cannot possibly be the intention of the Government, and I imagine that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was wrong when he hastily answered the question of my right hon. Friend, and when he said that the name would not be submitted by the Archbishop and the three bishops. In that case we have a curious and unique constitutional position, namely, that the King 96 shall act, not on the advice of any of his Ministers, but on the advice of the Archbishop.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
It is clear that I made a mistake. What I wanted to suggest to the House was, not that the Prime Minister should not nominate, but that it was not desirable to bring in the Government and the State to a greater extent than was absolutely necessary. It might well be that the Welsh Church might not desire to have a third or fourth bishop, and if they did not present a petition a bishopric might not be filled up.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
I am still a little at a loss to understand the matter. Put in plain English, is the suggestion this, that the Welsh Church may distrust the existing Prime Minister, and may think that he will make a thoroughly partisan appointment? I should never make such a suggestion about the present Prime Minister, for, so far as his ecclesiastical appointments have been concerned, he has certainly been free from any bias of that kind. If that is not the suggestion, why should not the Welsh Church want the bishopric filled up? The Church cannot act without the bishop, who exists for carrying on the work of the Church. Do the Government really seriously say that they are putting some eight or ten lines of print into the Bill merely to provide for the extremely unlikely contingency that if there is a vacancy in a Welsh bishopric the Welsh bishops or the Archbishop of Canterbury would not require that bishopric to be filled up, or that the Crown should not nominate somebody to it? The Clause has, to my mind, an interesting aspect, quite apart from what the Chancellor of the Duchy has said. We have been told that one of the great evils of an Established Church is this appointment on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. What the Government really suggest to the Committee is how very easily that anomaly, if it be an anomaly, can be obviated without any Disestablishment of the Church at all. The Government are apparently anxious to show how little necessary their Bill really is, because they provide for such a case. I cannot think that the right hon. Gentleman is right in thinking that the provisions of the Clause will be held to mean that the archbishop or bishops may petition for a bishopric to be filled up. I think it must mean that they would petition the Crown to nominate a particular person, and that the Prime 97 Minister would then take the constitutional responsibility of nominating that person. If that is the real intention, there is a good deal to be said for the Clause, but I think it shows what nonsense is all the talk about the necessity of Disestablishment in order to get rid of the undue control of the State over the Church. It is obvious, if there is anything in it, that this Clause shows one of the very many ways by which all such anomalies could be removed without any displacement of the general connection between religion and the State.
§ Sir JOHN JARDINE
The Clause as it stands is in need of amendment by way of making it much clearer than it is. The word "may," taken with the context, appears to be ambiguous. It may have to be interpreted as "shall." Possibly it means that if the Crown believes, on the advice of its Ministers, that the Welsh Church does not wish a particular bishopric to be filled up, that the Prime Minister might interpret the word "may" as giving him liberty not to fill up the vacant see. As the words stand, the power of nomination appears to be given to the Crown in the ordinary way, that is, on the advice of the Prime Minister. I quite agree with the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Robert Cecil) that the Crown has plenty of means of ascertaining and ought to ascertain, under the present law, whether any particular bishopric does happen to be vacant. Is the word "nominate" to be read as nominating the person recommended by the Archbishop of Canterbury or by the three Welsh bishops? If so, it seems to open up a serious question as to the government of the future Episcopal Church in Wales. I do not doubt that many Churchmen would not like the vacancies that occur in the interregnum to be filled up by the Archbishop of Canterbury or the three Welsh bishops. The present system has gone on for a long time, and I have heard hon. Members on both sides praise the Prime Minister for the way in which he makes appointments. I should like to know how we are to interpret this Clause. I see no reason whatever for doing away with the existing responsibility of the Prime Minister during this period. I think it would be fairer to the Welsh nation that he should make the appointments, rather than any theologian, however attached to the Church he might be. In any circumstances, I ask that, first, it should be made perfectly clear as to the powers of the Crown to fill up a 98 vacancy which occurs in the interregnum; and, secondly, whether the right of the Crown to fill up vacancies is to be diminished by handing it over to authorities which cannot be made responsible to the House of Commons.
I am afraid I put some questions to the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of Duchy, at a rather inconvenient moment just now, when he was defending the Clause. Perhaps now that he has had a few minutes to think it over, he will make the intentions of the Government, when they drafted this Sub-section, quite clear. There are two or three possible meanings which the Clause may have. It may mean, as my Noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil) has suggested, that the bishopric might be left vacant when it ought to be filled up. As my Noble Friend pointed out, the Church not being Disestablished, that is contrary to constitutional law. Therefore I dismiss that. The Subsection may mean that when a bishopric is vacant a name may be suggested to the Crown; in other words, advice may be given to the Crown either by the three Welsh bishops or by the Archbishop of Canterbury by petition. The understanding would then be that the Crown would probably take the advice so given, or at all events that the Crown would be in the same relation to the archbishop or the three Welsh bishops, as the case may be, as he is in now to the Prime Minister, who advises him in the case of an ordinary vacancy. I cannot believe that that can be the real meaning of the Clause for two reasons; in the first place, it seems to me that two different people may be nominated by these two authorities. Three Welsh bishops might nominate one man, and the Archbishop of Canterbury might nominate another man. The position of a constitutional monarch is sufficiently difficult already without asking him to take the advice of two people who advise him to take two directly different courses. Therefore I cannot believe that that is the intention of the Government. There remains the third, and, so far as I can see, the only remaining alternative, which is that either the three Welsh bishops or the Archbishop of Canterbury may by a petition to the Crown set the Prime Minister in motion and cause him to recommend to the Crown one, or more than one, name for the bishopric, in which case the Prime Minister would remain what he is now, the adviser of the Crown in the matter of filling up the Welsh 99 See. That is the only third alternative, but if that is the alternative, what on earth is the meaning of the last sentence of Sub-section (1), which says that the nominated bishop shall not in any circumstances be qualified to sit in the House of Lords? Why should he not be qualified to sit in the House of Lords? I suppose because he>s not to sit in the House of Lords after Disestablishment. But by hypothesis the Church is not Disestablished during this period, and why should a man who is recommended to the Crown for a Welsh bishopric during the period when the Welsh Church is not Disestablished not sit in the House of Lords?
If the hon. Member will consider the matter, he will see that I am asking questions which are almost suggested by the Government's reply as to the meaning of the Sub-section and the bearing of the last sentence of the Subsection on the meaning of the first sentence of the Sub-section. I ask what meaning the last sentence of the Sub-section can have, if the meaning of the first sentence is that the Prime Minister shall in reality be the adviser of the Crown in the matter of filling up the bishopric, although the pure formality is gone through of setting him in motion, either by the three Welsh bishops or the archbishop himself. I think I have made my questions quite clear. They touch interesting constitutional points on which I should like to hear the great constitutional authorities who are now sitting on the Front Bench. They are very important to the welfare of the Welsh Church, and I think they are legitimately raised by this Clause, and I hope we shall have a clear answer.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I think it will be satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Committee if I answer at once. The right hon. Gentleman asked me three questions. He asks, would the King not fill up the bishopric? If he received no petition he would not proceed to fill the bishopric.
Perhaps I did not put the matter quite clearly. I have not gone into it, but I am disposed to agree with 100 the version of our present Constitution given by my Noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil). He said that under the existing law the Crown cannot keep a bishopric in the Established Church vacant. This Church is Established by hypothesis during the whole period that this Clause will operate. Therefore the existing constitutional law is sufficient to set all the machinery of the Constitution at work to prevent a bishopric remaining vacant.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
The King will not in future fill up the bishopric unless he gets a petition asking him to do so.
There is nothing in this Clause to relieve the Crown of that constitutional duty. The Sub-section does not say that the Crown shall not fill up the vacancy at all. If it said that, of course the Crown would be relieved of the constitutional duty of filling up the bishopric. I say the Crown must fill it up.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
The Sub-section says:—His Majesty the King may in the case of a vacant bishopric, on the petition of the Archbishop of Canterbury… nominate a person to fill the vacancy.The word "may" in that respect means "shall." It means "shall" on a petition. Unless the King receives that petition there is no obligation upon him to fill up a vacancy. That is my reading of the Clause, and that is the answer I give to the righthon. Gentleman's first question. The second question he asked is, "Who is to advise the Crown?" My answer to that is quite clear, the Prime Minister. His third question was, "What is to be the position of the bishop in the House of Lords?" It seems to us that as we are going to Disestablish the Church, and as the tenure of the newly appointed bishop of his seat in the House of Lords will be of a fleeting and temporary character, it would be very much better during that short period—it can only be a short period —that he should not be a Member of the House of Lords.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
I am really taken rather by surprise in regard to this Clause. I agree that "may" means "shall," and that the meaning of the 101 Clause is that His Majesty shall nominate on petition from the archbishop, but supposing there is no petition? The point made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) is absolutely unanswered. If the Clause was struck out of the Bill there is still the liability upon the Crown by the Constitution of this realm to appoint a new bishop. You cannot leave a bishopric vacant.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith)
Clause 1 says "Save as by this Act provided, no person shall, after the passing of this Act, be appointed or nominated by His Majesty or any person." Does not the hon. Member think that meets his point?
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
I am bound to confess I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has found an answer. Subject to further consideration I think it is quite possible that in Clause 1 you have limited the power of the Crown to appoint bishops, and if the Crown did not fill up a bishopric the answer would be found by the provisions of Section 1 of the Act. The last paragraph of Clause 1 of the Bill possibly refers to appointments after the passing of the Act. I will leave that point and take the second point. On the ordinary reading of Sub-section (1) of Clause 20, I was extraordinarily astonished when the Chancellor of the Duchy told us it was the Prime Minister and not the bishops who was going to nominate: "His Majesty the King may in the case of a vacant bishopric, on the petition of the Archbishop of Canterbury, nominate a person to fill the vacancy." It does not say "shall on the petition of the archbishop." I think that ought to be put in if the petition was merely one to fill a vacancy, leaving the appointment of the name to the Prime Minister. Under the actual reading of the words here the petition is one to nominate a specific person to the vacant bishopric. That certainly is my reading of the language of the Clause, and I think it is the right reading. The State says "we are going to Disestablish the Church at the earliest possible moment. We will have no further connection with the Church. We will leave it to manage its own affairs." Hon. Members opposite congratulate the Church that they are going to get out of the shackles of the connection with the State, and many hon. Members have told us they are specially going to get out of the appointment of their bishops by the Crown. 102 By the provisions of this Bill you are going to Disestablish the Church. The Church is, after the passing of this Act, Disestablished, Disestablishment dating from a date a few months ahead, but when the Act is passed Disestablishment is complete, and it will take place at a date fixed under the provisions of this Bill. That being so, I suggest that they have no right, having once Disestablished the Church, to cling to the patronage which the Establishment of the Church gives them. They have no right, if a vacancy occurs in the suspensory period when the Church is already Disestablished by law, to cling to their privileges and appoint a vacant bishopric. The Church in Wales would feel that a rather intolerable hardship-after the Act is passed, after they know they are going to be Disestablished, not to take the nomination of the Welsh bishops or the archbishop, but to appoint anyone they like and fetter the Church for the next twenty or thirty years with a new bishop of their own appointment. I appeal to Welsh Members. I do not think that is fair. This is not a monetary concession. I appeal to the hon. Member (Sir D. Brynmor Jones). During the suspensory period they should let us appoint our own bishops.
§ Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES
The hon. Gentleman has appealed to me. I can only say, in answer to him, it appears to me that the whole of this Clause 20 is inserted for the benefit of the Church in Wales. It is evident that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) were misconceived, because he had not observed Clause 1 of the Bill which put an end once for all, from the date of the passing of the Act, and not from the date of Disestablishment, to the right of the Crown to appoint any bishops at all. Therefore, the view that we take of this Clause is that it is inserted, as several other Clauses have been, in order to make the transition of the Church in Wales as now Established to the position of the Church in Wales when Disestablished, as easy as possible, and to secure that the Disestablished Church shall start under the freest possible auspices with a view of being an effective National Church. The actual question before us is whether the words "of the Archbishop of Canterbury, or" ought to remain in. There, again, I have only to say that we do not care whether the words "Archbishop of Canterbury, or" are in or are not in. The whole of this Clause, and of many other 103 Clauses of the Bill, is devoted to the object I have said. I am sure I do not misinterpret the view of the Home Secretary when I say he would be quite willing, if upon consideration it is really desirable to leave out the words proposed to be left out, that they ought to be left out. At any rate in answer to the appeal made from the other side, I should say we are only anxious to comply with any reasonable wishes which may conduce to the welfare of the Disestablished Church.
§ Mr. WYNDHAM
Whatever be the intention of the Clause, it is very important that the Committee should understand its bearings. In Clause 1 occur the words referred to by the Under-Secretary, which prima facie lay down that after the passing of the Act no person shall be appointed by His Majesty, or otherwise, save as hereafter provided. It is quite clear that the subsequent provisions in the Clause make no difference except in the case of the bishops, because Sub-section (2) says all is to go on until the date of the operation of the Act. Therefore the area is limited, and we have to consider the case o? vacancies in the bishoprics. Subsection (1), in spite of Clause 1, declares that His Majesty, if he makes an appointment, is to make it on the advice of the Prime Minister, but the relief from the obligations of the Constitution in Clause 1 shall not obtain if either the Archbishop of Canterbury or the three Welsh bishops invite the Prime Minister to make an appointment. If no representation is made by the Archbishop of Canterbury or the three Welsh bishops, then the bishopric remains vacant, but if cither of those parties, or both of them, ask to have the sees filled up, the see will be filled up by the Prime Minister as is now the case.
§ Mr. WYNDHAM
If no petition is put forward from these two quarters, the archbishop or the three bishops, the vacancy is not filled. If a petition is put forward from one or other or both, the Prime Minister fills the vacancy. That is the effect of the Clause. My hon. Friend said, "Why do you not allow the Welsh Church to settle that matter?" There is a good deal to be said for that suggestion, but is it possible till the Act comes into operation? I do not think it is. There are two alternatives, and only two. The first is that the vacancy is not filled up; the second is that the vacancy is filled up 104 by the Prime Minister only if he is asked to fill it up by the archbishop or the three bishops. Take the choice which is left to the Church. Supposing they prefer that the nomination should not be made by the Prime Minister, as the law now stands the Endowment of that bishopric would be lost during the interval. When the bishopric is not filled up, as the Constitution now stands, would it go to the representative body?
§ Mr. WYNDHAM
That is my point. If the Welsh Church wishes that the appointment should be absolutely in their hands, and not in the hands of the Prime Minister, then during the interval between the vacancy of the see and the day of the Act coming into operation the stipend would be lost to the Church. That seems very wrong, to put, so to speak, monetary compulsion upon the Church. You allow the Prime Minister to fill up the vacancy, and that ought to be got rid of.
§ Lord HUGH CECIL
I wish to say a word on the Clause, because I have observed that the Government have never called attention to what is merely the existing machinery for appointing a bishop, which it seems unnecessary to alter in the way they suggest. The present proceeding would be, of course, that the Crown should issue a letter to the Dean and Chapter of the see which is vacant, nominating a particular person. Surely far the simplest way of getting out of the difficulty is simply to allow the Dean and Chapter a congé d'élire without any directions from the Crown. There was generally a great row in medieval times between the King, the Pope, and the monks of the cathedral which of the three should appoint to a vacant bishopric, and I do not remember that the Archbishop of Canterbury ever claimed the right to appoint bishops belonging to a Metropolitan see. The Dean and Chapter, of course, represent the old electors, and do, as a matter of fact, elect. Can there be anything more cumbrous than that the archbishop or the Welsh bishops should petition, then the Crown should issue a congé d'élireto the Dean a"d Chapter, who also issue a letter nominating a person? If you wish to give the deans the freedom of the ecclesistical authority between the passing of the Act and the date of Disestablishment, which I con- 105 ceive is the grand purpose of this Clause, surely the simple plan is to empower the Dean and Chapter to exercise the power of nomination, which they have now, for the filling up any vacancy that happens to take place during the interval. There is another obscurity in the Clause. What will happen in other cases of Crown patronage? I gather that they are all to stand over. Sub-section (3) says—Any other vacancy may be filled by an appointment made by the same person in the same manner as if this Act had not passed.There is a very elaborate provision in Sub-section (4), which says—If the person so nominated or appointed was at the passing of this Act the holder of any other ecclesiastical office in the Church in Wales he shall, until the date of Disestablishment, pay over to the bishop of the diocese the net income of the last-mentioned office, who shall thereout make such provision for the discharge of the spiritual duties of that office as he may think proper until the date of Disestablishment.My reason for mentioning that in this connection is this: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, if a man is appointed to a bishopric from a benefice, the next appointment to that benefice goes to the Crown. I do not understand how Subsections (1), (2), and (4) work together. Supposing the incumbent of a benefice in private patronage was appointed to a bishopric under Subsection (1), the Crown under Sub-section (2) would not have the right to fill up the vacancy. The provision in Sub-section (4) seems to indicate that the office should be kept vacant. The former incumbent will receive the money and pay it over to the bishop of the diocese, who will make provision for the discharge of the spiritual duties of the vacant office. What I do not understand is why Sub-section (4) is necessary if Subsection (2) applies, as I suppose it does apply, to cases where persons have been promoted from an inferior office to a bishopric.
§ Mr. McKENNA
He retains his life interest. A person who was in office A, and is transferred to office B, retains the emoluments of office A, but has to pay some person to the date of Disestablishment. He pays the net income over to the bishop under Sub-section (4) to the date of Disestablishment, and after that date he pays over the emoluments to the representative body.
§ Lord HUGH CECIL
Surely the words at the conclusion of Sub-section (4) suggest that the office is vacant, and that you do not make provision for the performance of the spiritual duties.
§ Mr. McKENNA
There is no obligation upon the Disestablished Church to fill up the incumbency. If they choose to fill it up, then the bishop can make payment for the services of the incumbent out of the life interest of the incumbent who has been transferred to another living.
§ Lord HUGH CECIL
My point is this. A person who is an incumbent is nominated to a bishopric. The Crown fills up the vacancy under the existing law, if it is still in force, and a vacancy is so created. The duties of the vacant benefice must be discharged by the person who accepts the incumbency. I am afraid this is going beyond the limits of order, but I raise the point now because this is the only opportunity we shall have of discussing the matter in Committee. The simplest way out of the difficulty would be to leave the Dean and Chapter to fill up the vacancy, and in that way make the minimum alteration of the existing law until the Church has power to regulate the matter by its own representative body. The matter is very intricate, and, judging from their answers, I do not think the Government have considered it very closely. I would suggest that they should bring up an Amendment to the Clause on the Report stage.
§ Mr. McKENNA
I think the matter might be settled now. This Clause is precisely similar to the one in the Irish Church Act. We are quite willing to accept the Amendment. The provision made by this Clause is only for the short interval between the passing of the Act, and the date of Disestablishment. As to the proposal of the Noble Lord, the' objection to it, I think, is a serious one. Although the Dean and Chapter are supposed to elect the bishop, they do not in fact do so. The Prime Minister appoints the bishop. It may be that the Home Secretary has recommended the man. It might be said that no person should be appointed to a bishopric except one who would be agreeable to the Welsh Church. We meet that so far as Ave can. We say that he shall only be appointed on the petition of the Archbishop of Canterbury, or of any three Welsh bishops. If hon. Members like, we will limit it to the petition of any three Welsh bishops.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
The petition of the archbishop, or of the three Welsh bishops, would include a name, and that name would go forward as the nominee.
§ Mr. McKENNA
It may include a name. They might say, "We desire to present a petition for this name, and if it is not accepted, we will not present a petition." In practice what would happen would be that the three Welsh bishops would agree upon the person most suitable for the appointment, and they would petition that that person be appointed. Only upon these terms would the candidate in question be appointed. There are no emoluments attaching to this office in future— or rather only such emoluments as the Disestablished Church chooses to give. Consequently the Prime Minister would be bound to accept the recommendation made. As regards the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Wyndham) that if they did not petition, they would lose the amount of the emoluments during the period that no bishop is appointed. I do not think there is much in the point. The amount of money would be small in any case. If there was no bishop, there would be nobody to whom the money could be paid. This would only be for a month or two.
§ Sir J. JARDINE
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is to be done if the archbishop nominates one person and the three Welsh bishops nominate another?
§ Mr. McKENNA
We need not exaggerate our difficulties. We are willing to accept the Amendment moved by the hon. Member.
§ Mr. WYNDHAM
The Home Secretary seems to think that the point which I raised has no serious value. Why should we put a pecuniary obligation on the exercise of the option? If the vacancy is not filled up, and if I hey prefer to take time to consider it, the money in the interim goes to the Crown. Why should it go to the Crown? Why should it not, on your own premises, go to the representative body? Why should we not have an Amendment on Report carrying out that view?
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
In view of the speech of the Home Secretary, I think I must ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. There is not time to discuss the matter now in the way it should be dis- 108 cussed. We shall certainly divide against the Clause, for it is very unsatisfactory. I moved my Amendment for the purpose of eliciting some explanation from the Government. I do not think it would make the Clause very much better if it were accepted. I think the subject ought to be considered by the Government in the spirit they have shown this afternoon, namely, that they desire to do in this matter what the Church wishes. I think, after we have consulted the. Welsh bishops and the Archbishop of Canterbury, an Amendment can be put down for the Report stage. I hope the Home Secretary will give attention to this matter in the meantime.
§ Mr. POLLOCK
If the Home Secretary's view of the Clause is the right one, then the Sub-section must be altered slightly. He must say "the three remaining Welsh bishops." If one bishop has died, then there ought to be three left. Under the Sub-section as it stands you might have a collocation of three other bishops. You should put in words to the effect that the petition is to be by the Archbishop of Canterbury or all the remaining Welsh bishops. You cannot have "any three." If you leave in the words "any three," it might be supposed that you were to include the Bishop of Hereford.
§ Mr. McKENNA
If the hon. Member would move to substitute the words "the surviving" for "any three," I would accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. POLLOCK
I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "any three" ["or of any three Welsh bishops"], and to insert instead thereof the words "the surviving."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ It being Seven of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 28th November, 1912, to put the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at Seven of the clock at this day's sitting.
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 275; Noes, 155.
|Division No. 528.]||AYES.||[7.0 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Morrell, Philip|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Goldstone, Frank||Morison, Hector|
|Adamson, William||Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)||Morton, Alpheus Cleeophas|
|Addison, Dr. Christopher||Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)||Muldoon, John|
|Agnew, Sir George William||Greig, Colonel J. W.||Munro, R.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon R. C.|
|Alden, Percy||Griffith, Ellis J.||Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)||Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)||Neilson, Francis|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)|
|Arnold, Sydney||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||Nolan, Joseph|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon Herbert Henry||Hackett, J.||Norton, Captain Cecil W.|
|Baker, H. T. (Accrington)||Hail, F. (Yorks, Normanton)||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Hancock, John George||Nuttall, Harry|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Barnes, G. N.||Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||O'Donnell, Thomas|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||O'Dowd, John|
|Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, S. Geo.)||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||O'Grady, James|
|Bethell, Sir J. H.||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Hayward, Evan||O'Malley, William|
|Black, Arthur W.||Hazleton, Richard||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)|
|Boland, John Plus||Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||O'Shee, James John|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Henry, Sir Charles||O'Sullivan, Timothy|
|Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)||Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||Outhwaite, R. L.|
|Brace, William||Higham, John Sharp||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Brady, P. J.||Hinds, John||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Pearce, William Limehouse)|
|Brunner, John F. L.||Hodge, John||Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Hogge, James Myles||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Holmes, Daniel Turner||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Howard, Hon Geoffrey||Pollard, Sir George H.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Hudson, Walter||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Hughes, S. L.||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)||John, Edward Thomas||Primrose, Hon. Neil James|
|Bytes, Sir William Pollard||Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Heywood)||Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||Radford, G. H.|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||Rattan, Peter Wilson|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)||Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry|
|Clough, William||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)|
|Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)||Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Joyce, Michael||Reddy, M.|
|Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Keating, Matthew||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)|
|Cotton, William Francis||Kilbride, Denis||Richards, Thomas|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||King, J.||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)|
|Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Molton)||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|
|Crumley, Patrick||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Cullinan, J.||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)|
|Davies, E. William (Eifion)||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cockerm'th)||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)||Leach, Charles||Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Levy, Sir Maurice||Robinson, Sidney|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Roche, Augustine (Louth)|
|Dawes, James Arthur||Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)||Roche, John (Galway, E.)|
|De Forest, Baron||Lundon, Thomas||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Delany, William||Lyell, Charles Henry||Rowlands, James|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Lynch, A. A.||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Devlin, Joseph||McGhee, Richard||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Dickinson, W. H.||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Dillon, John||MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Macpherson, James Ian||Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.|
|Doris, W.||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Scott, A, MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|Duffy, William J.||M'Callum, Sir John M.||Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||M'Curdy, Charles Albert||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Sheehy, David|
|Edwards, John Huqh (Glamorgan, Mid)||M'Laren, Hon.F.W.S. (Lines, Spalding)||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||M'Micking, Major Gilbert||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook|
|Essex, Sir Richard Walter||Manfield, Harry||Smyth, Thomas F, (Leitrim, S.)|
|Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||Marks, Sir George Croydon||Snowden, Philip|
|Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||Marshall, Arthur Harold||Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert|
|Ffrench, Peter||Martin, Joseph||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)|
|Field, William||Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Fitzgibbon, John||Meagher, Michael||Sutton, John E.|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|France, G. A.||Millar, James Duncan||Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)|
|Gilhooly, James||Molloy, M.||Tennant, Harold John|
|Gill, A. H.||Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz||Thomas, J, H.|
|Gladstone, W. G. C.||Mooney, J. J.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Glanville, Harold James||Morgan, George Hay||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Toulmin, Sir George||Watt, Henry A.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Webb, H.||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)|
|Verney, Sir Harry||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)||Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)|
|Wadsworth, J.||White, Patrick (Meath, North)||Young, William (Perth, East) -|
|Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)||Whitehouse, John Howard||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Wardle, George J.||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Waring, Walter||Wiles, Thomas||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.|
|Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Aitken, Sir William Max||Goldman, C. S.||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||Peel, Captain R. F.|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major William||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Perkins, Walter F.|
|Ashley, W. W.||Greene, W. R.||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Baird, J. L.||Gretton, John||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Balcarres, Lord||Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S,E.)||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Guinness, Hon.W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)||Pryce-Jones, Col. E.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Hambro, Angus Valdemar||Rees, Sir J. D.|
|Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)||Harris, Henry Percy||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Barnston, Harry||Helmsley, Viscount||Rolleston, Sir John|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Hewins, William Albert Samuel||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Hill, Sir Clement L.||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Hills, John Waller||Sanders, Robert A.|
|Blair, Reginald||Hill-Wood, Samuel||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)||Hoare, Samuel John Gurney||Sandys, G. J.|
|Boyton, James||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Sassoon, Sir Philip|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)||Smith, Harold (Warrington)|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Butcher, J. G.||Hunt, Rowland||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)||Hunter, Sir C. R.||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Campion, W. R.||Ingleby, Holcombe||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Jessel, Captain H. M.||Swift, Rigby|
|Cassel, Felix||Joynson-Hicks, William||Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)|
|Cautley, H. S.||Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.||Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)|
|Cave, George||Kerry, Earl of||Talbot, Lord E.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Kimber, Sir Henry||Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Terrell, H. (Gloucester)|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)|
|Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Larmor, Sir J,||Touche, George Alexander|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)||Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)||Tryon, Capt. George Clement|
|Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender||Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)||Tullibardine, Marquess of|
|Clyde, J. Avon||Lewisham, Viscount||Valentia, Viscount|
|Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham||Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)||Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)||White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)|
|Dalziel, D. (Brixton)||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott||M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)|
|Faber, George Denison (Clapham)||Magnus, Sir Philip||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Falle, Bertram Godfray||Malcolm, Ian||Worthington-Evans, L.|
|Fell, Arthur||Middlemore, John Throgmorton||Wright, Henry Fitzherbert|
|Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes||Moore, William||Yate, Col. Charles Edward|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Mount, William Arthur||Yerburgh, Robert A.|
|Fletcher, John Samuel||Neville, Reginald J. N.||Younger, Sir George|
|Forster, Henry William||Newman, John R. P.|
|Gardner, Ernest||Newton, Harry Kottingham||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Ormsby-Gore and Lord N. Crichton- Stuart.|
|Gastrell, Major W. H.||Nield, Herbert|
|Gilmour, Captain John||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)|