Commons Sitting of 21 January 1913

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
Mr. HUNT: I have the honour to present from the Ludlow Division of Shropshire, on the Welsh border, 74 petitions, containing 13,577 signatures, against the Established Church (Wales) Bill.
Mr. MALLABY-DEELEY: I beg to present 21 petitions from the Harrow Division of Middlesex, containing 6,121 signatures, against the Established Church (Wales) Bill.

COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Report No. 74C (British Guiana). Report for 1911£12 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations of the Welsh Insurance Commissioners as to the Fees of duly qualified Medical Practitioners summoned in pursuance of Rules made under the Midwives Act, 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 450.]

MOTOR CAR ACTS.
Copy presented of—
(1) Regulation as to registration of motor cars made by the Local Government Board under Section 6 of the Act of 1896 and Section 7 of the Act of 1903;
London County,—For assigning a ninth index mark to the London County Council;
(2) Regulation as to the registration of motor cars made by the Local Government Board under Section 6 of the Act of 1896 and Section 7 of the Act of 1903;
County boroughs of Barnsley, Dewsbury, and Wallasey, — For assigning an index mark to the council of each county borough;
(3) Order entiled The Motor cars (Use and Construction) Amendment Order (No.II),1912
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888.
Copies presented of Orders made under the Local Government Act, 1888, as confirmed by the Local Government Board, by the following county or county borough councils: Cambridge, Hertford, Lancaster, Leicester, Middlesex, Monmouth, Oxford, Somerset and Bath (county borough), Southampton, and West Riding of York shire [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
GAS AND WATER ORDERS.
Copy presented of Report by the Board of Trade of their Proceedings under The Gas and Waterworks Facilities Act, 1870, during the Session of 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the town council of Southend-on-Sea, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending the provisions of Section 4 of The Shops Act, 1912, to certain classes of Shops within the borough, and fixing the day on which the Shops are to be closed for the weekly half-holiday [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

FLEETS (GREAT BRITAIN AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
Return ordered, "showing the fleets of Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany, Italy, Austria-Hungary, United States of America, and Japan on the 1st day of January, 1913, omitting Battleships and Armoured Cruisers over 20 years old from date of launch, and distinguishing, both built and building, Battleships, Cruisers of various grades, Torpedo Vessels, Torpedo Boat Destroyers, Torpedo Boats, and Submarines:
Return to show Date of Launch, Date of Completion, Displacement, Horse-power, and Armaments reduced to one common scale (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 127, of Session 1912)."—[Mr. Dickinson.]

PILOTAGE BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 451.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 451.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 350.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  International Opium Convention.
  Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give the names of those Powers which have now signed the International Opium Con vention of 1912, and of those Powers which have been invited to sign but which have not yet done so?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): The Powers whose plenipotentiaries originally signed the Convention are stated on page 19 of Parliamentary Paper, Miscellaneous No. 2, 1912. His Majesty's Minister at The Hague also signed the Convention on the 17th of last December on behalf of Canada, Newfoundland, New Zealand, and twenty-five British Colonies, Dependencies and Protectorates. The Convention, according to the latest advices received by His Majesty's Government from The Hague has also been signed by fifteen of the States mentioned in Article 22. His Majesty's Government expect shortly to learn from the Nether-land Government how many, if any of the balance of eighteen have signed the instrument down to the end of December last?

  Boxer Indemnity.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked whether the right hon. Gentlmena will inform the House of the amount of the Boxer in demnity already paid to this country by China; the amount which still remains to be paid; the purpose to which the moneys are put by this country; if any of the countries entitled to indemnity have notified the Chinese Government that they are willing to forego further payments; and, if so, will he name the countries?
  Sir E. GREY: The amount of the Boxer indemnity already paid to this country by
  188
  China is £167,109. The amount which still remains to be paid is £7,425,972. As-provided in the Finance Act 1906, s. 7 (2), the moneys received are applied to the-reduction of debt. Since the United States Government in 1907 reduced the sum allotted to them to 11,655,492 dollars in return for a guarantee that a certain number of Chinese students should be sent to the United States for their education, I am not aware that any countries have agreed to forego any portion of the sum allotted to them.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Is it true that the Chinese Government have been given to understand that unless they accede to the terms of the proposed loan by the six Powers pressure will be brought to bear upon them for the immediate payment of the balance of the indemnity?
  Sir E. GREY: I must ask for notice of that. I did not imagine that any question connected with the loan was going to arise out of the question on the Paper.

  War in Balkans.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman will ask for the consent of the Turkish Government to the publication of their statement on the subject of atrocities alleged to have been committed by the allies in the Balkan war?
  Sir E. GREY: No, Sir. The publication of statements or allegations made by foreign Governments is a matter for those Governments, and not for His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. W. GUINNESSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman will publish the Consular reports which have been received on the subject of massacres and outrages in the Balkan war?
  Sir E. GREY: While the war between Turkey and Italy was proceeding I was pressed to publish Consular reports respecting alleged massacres or outrages that had taken place previously under Turkish administration in Macedonia. There was also a request for information respecting alleged excesses during the Italian-Turkish war in Tripoli. I was unable to comply with any of these requests, and must adhere to the same line now. Such reports as I receive that seem to be well founded have been brought to the notice of the Governments that now control the territories in which outrages are said to have occurred.
  Mr. W. GUINNESS: May I ask whether it has not been the practice of the right hon. Gentleman in recent years to publish many Consular reports dealing with atrocities by Christians and Mahomedans and the like in Macedonia, and must not his refusal to publish such returns at the present juncture, dealing, as it is believed, chiefly with Christian atrocities, only lend additional colour to the present disquieting rumours?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making a speech.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is there any ground for the insinuation that the atrocities were committed chiefly by Christians?
  Mr. W. GUINNESS: Did not the right hon. Gentleman tell me that he was bringing these atrocities to the notice of Governments of Sofia and Servia, and not in Constantinople?
  Sir E. GREY: The House will remember that I was very strongly pressed during the Italian-Turkish war to publish reports which I received respecting outrages alleged to have occurred under Turkish administration in Macedonia. I was pressed on the very ground that the hon. Member now alleges that it had been our habit to publish these reports. I refused to publish them because war was in progress between Italy and Turkey. I am applying exactly the same considerations now to the reports which I have received. I would further add that there is a great difference between reports received during the time of ordinary administration and reports received while a war is in progress of which the Consuls could not have the same accurate knowledge, and on which it is very difficult for the Consuls to say how far particular reports are well founded.

  Lake Nyasa (Murder of Rev. A. J. Douglas).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked if the right hon. Gentleman has now received a report of the trial of a corporal of the Portuguese Army for the murder of the Rev. A. J. Douglas on Lake Nyasa; if His Majesty's Government were represented at the trial; if there were any provocative or extenuating circumstances justifying the sentence; and whether the Portuguese Government have offered, or have been asked, to pay adequate compensation to the relatives of the victim?
  Sir E. GREY: The report of the trial has not yet been received. As I stated on the 11th, and again on the 12th December, His Majesty's Government were represented at the trial. The question whether the sentence is adequate satisfaction for the murder of a British subject must be considered when the report is received.
  Mr. C. WASON: when is the right hon. Gentleman likely to receive the report? Will it be this week?
  Sir E. GREY: I hope very shortly, but it is not under my control, and I cannot say when the report will arrive. I understand it may now be expected any time.

  Delhi (New Capital Buildings).
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether consideration has been given to the statement to which Mr. E. L. Lutyens, a member of the Delhi Town Planning Committee, and other distinguished architects have given their names, that architectural design in this, country is not on a sound theoretical basis; and whether, in view of the proposals for establishing a practical school of architecture in this country on lines adopted in France and operative for centuries in India, where master builders are practical craftsmen and co-operate with workers, who are responsible both for design and execution in their work, the Secretary of State will proceed to secure the services of the best practical master builders in India to assist in arriving at a decision concerning the architecture of the new Delhi?
  FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): The Secretary of State agrees that regard should be had to considered Indian opinion before decisions are taken respecting the architectural style to be adopted for, or the method of carrying out, the buildings of the new capital at Delhi; but he is not disposed to follow the suggestion of my hon. Friend.
  Mr. KINGasked whether, before making a final decision regarding the architecture of the new Delhi, the Secretary of State will consider the past and present work of Indian master builders, as shown by the material collected by the Archaeological Survey of India; and whether, in this connection, architectural experts with practical Indian experience will be consulted?
  Mr. BAKER: The hon. Member may rest assured that the precautions he suggests will be taken.

  Purchases of Silver (India).
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India, whether his attention has been drawn to the statement made by Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company in their letter to the India Office, dated 8th January, 1912, to the effect that, if silver was purchased through them, it would not in the least disturb the market, that no one would have the remotest idea that the Government was buying, and that prices would not, as in the past, be run up; and, in view of the fact that the price of silver in March, when the purchases commenced, was 26fd., and the average price at which the silver through them was eventually bought was 284½d. is he of opinion that this statement by Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company was an accurate forecast?
  Mr. BAKER: The answer is in the affirmative. The possibility referred to in the letter quoted, was that the price might be affected by the knowledge that the Secretary of State was a purchaser. This was prevented by the policy adopted.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in 1907, when much larger purchases were made through the Bank of England, the price of silver was only run up l½d., whereas in this instance it was run up 1½
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.
  Mr. GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to the statement of Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company, in their letter dated 8th January, 1912, to the effect that putting silver in the Bank of England is such an every-day occurrence that it would create no comment, that there would be no need for the Bank of England to be acquainted with the purchases, that they need only be told that they were to receive the silver against loans, which would close every possibility of a leakage, and to a further communication from the same firm, dated 16th April, 1912, in which they state that the chief advantage of postponing the purchases (at an additional brokerage to themselves and 3 per cent, on the cost) would be to avoid any premature transactions with the Bank of England, for the movement of actual business from their office to the Bank of
  192
  England might cause comment; and will he say whether the former statement, that it would create no comment, or the latter, that it might cause comment, is the correct one?
  Mr. BAKER: The letter of 8th January stated that "putting silver into the Bank of England is such an every-day occurrence just now that our doing so would create no comment." The letter of 16th April said that "the movement might cause comment, though we do not believe for one moment that anyone would guess the nature of the business." The purport of the two statements is substantially the same; and the Secretary of State cannot say which of them was the better expression of a matter which was to some extent one of opinion. I explained on 3rd December and again on 8th January that the Secretary of State's reason for deciding on the postponement of the earlier purchases was to avoid not the deposit of silver at the Bank of England, but premature entries in the India Office monthly accounts which pass through many hands.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Will the hon. Gentleman say how he can reconcile a direct affirmative with a direct negative?
  Mr. BAKER: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the exact terms of the letter, and not take his own paraphrase, he will see it is not a question of a direct affirmative and a direct negative: "We do not believe for one moment that anyone would guess the nature of the business."
  Mr. GWYNNE: Does it not go on to say it might cause comment, whereas the previous letter said it would cause no comment?
  Mr. GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if, as officially stated, purchases of silver were postponed in May, in the interest of secrecy, so as to avoid including payment in the India Office monthly accounts, which pass through many hands and of which an abstract is published in the "Gazette of India," on what grounds did he think that payments could be made in this manner from 1st June onwards and secrecy maintained?
  Mr. BAKER: The monthly accounts for June reached India at the end of July. At that time silver for £2,000,000 had been bought at a reasonable price; and, although secrecy was still desirable and the risk of disclosure still existed, the

  193
  consequences of disclosures would then have been much less serious than at an earlier stage.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it was that in May the information reached India in a month when he told me on 17th December that in August it was only conjecture, seeing the matter passed through the same hands?
  Mr. BAKER: It was conjecture in August.
  Mr. GWYNNE: But would it not be conjecture in May in the same way?
  Mr. GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in the letter of Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company, dated 8th January, to the effect that they receive consignments of silver from special clients averaging about £50,000 per week, which they have to sell at market price, and suggesting that this silver should be secretly sold to the India Office, and so avoid the market price of silver being run up; and whether the Finance Committee considered if this device was suggested by Messrs. Samuel Montagu and Company in the interests of the Government at the expense of their clients who were selling or vice versâ?
  Mr. BAKER: The proposal was in accordance with the usual practice of the bullion trade. The effect was to meet the wishes of sellers who desired to sell at the market price and of the Secretary of State who desired to buy at that price.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see—
  Mr. SPEAKER: These supplementary questions which the hon. Member puts are all in the nature of argument, and very suitable for use in discussion; but they are no use as questions asking for information, and they are not therefore proper supplementary questions at all.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    OFFICERS' UNIFORMS.
    Mr. PIRIEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, considering that it has not been found practicable to create a special branch of the Army Clothing Department to deal with officers' uniforms and that commanding officers are for bidden to exercise any pressure upon officers to deal with any particular firm, he will either withdraw that prohibition,
    194
    and thus enable commanding officers to make arrangements regimentally for a supply of officers' uniforms at a less cost than at present, or else instruct the War Office to make the best arrangements they can, either with outside tailors or otherwise, to enable officers of all branches of the Service to purchase uniforms at a reasonable rate?
    The SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): There is nothing in the Regulations to prevent a regiment from making an arrangement with a military outfitter regarding the supply of uniform or equipment, provided that no pressure Should be brought to bear upon any individual officer in this respect.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if what the hon. Member for Aberdeen desires is not done in effect by every sensible commanding officer now?
    Colonel SEELY: I should be sorry to say "Yes" or "No" to that question as to the sensibleness of commanding officers. What we are all desirous of securing is that there should be as little expense as possible thrown on officers in every regiment in procuring their uniforms.
    Mr. PIRIE: Does not that show all the more necessity for making the Regulation universal, as all commanding officers are not as sensible as the Noble Lord suggests?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I have many complaints made to me that we do not reach the end of questions, but if hon. Members will insist in asking supplementary questions in the nature of arguments, I can hardly be blamed because we do not do so.
    Colonel YATE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Ask the question on the Paper.

    PENSIONS (BASIS OF COMMUTATION).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, considering the fact that the Government of India have decided that the proportion up to which pensions may be commuted should not be allowed to exceed a quarter of the pension, he will state the proportion up to which officers of the British Service are permitted to commute their pensions; if exceeding more than one-quarter of the pension, whether similar conditions to those applied in India might be advantageously applied in England; whether,

    195
    while the Government of India permit their pensioners to commute on a 31 per cent, basis, officers of the British Army are only permitted to commute on a 5 per cent, basis; and what difference this makes to the British Service officer?
    Mr. BAKER: Officers of the British Service are allowed to commute one-half of their pension, but not less than £80 must be left uncommitted. It appears that the Indian conditions mentioned in the question refer to Indian natives, and that, as far as British officers are concerned, the Indian conditions are the same as those of the British Service, except that the limit for commutation is one-third. It is a matter of opinion how, far it is to an officer's advantage to commute his pension, but experience has shown that the limit of one-half has prevented cases of destitution from arising without unduly interfering with the officer's discretion as to his financial arrangements. The rate of interest chargeable is fixed by the Pensions Commutation Act.

    SPECIAL RKSKKVE.
    Mr. HUNTasked whether, in view of the fact that Lord Haldane stared that men trained for from four to six months, as proposed by the National Service League, would not be fit to meet Regular Continental troops trained for two or three years, the fourth battalions of the Special Reserve, trained only for three months, could be sent at once to meet Regular troops on the Continent or be able to meet them in case of invasion?
    Colonel SEELY: If the hon. Gentleman will read the words following those of the authority which he quotes, he will find the answer to his question regarding invasion; and as regards war on the Continent, I would point out that the fourth battalions mentioned do not form part of the Expeditionary Force.
    Mr. HUNT: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that Lord Haldane when Secretary of Stale for War said that the twenty-seven fourth battalions of the Special Reserve would be available for foreign service just as much as any others and that they were organised and enlisted for that purpose?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can hardly expect the Secretary of State to carry in his head all the speeches made by Lord Haldane.

    SCOTTISH REGIMENTS.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked how many Scottish regiments there are at present in Ulster, and how many in the rest of Ireland; and what will be the distribution of Scottish units in Ireland in May?
    Colonel SEELY: There are no Scottish battalions in Ulster, and there are two quartered in the rest of Ireland. As fat as is known at present there will be no alteration in this distribution of the troops in May.

    CENSUS OF HOUSES.
    Mr. ALAN SYKESasked (1) whether the Territorial adjutant detailed to take the horse census in No. 5 area in Cheshire is to classify and report on all the horses in the following districts: All the districts embraced in the Parliamentary divisions of Hyde, Stalybridge, and Stockport, and in addition half of the districts embraced by the Altrincham and Knutsford divisions; whether this adjutant can satisfactorily make his horse census without neglecting his other duties; (2) whether any complaints have been received from commanding officers of Territorial battalions pointing out the in convenience of having their adjutants detailed to take the present horse census; (3) the number of adjutants who have been and are being employed in the pre sent horse census which is being taken, distinguishing between mounted and foot adjutants and between Regular, Special Reserve, and Territorial in each case; (4> whether the adjutants who have been and are at present being employed in the pre sent horse census are expected to under take this census in addition to their ordinary duties; and what would be the position of an adjutant who refused to take the census on the plea that his ordinary duties took up all his time?
    Colonel SEELY: I am not aware of the particular ease mentioned, but I will make inquiries. No complaints from commanding officers have reached the War Office. There are no statistics at the War Office to show the 'exact numbers of officers employed on the horse classification, but, as I have already informed the House, there are a large number of Regular officers so employed, in addition to the Territorial Force adjutants. As regards the other points raised, I have nothing to add to the replies which I have already given to the hon. and gallant Gentleman on this subject.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: If the right hon. Gentleman says no complaints have reached the War Office, may I ask him if there was not trouble with two adjutants last year on the subject, and that both of them had to leave an account of the War Office action?
    Colonel SEELY: I am not aware of that. I have said no complaint has reached the War Office from commanding officers, which is the question on the Paper.
    Mr. ALAN SYKES: Could the right hon. Gentleman reply to the latter part of question No. 22: "What would be the position of an adjutant who refused to take the census on the plea that his ordinary duties took up all his time?"
    Colonel SEELY: I have deliberately refrained from answering the question, because I think it ought not to have been put, but if it is persisted in the answer would be the same as the answer given by Stephenson with regard to the cow.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE.
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked what was the number of officers wanting to complete the establishment of the Territorial Force on last New Year's Day?
    Colonel SEELY: The number was 1,959 out of an establishment of 11,242.
    Sir J. JARDINEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the difficulty of recruiting a sufficient number of officers for the Territorial Force, he will consider the propriety of raising the present amount of £20 given as outfit allowance so as to cover the expenses outside the service kit made compulsory by the Regulations, such as mess uniform, patrol dress, and other charges imposed by custom in battalions?
    Colonel SEELY: I have this question under consideration.
    Mr. HUNTasked whether the Army Council have decided to amend the Regulations for the Territorial Army, so that elementary Infantry drill shall be taught in a drill hall instead of in an open field; and, if so, how it is proposed to teach recruits advancing and retiring in open order, methods of taking cover, outpost and patrolling, and advance and rear guards, and other movements which are the foundation of a soldier's training?
    Colonel SEELY: A circular memorandum has recently been issued concerning the hire of drill fields, which states that
    198
    it is considered that as a general rule elementary Infantry drill can be taught in a drill hall, so that where an adequate drill hall exists, a small drill field is not considered a necessity. There is no objection, however, to county associations having drill fields where considered necessary, subject to the sanction of the general officer commanding, and within certain financial limits. The training referred to in the second part of the question requires a larger area than that described as a drill field.
    Mr. HUNT: Are we to understand that the War Office is not going to supply the money for these fields, and is it the right hon. Gentleman's opinion that they can learn just as well in a hall as in a field?
    Colonel SEELY: With regard to elementary drill, it can be taught in a hall, as everybody knows and no better than the hon. Member; but if there is a field available at no great cost it can be hired. That is what the memorandum says. With regard to the larger measures of training referred to in the question, we do not define them as field drill. They require a larger area than that described as a drill field.

    Road Board (Expenditure in Gloucestershire).
    Mr. REND ALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the continuing decrease in the amounts granted by the Road Board to the county of Gloucester; whether such amount in 1911–12 was £7,500, in 1912–13 was £7,300, and for 1913–14 a sum of only between £6,000 and £7,000 has been promised; whether he is aware that Gloucestershire has an exceptionally large road mileage and that the motor traffic thereon has increased during the past few years and is still increasing, although the Road Hoard's Grant is decreasing; and what he proposes to do for this and other rural counties in the matter?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I am informed by the Road Board that the total amount of the Grants to works of road improvement in the county of Gloucestershire to be carried out during the next financial year cannot be settled until the applications of the Gloucestershire Highway Authorities giving particulars and estimates of the works of improvement with which they desire to proceed are before the

    199
    Board. In the absence of applications containing this information the county council were informed provisionally in reply to an inquiry in November last that they may anticipate a Grant of between £6,000 and £7,000 towards approved works of improvement. All available information as to traffic, mileage and expenditure, as well as other relevant facts, are taken into account in dealing with applications. In making comparisons as to previous Grants it must be borne in mind that in the Grants made in 1911–12 the Board were dealing with practically two years' revenue of the Road Improvement Fund.

    Customs and Excise (Amalgamation).
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, considering that the majority of the junior officers of Customs and Excise have not yet received any benefit from the concessions to the Department authorised by the Report of the Amalgamation Committee or payment for insurance duties, he will authorise the acceptance of the recommendation made to the Amalgamation Committee by the Board of Customs and Excise that officers shall be lifted to the salary they would have been receiving had the service scale been in force when they entered the service?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to a question put to me by the hon. Member for Tyrone on the 14th instant on this subject.
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, considering the pledge given by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to this House on 18th June, 1908, in connection with the amalgamation of the Customs and Excise Departments, that the rights of no class and, as far as possible, of no individual would be prejudicially affected by the contemplated change, he will explain why surveyors, formerly supervisors of Excise, find all promotion from their grade to the controlling grade stopped; and why this stoppage, which to eligible men means a stoppage at £320 per annum as compared with £500, the minimum salary of the controlling grade, has been permitted.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As regards promotions to the new controlling grade, I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Blackburn on the 14th instant, and I may add that further
    200
    promotions will be made when the process of amalgamation permits. Meanwhile the eligible men instead of being temporarily stopped at £320, as they would have been, under the former conditions of service, have, under the amalgamation scheme, been placed on a scale rising to £450, and when promoted will be placed on a scale of £500 rising to £650, instead of £450 fixed.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    IRELAND (PROPOSED GRANT).
    Mr. FRED HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the proposed Grant of £50,000 to Ireland for the provision of health insurance benefits will be subject to the approval of Parliament; if it is intended to be an annual allowance, supplementary to the funds already provided by the United Kingdom for the working of the National Insurance Act in Ireland; and if he will state the sum per insured person in Ireland to be contributed out of moneys provided by Parliament for similar benefits compared with the amount so provided as regards insured persons in England?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first two questions is in the affirmative, except that, as regards the second, the Grant would, in the event of the extension of medical benefit to Ireland, be merged in the Grant for that benefit. The object of this special Grant, as I explained in my reply to the hon. Member for Waterford on the 9th instant, is to provide a contribution towards certain expenses arising in Ireland in connection with national insurance owing to the absence of medical benefit in that country. There is therefore no corresponding Grant in Great Britain where medical benefit exists.
    Mr. CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the approval of the House is asked before the agreement is made with the doctors?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Of course, no payment will be made by the Treasury until the approval of the House has been obtained.
    Mr. CASSEL: Will the House be allowed to see the agreement before it is concluded?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No agreement beyond a provisional agreement will be concluded before the House is in possession of it.
    Mr. W. O'BRIEN: Will the House have an opportunity of discussing it this Session?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That I cannot say.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what error has been discovered in his calculations as regards medical benefit under the National Insurance Act which allows him to pay 8s. 6d. a head, while his actuarial calculations were based on taxation sufficient to 'allow of the payment of 6s. per head; and, since it is not possible to pay the larger amount out of the smaller collection, will he inform the House from what source the 'Government proposes to make good the deficiency?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): No error has been discovered in the calculations, in regard to medical benefit under the National Insurance Act. As regards the remainder of the question the position has already been fully explained to the House in the answers given to the hon. Member for St. Pancras on the 1st and 9th instant.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it has been found that the 1,956 names printed and published as those of members of panels in London are reduced to 738 when names entered more than once are excluded, that names are entered without any regard to the place of residence of the owners of such names, and that in some cases they are repeated as often as ten times; and, if so, whether such proceedings have his sanction?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for North Islington yesterday. The list published by the London Insurance Committee on 13th January shows 759 doctors on the London panel. These are shown in lists for the different boroughs for the convenience of insured persons making their choice, each doctor being named in the list of any borough in which he has stated that he desired to attend insured persons. The number of doctors on the London panel is now 930.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is there any difficulty in filling the panel when doctors' names are inserted without their permission, and repeated in various quarters?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No name is entered without the doctor's permission, and no doctor's name is put as serving on any panel except at his specific request.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I supply the right hon. Gentleman with cases of that nature, not in London, but in Middlesex?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I shall be glad to investigate any such allegations.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked if an insured person wires for a doctor, and is unable to get medical assistance owing to the roads being blocked with snow, the amount of premium due for medical benefit for that period will be refunded?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer is in the negative.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: But is it not unfair to ask an insured person who may be snowed up for weeks to pay contributions for which he can receive no benefit?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The man is in the same position in respect to a doctor as he is at present. The doctor takes the same liability as a doctor does at present in attending a patient.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: But is it not the fact that in former days he had not to pay 4d. for taking the chance and now he has got to do it?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If he was under a contract system he paid so much a year. A doctor took no account of such acts of God as a snowstorm.
    Sir H. CRAIK: In how many cases throughout the Highlands did the contract system prevail, and did the doctors charge fees when they did not pay a visit?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is not a question about the Highlands at all. It is a general question as to snowstorms blocking the attendance of a doctor.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: But may I ask if Providence in the old days extracted 4d. from the people in the same way as it's modern prototype the Chancellor of the Exchequer does now?

    INSURANCE STAMPS (INVESTMENT OF REVENUE).
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the total amount of money representing the sale of insurance stamps at the present time, and in what securities have such moneys been invested?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The sums received into the National Health Insurance Fund from the sale of stamps, etc., up to 18th January, amounted to £9,225,369 17s. 9d. The amounts available for investment are being invested partly in Treasury Bills and Exchequer Bonds, and partly in Government Stock in anticipation of transfer to the Permanent Investment Account. A Return will in due course be presented to Parliament by the National Debt Commissioners as required under Section 54 of the Act, and I am unable to anticipate the details which will be included in that Return.

    COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS.
    MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINEasked whether a doctor meeting with an accident or injury while attending to or going to or from attending a case under the National Insurance Act receives compensation for such injury?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer is in the negative. I am advised that a doctor on the panel is not in the position of an employé of an insurance committee, and has no more title to compensation from that committee in case of accident than a doctor attending a private patient has from that patient.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Under the Local Government Board cannot a doctor get compensation for looking after a pauper?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I suppose in that case he is an employé of the Local Government Board. No doctor on a panel is an employé of the insurance committee.

    SICKNESS BENEFIT.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the approved societies are only accepting sickness benefit certificates of insured persons if signed by panel doctors; and, if so, whether this furl her effort to force all medical practitioners on to the panels has the sanction of the Government?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not know to what authorities the hon. Member is referring, but as regards the question of medical certificates presented in connection with claims for sickness benefit I have nothing to add to my answer of Wednesday last.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is it understood that insured persons who do not go to doctors
    204
    on the panel are liable to lose all the benefits, including sickness benefit, which are open to them?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am afraid I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "Is it understood?" My answer is quite categorical and specific. The question of whether a person is really ill or not is one for the approved societies and not for the insurance committees.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is it understood that all benefits under the Insurance Act depend upon whether the insured person goes to a doctor on the panel?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Once more I cannot give an answer unless the hon. Gentleman interprets to me what he means by the question, "Is it understood?"
    Sir H. CRAIK: Is it a fact, then?

    UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
    Mr. FELLasked how many persons are insured under Part II. of the National Insurance Act; and how many of these have sent in claims for unemployment benefits to the latest date available?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD Of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): The total number of unemployment books issued up to the 16th January, 1913, was 2,273,589, and the number of claims to benefit received up to the same date was 100,170.

    HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he has now considered the Report of the Committee appointed to consider the position of the Highlands and Islands under the National Insurance Act; and if he can state if the Government propose at an early date to give effect to the recommendations contained therein?
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Was this Committee held under the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes, I think it was a general Committee—a Treasury Committee—investigating general conditions. I fear I cannot at present add anything to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Perth on this subject yesterday.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: In view of the grave anxiety cannot some temporary arrangement be made?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think all or the great majority of doctors in the Highlands are at present on the panels and are attending sick persons. This Report goes much further than the question of these doctors. It is a very large subject, and I think we must have a few days to consider it.

    PROTECTION OF DOCTORS.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Home Secretary whether the doctors engaged to proceed to any area to work the National Insurance Act when panels are inadequate will be entitled to the same police protection as was given to the dockers introduced in the "Lady Jocelyn" to the Port of London in the late dock strike?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): The protection of members of the public from violence is a matter for the local Police authorities. I do not think any special measures will be necessary for persons within the class to which the hon. Member refers.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if it is not the case that special protection was given, or, at all events, that the Home Secretary claimed it was given, in the case of dockers, and, if so, is there any difference in principle in the two cases?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: If a case arises, no doubt attention will be paid to it.
    Mr. WATT: May I ask if any of the doctors claim protection?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Not yet.

    New Ross Technical Instruction Committee.
    Mr. FFRENCHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has seen a resolution passed by the New Ross technical instruction committee pointing out the necessity for a building Grant for technical schools and urging the Government to make provisions for this purpose; and will he say what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have seen the resolution referred to. The matter is not one which at present calls for any action on my part.

    Defence Act (War Office Land).
    Mr. PRETYMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in June, 1909, a field known as Chattenden meadow,
    206
    belonging to Mr. H. Gough, was acquired by the War Office, under the Defence Act, at the price of £500; whether, on 2nd December, 1912, Mr. Gough was served with a provisional valuation of the same land, placing its value, as on 30th April, 1909, at £845, and its assessable site value as £812; and whether this was an overvaluation for the purposes of Undeveloped Land Duty, or whether Mr. Gough received an insufficient price from the War Office?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Valuation branch of the Inland Revenue Department, who had nothing to do with the purchase by the War Office, adhere to the values quoted in the second part of the hon. Member's question, but it is still open to the owner to object to these values should ho think them excessive. The amount of Undeveloped Land Duty involved is something under a sovereign. On the facts as stated in the question, the War Office would appear to have made a good bargain.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Are not purchases under the Defence Act compulsory? Has the right hon. Gentleman looked into the matter? Is he aware that a compulsory notice was served upon this owner; that he stated that he did not wish to sell, and that the highest price the War Office would agree to give him without going to actual arbitration was £500?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand that the transaction was not compulsory, but voluntary.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Defence Act is a compulsory Act, and that this purchase was to all intents and purposes compulsory; only it did not go to arbitration?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right hon. Friend tells me—I cannot myself be supposed to know—that the purchase was not under the Defence Act.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: If it was under the Defence Act—
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is obvious that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot know about the operations of the War Office—
    Mr. PRETYMAN: With all respect, that was not the point I was going to raise. I wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as his Departmental valuers have fixed the value at £845, he will see that this Gentleman receives that price from the War Office?

    Income Tax (Gibson Bowles v. Bank of England).
    Mr. GRETTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in the view of the statement made on the 27th November last that, so far as then ascertained, the total costs incurred in the case of Bowles v. the Bank of England were £838 9s. 5d., and the statement made on the 14th January that the total amount of costs incurred by the Crown, including those incurred by the Bank of England will amount approximately to £572, exclusive of Mr. Bowles's costs, he will say which of these two sums or whether either of them represents the fact; and do His Majesty's Government propose to pay the costs of the Bank of England and also those of Mr. Bowles as between solicitor and client?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The estimate which I gave on the 14th instant differed from that given on the 27th November last, mainly because on the earlier occasion an estimate of Mr. Bowles' costs was included, the question having been so worded as to require this estimate. I am still unable to give the total costs actually incurred. Those of the Bank of England have been paid by the Crown, and amounted to £258 5s. 4d. It is presumed that an account of those incurred by Mr. Bowles will be received in due course, and will be taxed in the usual way.
    Mr. GRETTONasked the Prime Minister, having regard to the judgment of the High Court in Bowles v. The Bank of England that the levy of Income Tax before the passing of the Act of Parliament imposing that tax is unlawful, do His Majesty's Government intend this year to introduce the Bill imposing that tax at such an early period as will ensure its passing by 5th April, 1913, when, except as to arrears and returns, the present Act and the present tax expire?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I can at present add nothing to the reply which I gave to the hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras on 6th November last.
    Mr. GRETTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that the Act imposing the Income Tax was passed by Sir Robert Peel on the 5th April, 1845; by Lord Palmerston
    208
    on 3rd April, 1860; and by Mr. Gladstone on 24th March, 1880?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put the question down so that I may be able to understand it.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the Secretary for Scotland, as representing the Local Government Board of Scot land, whether he can state the number of old age pensioners in the burgh of Perth, together with the cost of their pensions in the year 1911–12; whether he can state the number of persons receiving indoor and outdoor relief from the parish council on 15th January and 15th September in the years 1908 and 1912, respectively; and whether he can estimate the saving to the parish council of Perth which has been effected by the operation of the Old Age Pensions Act?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): As the answer to this question contains a number of figures, I propose to circulate it with the Votes.— [See Written Answers this date.]
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Will the right hon. Gentleman also calculate, at the same time, the amount of the increase of taxation and rating?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, Sir, that is not included in the figures asked for.

    Labourers' Cottages (Scotland).
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the fact that 22,000 rural cottages have been built in Ireland since 1906 under the Labourers' Cottages Act of that year; and, if so, will he say when he proposes to introduce similar legislation for Scot land in view of the emigration figures to that country?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As my hon. Friend is aware, a Royal Commission on Housing in Scotland has been appointed, which will doubtless be ready to consider any suggestions based upon the Irish legislation to which he refers.
    Mr. WATT: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that Scotland has equal needs in that respect?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not prepared to admit that.
    Mr. BARNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any approximate date when the Commission may be expected to report?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, Sir; it 'has not yet had time to take evidence.

    Education (Scotland).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether the Government scheme of educational reform, announced by the Lord Chancellor, includes any provisions affecting Scotland?
    Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked also the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the Lord Chancellor's Manchester speech, if he will say what steps he proposes to take to ensure that when an advance is made in English educational reform an equal if not greater advance shall be made in Scottish education so that the unquestioned pre-eminence of Scotland may be maintained?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: In reply to this question and to question No. 41, I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer given by the Prime Minister on 15th January to a series of questions on the subject of the Lord Chancellor's speech.
    Mr. LYNCH: When this scheme is being prepared will the whole position be recast so that the education provided may be more relative to the needs of the time?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.

    Jedburgh School Board.
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Secretary for Scotland if he will say, as regards the Lady Yester Mortification, ad ministered by the Jedburgh School Board, and the demand made by the auditor under Section 30 of the Scottish Education Act, 1908, that a part of the revenue shall be paid over to the secondary education committee of the district to be applied to the granting of bursaries, leaving the rest to be adminisered by the school board in pro viding books and stationery, on what ground the auditor or the Department has taken the amount expended in an abnormal year of change, namely, 1889, on books and stationery as an ordinary fair and average yearly amount, especially as the Department's minute of 26th August, 1889, did not come into operation until 1st Octo-
    210
    ber, 1889; whether, as the Jedburgh School Board has represented, under the second proviso of Section 30, that the selection of the calendar year 1889 is inapplicable and leads to unfair allocation of the revenue, he can see his way to allocating the parts for bursaries and books, etc., on an average of years of expenditure; and whether the rule stated in the Department Circular 441 of 10th May, 1911, about the normal measure of fairness, which the auditor relies on in the discussion with the Jedburgh School Board, has any support from Statute or is to be applied in all cases as a rule of law, or whether it is only an indication of the spirit in which the Department will be disposed to interpret Section 30 in normal cases?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of Circular 441, which will, I think, give him the explanation asked for in the first part of his question, and will also make it clear that the second of the two alternatives suggested in the last part corresponds most closely to the facts. In the particular case he mentions no formal reference has yet been made to the Department, but in reply to an inquiry the auditor states that the amount which he thinks it would be reasonable and fair for him to allow is not only larger than the sum spent by the Governors in the year 1889, but also larger than the average annual expenditure of any five continuous years prior to 1902. In these circumstances, I can hold out no hope that it would be possible to grant terms more favourable to the board should it be necessary for the Department to make a statutory determination.

    Free Church of Scotland.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been directed to the fact that there are nearly 100 vacancies in the pulpits of the Free Church of Scotland; and whether, in view of the failure to administer trust funds in this case, he proposes to take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to secure that the intentions of the Commission under the Churches (Scotland) Act, 1905, shall be carried out?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am informed that the statements of fact alleged by the hon. Member are disputed by the authorities of the Free Church. The question of Government action does not therefore at present arise, and I hope it never will.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it not the case that seven years have elapsed since this Commission originally delimited the boundaries of the Free Church in Scotland, and is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in towns like Aberdeen congregations have not got ministers, and does he not think that the time has now arrived when the Commission should again delimit the boundaries of this Church in Scotland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should like notice of that question.

    Land Values Committee.
    Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked the Prime Minister when the Committee on Land Tenure appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his approval, is likely to issue its Report; and if he will then be in a position to make an announcement as to the Government's policy, or if the object of this Committee is to collect information in support of a policy already decided upon?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that a Report is likely to be issued within a comparatively short time. The answer to the last branch of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. FRED HALL: Can the continued reticence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer now be attributed to affairs in the Balkans, or to differences in the Cabinet on this subject?
    Mr. RAFFAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to newspaper statements to the effect that the policy of land reform has been sub-milted to the Cabinet by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and rejected by them; and is there any foundation for such statements which are persistently circulated?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; none whatever.
    Mr. FRED HALL: Will you answer my question?

    Government Offices (Edinburgh).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the number of separate Government offices in Edinburgh, giving their location and title; the number of head offices, branch offices, overflow offices, and temporary offices, with their location; how many of the premises are owned, leased, or rented; the rates and taxes, or their equivalents, on those offices; the number of telephones in use; the number of messengers employed; the
    212
    number of housekeepers; the number of separate lifts; the number of Departments set up within the last five years; their relation to the centre of the city and the railway stations; and how many of them are on the tramway service?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord Of the Treasury): The information asked for by my hon. Friend can only be obtained by a large amount of research involving great labour and some delay. The First Commissioner would be willing, should my hon. Friend desire it, to prepare and furnish a list of the Government offices in Edinburgh.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the hon. Gentleman supply us with that list in view of the site for these buildings?
    Mr. W. BENN: I have already stated that the First Commissioner will be glad to supply the list.
    Mr. PIRIE: Has the hon. Member found out whether the First Commissioner has ever been in Edinburgh and examined the site?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.
    Mr. MORTONasked whether the desirability of having an open or selected competition as to dealing with the Calton Hill site, Edinburgh, has yet been considered; and, if not, in view of the importance of the matter, will the First Commissioner have the proposal considered?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The question of having a competition for the buildings on the Calton Hill site has been considered. The First Commissioner has invited Sir Robert Lorimer to express his views on the scheme which has been prepared. When the report has been received the First Commissioner will lay it before the Committee which has been considering this question.
    Mr. HOGGE: What is the use of this if they have not yet got the site on which these buildings are to be put, and if the site, as they assume, belongs to someone else who has never yet been paid for it?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: Difficulties as to the title of the site have nothing Lo do with the Office of Works.
    Mr. HOGGE: Ought the Department to be put to the expense, and Scottish Members to the trouble, of looking into the matter if the site is not available for

    213
    the buildings of which they have actually a model in the Board of Works Office now?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The Office of Works has no evidence to show that the site will not be available, and are proceeding on the assumption that it will be.
    Mr. MORTON: Is it the fact that before any building operation can be undertaken the matter must come before the House on the Estimates?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: Oh, yes. No new work will be undertaken until a Vote is passed in Committee of Supply.

    Small Land. Holders Act.
    Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will give the reason for his refusal to grant the Return under the Small Land Holders Act asked for on the 13th instant?—Lord NISIAN CRICHTOX-STUAKT—Small Holdings (England and Wales)—Return showing, for each county in England and Wales, particulars of the land acquired under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, and let in Small Holdings on the 29th day of September, 1912, in the following form:—

    Name of county.

    Acreage purchased by agreement.

    Acreage purchased compulsorily.

    Purchase price.

    Price per acre.

    Acreage hired, by agreement.

    Acreage hired compulsorily.

    Total rent payable by council.

    Rent per acre.

    Amount spent on adaptation.

    Total rent payable by councils' tenants.

    Rent per acre payable by councils' tenants

    Rent per acre paid by previous tenant before land was acquired by county council.

    No. of holdings into which land has been divided.

    No. of tenants who have given up their holdings.

    Amount of rents in arrcav on latest available date (date to be given).

    No. of tenants in arrear on latest available date (date to besamcas above.)

    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): I am obliged to the Noble Lord for giving me this opportunity to remove a misconception which has been caused by my refusal to grant the Return to which he refers. I am not only willing to grant a Return giving all possible information with regard to the progress made under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, but, as I have already informed the Noble Lord, I think that such a Return would be a most useful document. My refusal to grant the Return on the 13th January was due to the fact that the particulars asked for in column 13 of the form appended to the Notice of Motion are in some cases unobtainable, and, even if they were obtained, would obviously be misleading.
    Lord N. CRICHTON-STUART: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give a Return
    with at least some of the information asked for in column 13, if not all?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As I have already said, I cannot grant the Return for the reason that some of the information is unobtainable, and such as is obtainable would be misleading. If column 13 is omitted, I can grant the Return at once.
    Lord N. CRICHTON-STUART: I will raise this question on the Motion for Adjournment to-night.

    Agricultural Co-operation (Scotland).
    Mr. WHYTEasked the right hon. Gentleman, as representing the Scottish Board of Agriculture, whether any steps have recently been taken to establish or develop the system of co-operation in the agricultural commerce of Scotland; whether anything has been done to place cheap and easy credit within reach of the whole farming and crofting community; and, if not, whether he proposes to follow the example of the English Board in this matter?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Board cordially support the efforts of the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society to promote the formation and organisation of co-operative agricultural societies, and have been making inquiries as to the best means of bringing credit within the reach of small holders, but, as negotiations are still proceeding, I am not in a position to make any more definite statement. The position in Scotland is a little different from what it is in England.
    Mr. BARNES: Will this be done direct through the agency of the State, without the aid of private banks?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, Sir, I am not prepared to make any statement in that direction.

    Calton Goal (Edinburgh).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he has made any Order to discontinue the Calton Gaol?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. HOGGEasked whether the Prison Commissioners for Scotland have secured a site for the proposed new prison; if not, when they are likely to do so; and whether he can say how long it would probably be before the new prison was ready for use?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It would not be in the public interest to enter into any details in regard to the question of a new site at present.
    Mr. HOGGE: May I have an answer to the question whether the Prison Commissioners have secured a site?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have answered that question. It would not be in the public interest to make any statement on the subject.
    Mr. HOGGEasked in whom the legal estate in the site of the Calton Gaol is at present vested; to whom it is to be transferred; and what is the consideration for such transfer?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: In reply to the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply he received yesterday from the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East. The proposal at present under consideration is for an ultimate transfer to the First Commissioner of Works; as to how and on what conditions such a transfer can be arranged I am not prepared to make any intimation at this stage.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that plans have already been drawn and models set up for buildings on this site, which has not even yet been transferred to the Prison Commissioners?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am quite aware of that.
    Mr. HOGGE: What are these buildings for?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: They are for the site in question.
    Mr. PIRIE: Before this transfer to the Prison Commissioners takes place, will Members of Parliament have any chance of discussing this question?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the land has never been paid for?

    Small Holdings (Scotland).
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked how many applications for small holdings, under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, have been received from the county of Lanark; and how many of these applications have been already dealt with?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As I stated in the general statistics for the various counties in Scotland, given in reply to a question on 7th January, the number of applicants for small holdings in Lanarkshire up to and including 31st December, 1912, was 108. With reference to the second part of the question, I would ask my hon. Friend to wait for the Report of the Board of Agriculture, which is being made up to the end of last year.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    ROSYTH DOCKYARD.
    Mr. WATTasked whether a garden town is to be set up at Rosyth on the initiation of the Local Government Board; whether the necessary land has been secured for this scheme; and when it is proposed to begin the work of the scheme?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Local Government Board have no direct authority to imitate a garden city, but in the special circumstances of Rosyth they have done all in their power to secure that development will proceed on approved principles. They have authorised the preparation of a town planning scheme, embracing the Rosyth area, by the local authority of the Burgh of Dunfermline, and they understand that that scheme is now practically complete, and will be submitted for the Board's approval on an early date. Before giving their approval the Board will satisfy themselves that adequate provision is made therein for the proper development of the area. The Board are informed that Admiralty and other land required for development is available for feuing. As soon as the Board's approval of the scheme is given, it will be possible to begin the work of providing suitable housing accommodation.

    ARMOUR PLATES (COST).
    Mr. FRED HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if there has been any considerable rise in the cost of armour plates during the last few years; if the number of firms through whom this material can be obtained has become restricted; and if, in order to effect economy

    217
    and prevent delay as regards the shipbuilding programme for this and future years, and stop the formation of a price ring, he will consider as to making other arrangements as regards the supply of, at any rate, some portion of the materials required?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The reply to the first part of the question is that there has been no increase, but, on the contrary, a diminution during the last few years, though the price is still very high. The reply to the second part is that the number of firms engaged in this manufacture has undergone no change for some years past. I may add that all practicable sources of supply and the best means of meeting the requirements of the Service in this respect on reasonable terms receive unremitting attention on the part of the Admiralty.
    Mr. FRED HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he did not state previously that some of the ships were kept back in consequence of not being able to obtain the necessary armour plates?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, we have had delays, but with great respect I do not think that question arises out of the answer.

    H.M.S. "TYBIAN."
    Mr. WHELERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether His Majesty's tug "Syrian," of Sheerness, is employed for ocean towage as far as the Firth of Forth and Cromarty; whether she carries any lifeboat when at sea; and, if not, what beat accommodation is provided for the crew in case of danger to the vessel?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The "Tyrian," to which vessel I presume the hon. Member refers, is a small twin-screw steel tug, of 300 tons displacement, and 450 indicated horse-power, built in 1900. She has been employed on the towage of lighters to Scotland, and in connection with mooring work in Scottish waters. She is a vessel of comparatively light draught, and therefore most suitable for that particular service, in the carrying out of which she would never be very far from land. She has not carried a lifeboat, but a fourteen feet boat of ordinary build. I am making further inquiry into the question of boat provision.
    Mr. WHELER: May I ask if it is not a fact that there was a crew of fifteen on the vessel which never had lifeboat accommodation for more than six?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I think the norma crew would be eleven, and that at sea she might have two more, making thirteen. The boat she had might carry eight.

    Underground Telegraph Cables.
    Mr. PIRIEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, at the time when the underground telegraph line was projected between Exeter and Penzance, he or his predecessors made any representations to the Post Office that a similar line should be constructed between Edinburgh and Aberdeen; and whether since then any notice has been taken in his office or representations made by him to the Postmaster-General as to the frequent breakdown of telegraphic communications in the North-East of Scotland and the consequent great financial losses incurred by Scottish interests?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am unable to say what representations, if any, my predecessor may have made at the time referred to; on the recent occasion the representations were made, and were properly made, directly to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General.
    Mr. PIRIE: Has not the right hon. Gentleman taken the trouble to find out what representations, if any, his predecessors made before answering a question of this sort?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, Sir, I have not.
    Mr. PIRIE: The right hon. Gentleman has a false idea of his duties. Does he not consider it part of his duty to endeavour, as Secretary for Scotland, to obtain for Scotland a fair apportionment of the money devoted to national development?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not consider it part of my duty to do work which falls within the province of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General. Hon. Members in this House on the present occasion have taken the proper course. They have made their representations to my right hon. Friend, and that is the course which is indicated by all Parliamentary practice.
    Mr. PIRIE: When I get more information I shall move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to the Secretary for Scotland's wrong idea of what his duties are.

    Small Holdings.
    Mr. RENDALLasked whether Stephen Tilley applied to the Wiltshire Small Holdings Committee for a small holding in January, 1908; whether his application was in due course approved; whether he has since repeatedly asked the small holdings committee to satisfy his approved requirements; if no suitable land within reach of his abode has at any time been offered him during this long period of five years; and, if not, why not?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The county council have tried without success to obtain land to satisfy Mr. Tilley's application, and in May last they made a compulsory hiring order with that object; but the Board were unable to confirm the order. Some alternative land to that scheduled in the order was offered, but Mr. Tilley refused it
    Mr. RENDALLasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that William Watts applied to the Cambridgeshire Small Holdings Committee for a small holding in October, 1907; that his application was in due course approved, and that he has since repeatedly asked the small holdings committee to satisfy his approved requirements; and will he explain why no suit able land within reach of his abode has at any time been offered him during this period of five years and three months?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Mr. Watts already occupies forty acres in the parish of Lode, Cambridgeshire, and he has applied for ten acres more. The county council have acquired 122 acres in the parish for small holdings, and these have been let to applicants who were in greater need of land than Mr. Watts appears to be. I am informed that when more land is available the council will be prepared to let him have sufficient to bring his holding up to the maximum acreage.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that Frederick Munt applied to the Oxfordshire Small Holdings Committee for a small holding three or four years ago; that his application was in due course approved, and that he has since repeatedly asked the small holdings committee to satisfy his approved requirements; and whether he will explain why no land has been offered him during the whole of this period?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Mr. Munt has applied for five acres of accommodation land at Horsepath, Oxfordshire, and no suitable land can at present be obtained by agreement. The council are satisfied that if compulsory powers were used the rent would be more than he is prepared to pay. The Small Holdings Commissioner for the district has the case in hand, and I hope that it may be found possible to provide Mr. Munt with land before long.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that Richard Bass applied to the Bucks Small Holdings Committee for a small holding in May, 1908; that his application was in due course approved, and that he has since repeatedly asked the small holdings committee to satisfy his approved requirements; and will he explain why no suitable land within reach of his abode has at any time been offered him during this period of four years and eight months?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Mr. Bass applied for four to six acres of arable land at Brill, Bucks. Nearly all the land in the neighbourhood is grass, and it is impossible to obtain arable land without doing great injustice to the present occupiers. Mr. lass was offered some pasture land last Michaelmas, but refused to pay the rent asked; he afterwards changed his mind, but by that time the land had been let to other applicants.

    Uganda Railway.
    Captain MURRAYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he proposes to take to relieve the congestion prevailing on the Uganda railway owing to the deficiency of rolling stock?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): A considerable quantity of new rolling stock is on order. Delivery has begun and all possible steps are being taken to expedite matters.

    Federated Malay States (Toddy Shop Licences).
    Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been directed to an enactment recently passed by the Federal Council of the Federated Malay States to amend the Excise enactments of 1908 and 1909; whether he is aware that the amending enactment transfers the control of the issue of toddy shop licences

    221
    from the licensing board to the Resident or his delegate; whether he can give the reasons for this change; and whether he will state what arrangements have been made under the new enactment for the consultation of local opinion as to the number and situation of licences?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative, though I would point out that the resident is bound by the law to consult the Licensing Board before granting exclusive rights to sell toddy. I presume that the change has been made for administrative convenience. Local opinion, as I have pointed out, must under the terms of the law be consulted before any exclusive right is granted.

    British West Indies.
    Mr. POINTERasked what preparations are now being made or considered in the British West Indian Islands to cope with the expected development of ship ping in the Caribbean Sea consequent upon the opening of the Panama Canal; and whether the Colonial Office has been asked for or has tendered advice or assist ance to enable our Crown Colonies to make full and adequate provision?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I may remind my hon. Friend that I have already stated, in reply to a question on the 15th October last, that the Government of Jamaica had purchased a site abutting on Kingston Harbour, in order that it might be placed in a better position to deal with any demand for coaling, docking, or repairing facilities. I have since learned that a Canadian syndicate is negotiating with the Island Government, with a view to the provision of such facilities. Harbour improvement schemes for Port of Spain, Trinidad, and St. George's, Grenada, are under consideration, and proposals have been made for the establishment of oil bunkering stations in Barbados and St. Lucia. I have been in frequent communication with the Colonial Governments and with my technical advisers in regard to the questions to which my hon. Friend refers.

    House of Commons (Tape Machine).
    Mr. RENDALLasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that there is only one tape machine in the House; that that machine is in the Members' Cloak Room and can therefore only be conveniently seen by Members on their way in and
    222
    out, and that that machine is hired from a news agency which does not furnish reports of speeches and other matters as fully as the machines of other companies; whether the speech of the right hon. Member for Bootle at Ashton did not appear on the tape at all though it was to-be read on the Exchange Telegraph Company's tape machine at most of the clubs on the evening of its delivery; and whether the First Commissioner of Works can see his way to furnish the House, with at least as good a tape machine as that to be found in the Foreign Office and principal clubs, and, if possible, to place it in the Library or in some other central spot?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: There is only one automatic news recording machine in, the House of Commons. The news supplied is, I am assured, as full and authentic as that supplied by any other agency. On the occasion mentioned by the hon. Member the report of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bootle was, owing to a delay in transmission which has been the subject of correspondence between the agency and the Postmaster-General, not received until after the House had risen. The machine at present in the House of Lords is identical with the one in the Members' Cloak Room and worked by the same wire.
    Mr. RENDALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) about a week ago was also very badly reported, by which inconvenience and distress was caused to Members of the Opposition?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I am non aware of that.

    Repair of Fences (Monmouthshire).
    Mr. RICHARDSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the controversy between the Monmouthshire County Council and the Ebbw Vale Urban District Council respecting the liability to repair the fences at the sides of the county council main roads within the area of the district council; whether, as both authorities disclaim the liability to repair and the lives of the public are seriously endangered, he can decide the matter at issue; and whether, if he is unable to do this, he will inform the inhabitants of the district who are exposed to this danger what steps they can take to secure the immediate repair of these fences?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): My attention has been called to this matter, but it is not one which I have any power to decide. Other interests besides those of the local authorities may be involved, and I do not think I ought to advise upon a question which can only be decided in the Courts.

    Headlights (Motor Vehicles).
    Captain MURRAYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider the advisability of prohibiting the use of dazzling head lights on motor vehicles in the streets of London?
    Mr. BURNS: The matter is at present receiving my consideration.

    Elementary School Teachers (Pensions).
    Viscount HELMSLEYasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has yet decided on the claims of elementary school teachers superannuated prior to April, 1912, for an in crease in their pensions?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): I understand that the Departmental Committee, appointed last year, will not be in a position for some little time to say whether the money at my disposal will be exhausted by the improvements made by the Act of 1912 in the benefits payable under the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act of 1898. Any decision as to the teachers referred to in the question must necessarily be postponed until the Committee have reported.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any idea when the Committee will report?
    Mr. PEASE: I believe there has been some unfortunate delay in making the appointment of actuaries, and I am not very sanguine that they will report very speedily. I have been in communication with the Chairman, who has given me that impression.

    Dilapidations Act.
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Dilapidations Act, 1871, is repealed by the Established Church (Wales) Bill; and, if so, to what extent?
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The provisions of this Act will remain in force as a matter of contract unless the Disestablished Church by its new constitution sees fit to change any or all of them.

    Telegraph and Telephone Services.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Postmaster-General what steps have been or will be taken to bring the hours of attendance of night (male) telephonists in London, recently transferred to the Post Office service, into line with the Post Office standard without resort to overtime; and if he can state whether the questions under consideration have included the advisability, or otherwise, of setting aside the recommendation of the Hobhouse Committee that women should not as a rule be employed later than 8.15 p.m.?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The alteration involved the training of about 100 additional night operators, which has necessarily occupied a considerable time. It is hoped, however, that the whole of the additional force will have been trained and assigned to the various exchanges before the end of March. In consequence of difficulties to which the rigid application of the Hob-house Recommendation referred to would have given rise, it was decided as far back as 1908 that, when necessary and if circumstances were favourable, the hours of women's attendance might be extended to 9.15 p.m. This arrangement is now in force at a few London exchanges. In three exchanges where attendances extending beyond 9.15 p.m. were in force under the National Company's system it has not yet been possible to abolish them. It is hoped, however, to do so in the course of a few days.
    Mr. GUY WILSONasked the Post master-General whether he is aware of the inconvenience that has been caused to the city of Hull through the breakdown of the telegraphic and telephonic service owing to the recent snowstorm; and whether he will take immediate steps to have the cables installed in the pipes which have already been laid unground?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Central Hull.
    Mr. R. HARCOURT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether all the admirable economic arguments which he advanced last night do not apply equally to Dundee and Aberdeen?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Certainly they do apply.
    Mr. R. HARCOURT: Then why do you not apply them?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Because the circumstances are quite different.
    Mr. MACPHERSONasked the Post master-General when the rural telephone party-line for the Alness district of Ross-shire, which has been under consideration for some time, is likely to be granted?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Under the rural party-line conditions there should be Seven subscribers at £3 10s. a year for a line of the length required in this case. There are, however, only five prospective subscribers in the Alness district. I should be pleased to proceed with the work at Alness if the five subscribers would undertake to pay between them the amount of seven subscriptions of £3 10s. per annum.

    Mails to Kames, Kyles of Bute.
    Mr. WATTasked the Postmaster- General who has the contract for carrying mails to Kames, Kyles of Bute; whether he is aware that the traders of that place are inconvienced by the letters being delivered late in the day; that the Glasgow and South-Western Company would be willing to run an evening steamer down and morning steamer up if they were given part of the mail contract; and that this would be a great advantage otherwise to the people there?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: David Mac-Brayne, Limited, hold the contract for carrying mails to Kames. I am having inquiry made on the other points in the hon. Member's question, and I will acquaint him with the result.

PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTION.
Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether the Government have noticed the verdict of a jury on Mon day—
Mr. SPEAKER: That is not an urgent question.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  TELLERS FOR DIVISIONS.
  Mr. KING: I beg to ask, Mr. Speaker, a question relative to an incident which occurred at the end of the second Division yesterday afternoon, when only three Tellers appeared at the Table to announce the result. After a short period of suspense, Mr. Chairman decided to accept the figures from three of the Tellers, one being absent. I wish to ask whether there is any precedent for this, and whether you can give any ruling or direction to prevent any recurrence of this irregularity?
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is a precedent which I recollect very well, because I happened to be Chairman of Ways and Means at that time. I think it was in August, 1895. One of the Tellers absented himself, and did not appear at the Table to report the numbers; and I may take the opportunity now of repeating what I said on that occasion—that is, I informed the hon. Member—the defaulter—that it is his duty as Teller to remain within the House after he has told the numbers and not go outside the House until he has reported the numbers to the House. I regret that the incident should have occurred again yesterday. I think that after this statement hon. Members will take care to appear at the Table to report the numbers before they go into the Lobby or elsewhere. This can only have happened by the inadvertance or forgetfulness of the hon. Member in question.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister if he can now make a statement as to the business for the rest of the Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER: When the House has concluded all the stages of the Established Church (Wales) Bill and the Franchise and Registration Bill—which we hope to do by 12th February—we shall ask the House to consider the Lords Amendments to the Temperance (Scotland) Bill, and we shall take some necessary Supplementary Estimates. Apart from one or two non-controversial measures, which we hope will pass by general agreement, there are two Bills, one of them of a more or less controversial nature, which the Government think it their duty to get through
  246
  before the Session closes. I refer to the Trade Unions Bill and the Railways Bill, the latter introduced in fulfilment of a. Government pledge, and which I hope may be regarded as non-controversial. In order to abridge the length of the Session, and to consult the general convenience of the House, the Government suggest that these two Bills might be taken after 10.30 in the evening, on the understanding that the proceedings will not be prolonged on any night to a late hour. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Does the right hon. Gentleman really suppose that, the Trade Unions Bill can go through under such conditions? May I ask if he has made no provision for the day he promised for the discussion of the India Office Finance contract?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I did not mention that, because I was only dealing with legislation, but that promise will be fulfilled. As regards the other question, it is really a matter for the general convenience of the House. If the suggestion I have made—it is only a suggestion—that we should take these Bills after 10.30 is not adopted, the result, of course, will be that the House will have to sit longer, and it is really in the general interest of the House itself that I have made the suggestion.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will realise that, however anxious we may be for holidays, we are also anxious that the Trade Unions Bill should be properly discussed. I should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman's idea is as to the time we shall have for the recess after the end of this Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER: If the suggestion I have made be adopted, I should hope that we shall get a recess not later than the 19th February, or perhaps the 20th—I will not pledge myself—until 13th March. Of course, if the suggestion be not accepted, the length of the Session will be prolonged.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure we all wish to get as much information as possible. How much Supply does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take, and is it his intention that the Session should not begin until 13th March?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Purely necessary Supplementary Estimates.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: How many days?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say how many days at this moment. I hope it will be a very short time.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Will the Supplementary Estimates not require a Consolidated Fund Bill during the present Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
  Colonel WILLIAMS: Is there any hope of giving a day for the Public Accounts Committee this Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid not.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I do not know whether this is the time to raise a point as to what the Prime Minister has said. The questions which have been asked the right Gentleman suggest matters of the greatest importance and magnitude. I understand that his proposal is that the new Session should begin on the 13th of March. Good Friday is on the 21st March. Therefore, the King's Speech will last the whole time before Good Friday. It has always lasted a week, and unless there are specially few subjects to discuss in connection with the action of the Government, I presume it will last a week on this occasion, and any Supplementary Estimates not passed in the course of the present Session will have to be got. It is incredible in conformity with constitutional usage that all this should be done.
  The PRIME MINISTER: There are no such Supplementary Estimates.
  Mr. BALFOUR: All the great questions of policy will have to be discussed, and Vote A and Vote I will have to be got, and also the Income Tax Bill.
  The PRIME MINISTERS: I do not know whether that is a question; but assuming that it is a question, if the right hon. Gentleman refers to what happened in 1895, and in a later Session in which he himself was responsible for the business of the House, he will see that the same problems were substantially solved in this way.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Will the Supplementary Estimates include the £50,000 allocated for the Insurance Act in Ireland?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that.
  Mr. CASSEL: Will it include the money for medical benefit under the Insurance Act?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member must give me notice of that.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Do I understand that all the Supplementary Estimates for this financial year will be taken together 'with the necessary Consolidated Fund Bill in this Session and not in the next?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, they must be.

  BILL PRESENTED.
    INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.
    "To amend the Law relating to Intermediate Education in Ireland." Presented by Mr. BIRRELI; to be read a second time To-morrow (Wednesday), and to be printed. [Bill 351.]

  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
  Further considered in Committee.
  FOURTEENTH ALLOTTED DAY.—[Progress, 20th January.]
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.

    CLAUSE 23.—(Supplemental Provisions as to Burial Grounds.)
    (1) Nothing in this Act shall during the incumbency of an existing incumbent of an ecclesiastical parish—

    (a) affect any powers or rights with respect to burials in the burial ground of that parish, including the consecrated portion of any burial ground provided under the Burial Acts, 1852 to 1906, or affect any enactment requiring or authorising a notice or certificate of any burial to be given to the incumbent; or

    (b) affect the right of any existing clerk or sexton to fees in respect of such burials.

    (2) The vesting of any burial ground under this Act shall be without prejudice to any existing public and private rights of burial therein.
    (3) Where any burial ground which, under this Act, is transferred to any authority (whether a burial board, council, chairman of a parish meeting and overseers, or trustees) adjoins a church vested

    249
    in the representative body, then after the determination of the incumbency of the existing incumbent—

    (a) the burial ground shall be held subject to a right or way in the representative body, and the clergy and congregation attending the church, and such other persons as may resort thereto for the purpose of Divine worship, or of repairing the church, or for any other lawful purpose; and

    (b) no funeral shall be allowed to take place during the usual time of the ordinary services in the church, and such other regulations shall be made as may be found necessary to prevent any interference, by persons attending funerals, with the clergy or congregation attending the church; and

    (c) any road or path through the burial ground to the church shall be kept in good and sufficient repair.

    (4) Subject as aforesaid, every such burial ground shall after the determination of the incumbency of the existing incumbent be held for the same purposes and subject to the same rules and regulations as if the Burial Acts, 1852 to 1906, were in force in the area of the authority by which the burial ground is to be administered, and as if it were a burial ground provided under those Acts, and those Acts, so far as is consistent, with the tenor thereof, and with the provisions of this Act, shall apply accordingly:
    Provided that where any such burial ground is under this Act transferred to the chairman of the parish meeting and overseers of a rural parish the necessary steps shall forthwith be taken for a constitution of a burial authority for the parish.
    Sir A. CRIPPShad given notice of an Amendment in Sub-section (1), after the word "shall" ["nothing in this Act shall"], to leave out the words "during the incumbency of an existing incumbent of an ecclesiastical parish."
    The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment is not in order, as it would negative what the Committee has already decided in Subsection (1) of Clause 8.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: On a point of Order. May I submit that this has nothing to do with what has passed before. It has to do with powers and rights and has nothing to do with the vesting Clauses under them.
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member looks at Clause 8, Sub-section (1), paragraph (b) he will see that this Amendment would negative entirely the decision come to on that occasion.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: What was dealt with, in Clause 8 was the transfer of the property to different bodies, but this deals with certain rights and provides that during the incumbency they are vested in the existing incumbent.
    The CHAIRMAN: So far as that point is concerned if it is raised it can be dealt with on the next Amendment to leave out Sub-section (2).
    4.0 P.M.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: It may be sufficient to raise the point to leave out Sub-section (2), but that Sub-section only provides that "the vesting of any burial ground under this Act shall be without prejudice to any existing public and private rights of burial therein. That is an entirely different matter from what is dealt with in Clause 23, Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), which deals with "any powers or rights with respect to burials in the burial ground of that parish "—that is to say, the powers and rights with respect to burials. Those rights would not have anything to do with public or private rights, which would coexist whether you had the control in one hand or in another. Therefore the powers with respect to burial have nothing to do with the burial ground or with public and' private rights.
    The CHAIRMAN: The point would come up on Sub-section (2). Sub-section (1) makes provision during the existing incumbency, and Sub-section (3) deals with-what is to happen after the determination of the incumbency.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I am sorry to be persistent, but it does not seem so clear to me. I quite agree that the question of vesting the property was dealt with under Clause 8. That is over. Then under Clause 23 there are two distinct matters. One has regard to powers and rights with respect to burial after that change has been made. That is one point. The other question, which is a definite one under Sub-section (3), is as regards the particular churchyard, or adjoining churchyard, and that is dealt with in a particular way. I cannot press the point any further, but I suggest that the first part of Clause 23 is

    251
    really distinct, and deals with a matter distinct either from Clause 8 or the subsequent portions of Clause 23.
    The CHAIRMAN: It appears to me that if the hon. and learned Member's Amendment were carried it would make the decision of the Committee on Clause 8 of practically no effect.
    Mr. HOARE: May I, on the point of Order, put this consideration? Clause 8 transferred the property of the incumbent during his lifetime. That is all done. But my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment does not deal with the property at all. The property is in hand of the burial authority, and the Amendment deals purely with the rights that will exist while the property is in the hands of 1he other body. The two points are quite distinct. Clause 8 deals with the properly irrespective of whose hands the property happened to be in.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have examined the point very carefully, and the Amendment would, in effect, undo what was done by Clause 8.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
    I move this in the absence of my Noble Friend (Viscount Wolmer). The point, as I understand—the Home Secretary will tell me if I am right—dealt with in Subsection (2), is not as regards any general power or right with respect to burial, but whether the existing public and private interests of burial therein are to be affected by this Bill. If I may, I will put it to him in this way: Supposing there is a private right of burial in a reserve part of a churchyard or a burial ground, if I follow aright the reading of Sub-section (2), that right cannot be affected by the passing of the Bill into an Act of Parliament. Also, if I follow aright the wording of Sub-section (2), when you talk about the existing public right of burial therein you mean such a right as existed in regard to any particular burial ground before this Act had passed. If, of course, it is limited in that way, if that is the real limitation, then, so far as I am concerned, I should not desire, naturally enough, to cut out a limitation of that kind as regards the right of burial held by any private individual in a particular part of a burial ground. I want to know particularly whether it goes further than that. I apprehend that the vesting of any burial
    252
    ground as a property does not alter the existing public rights or private rights which at the present time, for instance, are vested in the incumbent. It only means so far as* representatives of a deceased person desire that he should be buried in a particular burial ground, that then his burial should be subject to the same rights as it would have been if this Act had not passed. Of course, limited in that form I should not care personally to carry my objection any further, but is that right? I want this to be made quite clear. If it is limited in that way, then it does not in any way affect any rights which the incumbent now has, as regards the general powers for burial, which, of course, are entirely apart and have nothing to do with the person in whom the property is vested. It is common ground, I think the Home Secretary will recognise, that the vesting of the property in the burial ground is quite distinct from the control of burial, and if this Subsection is merely to preserve the existing rights of burial, so far as I am concerned I should not carry my opposition further to Sub-section (2).
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I am advised that the hon. and learned Member has stated the construction of this Sub-section quite accurately. On the vesting of the property in any burial authority, Sub-section (2) preserves all existing rights. This Sub-section might be considered not to be necessary, but it is put in by way of precaution. Clause 8, Sub-section (2) declares that existing rights are preserved, save as may be otherwise provided by this Act. Inasmuch as Clause 8 deals with burial rights, these words are inserted by way of precaution. I think that what the hon. and learned Gentleman has stated is strictly right.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I wish to ask the Home Secretary what those rights are.
    Mr. McKENNA: Rights of burial, only rights of burial.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I realise that they are burial rights, but I want to ask a more specific question. So far as I am aware, any parishioner has a right to burial in the churchyard—that is to say, in consecrated ground. Will he have exactly the same right after this

    253
    Bill is passed? I want to know what becomes of the theory of Disestablishment. You are really compelling the Church to undertake certain duties which it does now because it is an Established Church, and you are compelling the Church to perform those duties even though the Church has ceased to be Established. Let me put another point. I think I am right in saying that the bishop is under an obligation to consecrate a part of the cemetery, or any addition to the churchyard. Is that right preserved? Is that duty preserved? If so, I want to know how it is to be justified. Here, again, you will be putting compulsion upon an officer of what has ceased to be an Established Church to carry out certain duties. Are you putting that compulsion upon him? If not, we ought to know what the rights and duties are. One of the rights existing now is the right of every parishioner to be buried in consecrated ground, and he can be buried in the churchyard, and has a common law right to be so buried. It seems to me that you have got the thing into an absolute tangle; we do not know where we are in the least; and, while you profess to free the Church from all kinds of liabilities, you are, at all events as regards the burial ground, maintaining a number of duties and liabilities which attach to the Church at the present time. I regret very much that we were unable to discuss the first Amendment on the Paper, but, as we could not, the point has been raised on the present Amendment. I think we have a right to know a little more definitely what are those rights and duties.
    Mr. McKENNA: There are no duties. The Sub-section does not contain a word about duties. It refers to certain rights of parishioners to be interred in the churchyard.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: It seems to me if there is a right belonging parishioners there must be some corresponding duty on the part of the Church. I do not see how you are to divorce them.
    Mr. McKENNA: This Clause makes no duty of the Church or any officer of the Church. The churchyard is parish property, of which certain officers of the Church have been the trustees. Hereafter, when this parish property is vested in a burial authority, the same will be subject to all existing rights of parishioners to be buried in a particular plot of land.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: There is a difficulty which probably the right hon. Gentleman may be able to clear up in regard to the rights of parishioners or the inhabitants of the parish. The parish in origin was certainly ecclesiastical, though it is quite true it has been used for civil purposes since. But if you destroy the Church altogether, if you Disestablish her altogether, do you not destroy the parish altogether also, at any rate as far as it is in ecclesiastical area? It seems to me exceedingly doubtful whether there is anything left to the parishioner at all. I took the trouble to look at a well-known text-book on the subject to see what the rights are, and I find it says:—
    "Every parishioner or inhabitant of a parish, and every person dying within the parish, has the right of burial in the parish churchyard or burial ground.
    That is true, but that depends whether the parish is existing. The right of the parishioner depends on the existence of the parish, and if the parish does not exist there can be no right of a parishioner. The matter is one of very considerable doubt, and is one which is not dealt with in this Bill. One would have expected some Clause saying that parishes for the purposes of this Bill would still exist, though for ecclesiastical purposes they would not. I confess it is a matter of very great doubt whether anyone would have the right to be buried in the parish churchyard after this Bill is passed. Whether that be so or not, one thing is certainly clear, and that is that this particular Subsection is unnecessary if Sub-section (2) of Clause 8 is to remain, because it is merely repeating in respect of burial ground what has been already put in the Bill in respect of the whole Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said it does, not retain or affect the duties of the bishops to consecrate. Surely he is wrong. The duty of the bishop he owes to someone; it may be to the Crown or to the people. I do not know how you will enforce it. I suppose there is something in the nature of maintenance on some similar basis as in the Ecclesiastical Courts that depends on the right of the Crown to maintain that duty, and therefore the right will be preserved.
    Mr. McKENNA: Those rights are rights of burial.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: It is not so said.
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: That may be.so, and therefore my observation is really confined to the first proposition, namely, as

    255
    to whether the right of the parishioner is preserved and if a parishioner still exists. I ask does a parishioner still exist, and, if he does, does he exist for all purposes? If he exists for burial purposes, are we to take it that he exists for all other purposes? Is he to have all the existing rights in the Church, to the ministrations of the clergy, and all the rest of it? What rights are maintained and what rights are not? I quite agree it is not very convenient to ask these questions on this Amendment, but we are in this difficulty, that we never discussed Clause 8, Sub-section (2), and we never found out what really was intended to be preserved by that Section, and we have never been told yet by the Government what they do mean by Disestablishing all connection between State and Church, and what common law and Statute laws are really repealed. They have always resisted any attempt to define those laws. They have these general phrases. We cannot get from them what it is is destroyed, and what it is is left, and that is what we want to know. I do think, in the interests of everybody, Nonconformists as well as Churchmen, that it is desirable we should really know who are parishioners under this Bill, and what rights they have, not only in the churchyard, but in the Church itself. It seems to me that this is a crucial and excellent instance of testing the extent of the knowledge of the Government of their own Bill.
    Mr. HOARE: Let me put a concrete case. One of the first results of the Disen-dowment portion of the Bill will be that the Church will have to reorganise its system in Wales altogether, and it seems most probable that they will do what they often had to do before when they have been in an impoverished condition, amalgamate several parishes. What is going to happen then, and who is to say who is a parishioner—that is, as my Noble Friend remarked, if the parochial system still goes on at all. I should have certainly thought that the parochial system, as an ecclesiastical system, has been destroyed and irrevocably broken up over and over again by the Clauses that we have already passed. Take another point. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said that we were only dealing with rights, and that there were, no duties involved in this particular Sub-section. Is that so? I own I speak as a layman, but it is my opinion that the rights of the parishioner do involve corresponding
    256
    duties on the incumbent. Take a particular instance. Is it not the fact that the incumbent is bound to read the Burial Service over a parishioner who is a member of the Church of England? That is only one instance, and no doubt there may be many others which one cannot go into now. I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong when he says that there are no duties involved in this particular Sub-section. As my Noble Friend stated, this is one of the cases where we are left absolutely in the dark as to what is meant or is not meant by the rights of the parishioners. It only bears out what we have said time after time on this side of the House, namely, that we should have had a specific list set out in a Schedule to this Bill stating what Acts are being repealed, for most of these parochial questions do depend on specific Acts of Parliament, and how far they are repealed. I think we should have some answer from the right hon. Gentleman as to what he really means by these parochial obligations going on after the parochial system will probably have been destroyed.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): The Noble Lord was right when he pointed out that this Sub-section is already included in Clause 8. On the other hand, we want to make it perfectly clear that there shall be no dispute on this point. Speaking as a Nonconformist, I regard it as a very important point. At present, as I understand the matter, there is a right in the parishioner and in the inhabitant and non-parishioner who dies in the parish to be buried in the parish churchyard. That is my contention, and I think it is right. The hon. Member who spoke last said that where there is a right there is a duty. The right is as against the clergyman and the churchwarden at present. That right can be enforced against the clergyman and churchwarden. What is to become of that right under this Bill? Without going into controversial matters as to whether the right over the churchyard is in the incumbent or in the parishioners, at any rate when the churchyard has been transferred from the incumbent or parishioner to the burial authority we want to make it perfectly clear as against this new burial authority that the right of the parishioner and of the non-parishioner who dies in the parish is preserved. I said I spoke to some extent as a Nonconformist in this matter. I daresay there are hundreds of

    257
    chapels in Wales where there are no churchyards connected with the chapels. The parish where I was brought up was one of those. Nonconformists are buried in those churchyards, and many of us, of course, have got certain rights there. This is a portion of the Bill about which 1 feel most strongly, and Nonconformists want to put this question beyond all questions so that, whatever happens in the future, we shall have the rights under the new burial authority to be buried in the churchyard after Disestablishment. I am sure hon. Members will understand and sympathise with us in our desire to put this matter beyond all controversy.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: It is just as important to Churchmen as to Nonconformists.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I quite admit that, but the Noble Lord himself mentioned Nonconformists. I accept that, and I say it is important for us that these rights shall be safeguarded. As far as churchyards are concerned, when there is no legally Established Church they are vested in the burial authority. We are most anxious that this right shall be absolutely clear—that is, the right of the parishioners and of all inhabitants and non-parishioners who die in the parish to have their old common law right to be buried in the churchyard, and that that should be preserved under this Bill.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman, although quite lucid in the part of the Bill with which he dealt, omitted to deal with several points raised. In the first place, he has not answered what I took to be a specific question put by the Noble Lord, namely, what, after this Bill is passed, constitutes a parishioner. Take a perfectly simple concrete case. I suppose there are a great many cases in which the civil and ecclesiastical parishes do not coincide. I am not an expert in this or any other branch of law, but I presume that the right of burial as it deals with ecclesiastical matters is settled by Ecclesiastical Courts.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Not always.
    Mr. BALFOUR: There may be doubtful cases, but the hon. and learned Gentleman who very courteously and very properly threw in that interruption will be able to answer this specific question. Take the case where the ecclesiastical and civil parish are not the same, and where a man who is in the ecclesiastical parish, but not
    258
    in the civil parish, dies after this Bill has passed; has he the right, based upon the ecclesiastical parish, to be buried in the parish churchyard, or, in other words, is the ecclesiastical parish maintained as well as the civil parish after this Bill has become law? I do not suppose these cases are very common, and I do not suppose, when they do occur, there is likely to be a dispute, but there may be a dispute, as it is a cantankerous world, and the amount of feeling they give rise to when they do occur, and the extreme bitterness they cause, is out of all proportion to the importance of the case. I think it should be made absolutely clear whether the parishioner is the civil parishioner or the ecclesiastical parishioner. The second question which has been put in the course of the Debate, and to which again no answer has been vouchsafed, is when a member of the Church of England dies, is he to have the right to the English burial service or not? He undoubtedly has, of course, the right to be buried in the parish churchyard. That he shares with Nonconformists and everybody who lives in the parish. He has got other rights than those now; he has got the right, as I understand, to require the incumbent to read the burial service. Is that right to go on? I think that is a question really again which ought to be settled. I quite admit that the cases where there would be a dispute are likely to be very few, and I hope so, but how unfortunate it would be if, through our lax legislative methods, we left the question undetermined.
    The third question as to which I would like to be informed is one which has also been put in the course of this Debate. I gather, and it has not been contradicted by the Home Secretary, that every parishioner has the right to be buried in the churchyard so long as there is room. I gather, when there is no room in the churchyard there is machinery which compels the churchyard to be extended, and I gather that when it is so extended there is machinery which requires the bishop to consecrate the added ground. All those things are now in existence, and, putting all those things together, it is clear that every parishioner who desires has this right to be buried in consecrated ground in every parish in Wales. Are you, or are you not, interfering with that machinery? Do you, or do you not, retain your power of requiring the proper

    259
    ecclesiastical authority to consecrate any additional ground that may become necessary to an existing burial ground? If you are keeping in operation that part of the machinery, you are throwing upon the officials of the Disestablished Church duties which you could not throw upon any member of a Nonconformist church, and you are pro tanto keeping the Church Established so far as these duties are concerned. If, on the other hand, you are not doing that, I do not know that any bishop is likely to refuse to consecrate ground actually required for the extension of a graveyard, but you are altering the rights of the members of the Church of England. You are depriving such members of a right which they now possess, namely, the right of being buried in consecrated ground. These are three quite specific questions. I do not for a moment suggest that any one of them is likely often to be raised, but let us frame the Bill without any loophole for those most unhappy controversies which have occasionally arisen in the past—I do not say through whose fault—in connection with the last rites of the dead, and which from the very fact that they have arisen at that particular moment have produced feelings of impassioned resentment on the one side or the other, the recurrence of which it is our business if we can to prevent.
    Mr. McKENNA: The questions put by the right hon. Gentlemen deal with difficulties which exist mainly because he has invented, quite innocently, duties with regard to the Church which the Church does not possess at the present time. He put the question: Will a bishop, after this Bill is passed, be compelled to consecrate ground in the event of an extension of a churchyard? I am not aware that a bishop is compelled to consecrate ground now. [An HON. MEMBER: "Certainly."] The only compulsion that exists now is that a burial authority which refuses to allow any part of its ground to be con secrated can be compelled to consecrate a certain portion, but there is no power to compel a bishop to consecrate the ground. Of course, it is quite obvious that the exercise of such a power would never be needed. The right hon. Gentle man also said that the duty now exists for a clergyman of the Church of England to read the burial service over a member of the Church of England who is buried in unconsecrated ground—
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: Anybody who is entitled to Christian burial.
    Mr. McKENNA: And whose legal representatives desire that he should be buried according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England. That is quite true.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I think the right hon. Gentleman somewhat understates the right. It extends to everyone who has the right of Christian burial.
    Mr. McKENNA: I am dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's question. Under the Act of 1880—
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: No, the common law.
    Mr. McKENNA: As regards the right to burial according to the particular rites and ceremonies which the representatives of a deceased person may require, that right depends on the Act of 1880. According to the common law every person has a right to be buried with a religious ceremony. That religious ceremony under the common law will be the religious ceremony of the Church of England and under the Act of 1880, the legal representatives of any deceased person have the right to ask and to obtain the services of a clergyman of the particular denomination that they require. The right hon. Gentleman put to me this point, which appears on the face of it to be an extremely good one. The legal representatives of a deceased member of the Church of England can require the services of a parish clergyman for the purpose of reading the burial service over the grave. Will a member of the Church of England or anybody else have the right to demand such services of a clergyman of the Church of England when the Church is Disestablished? That would appear, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to throw a duty upon the clergyman of the Disestablished Church which does not equally attach to the minister of any other free Church. Whether that duty will or will not exist in the case of a clergyman of the Disestablished Church is a question of the construction of ecclesiastical law. Hereafter ecclesiastical law will not exist as law in Wales. Supposing the governing body of the Disestablished Church hereafter determine as a rule of that Church that the whole ecclesiastical law shall continue, and that the clergymen of the Disestablished Church shall be bound to read the Church of England Service over the grave of any deceased person whose legal

    261
    representatives ask for it, then the clergy will be bound to do so, but they will be bound to do so by the free will of the governing body of their own Church. If, on the other hand, the governing body of the Disestablished Church declare that that part of ecclesiastical law, not only shall no longer operate as law in Wales, but shall not be the subject of law by contractual arrangement between the members of the Church, then the clergy of the Church will not be at all bound; they will be as free as the ministers of any other free Church to read the service or not, as they please. The other point put by the right hon. Gentleman was a very ingenious one with regard to the parish. Who is a parishioner? The point was raised also by the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil). This Bill does not touch the existence of parishes.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to civil parishes or to ecclesiastical parishes?
    Mr. McKENNA: Ecclesiastical parishes. The Noble Lord's argument is that an ecclesiastical parish is the creature of ecclesiastical law. Ecclesiastical law is abolished as law under this Bill. Therefore, with the abolition of ecclesiastical law as law necessarily goes the abolition of the ecclesiastical parish. That does not follow at all. The Noble Lord might as well say that a bishop, whom we know as a bishop in Wales, exists as a product of ecclesiastical law. This Bill abolishes ecclesiastical law as law; therefore, the bishop is abolished.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: So he is.
    Mr. McKENNA: No, he is not.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: What I mean is, abolished from a legal point of view. The bishop as bishop will have no legal rights under this Bill, and the members of a parish as a parish will have no legal right or legal privileges.
    Mr. McKENNA: A parish as a parish has no rights or legal privileges now. It is a geographical area, and the geographical area will remain untouched by this Bill. The parishioners will be, presumably, the inhabitants of the parish. The inhabitants of the parish are the inhabitants of a geographical area, and this Bill does not touch those geographical areas, which, as a matter of fact, at this moment are historic. The question is asked. In whom does the right now lie to be buried in the
    262
    parish churchyard? Does it lie in the parishioner of the ecclesiastical parish or in the parishioner of the civil parish? The short answer is that the right vests in the parishioner of the ecclesiastical parish. In the case of an ecclesiastical parish which is divided into two, I think always, certainly in most cases, the parishioners in the daughter parish retain the right to be buried in the parish churchyard of the mother parish. Whatever rights and duties, whatever difficulties there may be at this moment with regard to the distinction between ecclesiastical and civil parishes, those rights, difficulties, and duties will remain after this Bill is passed precisely as they are to-day. We do not create any new rights or new difficulties. All we say under this Sub-clause is that whatever those rights are at the date of Disestablishment, those rights in the parishioner to be buried in the churchyard shall remain. As I think we are all agreed that those rights ought to be retained, I would suggest that it would be desirable, if we could, to get to a general discussion on the next Sub-clause which raises the whole question.
    Sir ALFRED CRIPPS: I think that the difficulty in regard to this matter is increased because we have not discussed the earlier part of this Clause. The Home Secretary will there see that existing powers and rights with respect to burial are saved only during the incumbency of an existing incumbent of an ecclesiastical parish. Will there not be a necessary inference from that that when the incumbency of an existing incumbent of an ecclesiastical parish comes to an end, these powers and rights with respect to burial will no longer be as they were before this Bill was passed? What we have been discussing really is not merely the right to burial per se.That is one thing. The Home Secretary says that the rights and powers with respect to burials as they were in the past will be preserved in the future. That is clearly wrong. As the Bill stands, those rights are only to be reserved in the future during existing incumbencies. On reading the Bill as it stands, I think that the legal effect of this Sub-section must be contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman has stated his view to be. Take, for instance, the question regarding the burial service. He is quite right when he says that when we talk about the right to the burial service we mean only that, under the existing law of the Ecclesiastical Courts, in the last resort

    263
    where there is an excommunicate the clergyman does not fulfil his duty towards the parishioner by reading the burial service. So it will stand while the existing incumbency remains. But when the existing incumbency comes to an end there is a complete change. So far from the private rights of burial in that respect being maintained, they are absolutely altered. I think the Home Secretary is right when he says that in the future it will be a question of the new constitution what rights are given to a parishioner as regards the reading of the burial service. The position will be entirely different from what it is at the present moment, unless some Clause on that point is introduced in the new constitution. We cannot deal with that at present. But the Bill seems to say under this Sub-section that the existing private rights of burial which now exist shall be retained in the future; but under the preceding part of the Clause you abolish them except during the currency of an incumbency of an existing incumbent.
    Take the case of burial, which is an exceedingly important matter. Take such a question as fees, which we know can be different as between parishioners and non-parishioners. In none of these respects, if I follow this Act aright, will the existing rights of the parishioner be retained in any way whatever. All you retain to him in this Sub-section (2) is what I may call the bare right of burial. It is not desirable at all that that burial should be under conditions which are entirely divorced from the feelings of the representatives of those concerned. There are no guarantees as regards solemnity and quiet in the churchyard as exist at the present time. I ask the Home Secretary—I quite appreciate what he said upon this point; he recognises that point frankly—does he mean to reserve these rights or not, or does he mean to put parishioners and non-parishioners in a worse position in the future than now? As the Bill stands, the parishioner is certainly in a worse position. As regards the other point, as to whether the word "parishioner" has to apply to an ecclesiastical or a civil parishioner, I think that is a most difficult and complicated matter of law. It is certainly a question which ought to be made quite clear on the face of the Bill itself, so that it should be impossible that difficulties in connection with it should arise in the future.
    Mr. BOOTH: I think the contribution of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London was entitled to a more sympathetic reply from the Home Secretary than it has received. I mention that in no unkind spirit, for at the same time the point which he put before the Committee I must confess was passing through my mind very rapidly, and possibly through the minds of others. It is not an ingenious point for anyone in discussing a question of this kind to call attention to the boundaries, ecclesiastical or civil, of the parish, or to the position that the parishioner will be in in the Disestablished Church; what will be his boundary then or his particular rights? The question is alive now in this country under the Established Church of England. I remember the parish in which I was born. It is a parish which has been carved out of two others owing to the growth of population. There is no burial ground there. There is at present occasionally the unedifying spectacle in the shape of letters to the public Press by the rival vicars claiming that theirs is the parish church. This all centres upon the controversy really as to who shall conduct the funerals. The case is further complicated by the fact that neither before the new parish was carved or now, are any of the boundaries in the district at all coterminous with the civil parishes. The ecclesiastical parishes largely went by groups of population; the civil parish chiefly by natural boundary and a running stream. That is in a large measure how the civil boundaries have arisen; whereas the ecclesiastical boundaries were for the convenience of certain groups of people, and their proximity to the parish church or convenience of access to it. It does seem to me that we ought not to treat as a light matter the position of any of these people: whether or not they are members of the Church. It is not merely a question for what are now called the worshippers at the Church or of Nonconformists—whose position was so very well put by the Under-Secretary—but for Church people who may not now be active members.
    I will put some cases by way of illustration of what I mean. A new vicar comes who may be High or Low, and somewhat gradually—I hope in all cases when there is a change—a change takes place in the ritual. Consequently some of the people devotedly attached to that particular church give up the service and attend

    265
    another, or go anywhere. One of the bishops dealing with this matter some time ago said, that if parishioners did not like the ritual they had the advantage of going to another church where it was different. That advice misses the point of this Clause, namely, the rights of the parishioners. There are many cases in Lancashire where the feeling between High and Low Church have been very strong, and in many cases where fairly large bodies of people have seceded or stayed away altogether upon a change of ritual. Sometimes they are lost to the Church. Sometimes they walk miles to a Church whose service they like better. In my youth I remember my father pointing out to mo on a Sunday morning people tramping miles to go to a particular parish, because of disturbances of the kind to which I have referred. I want to ask the House what is the position of these people when you come to consider their burial rights? They may, or may not, have been enrolled in the other parish. In nearly every case I venture to say the one thing which these people would cherish to their dying hour, and particularly at their dying hour, is the thought that, however much they have diverged from the particular ceremony in that Church, they will be buried with their fathers and grandfathers. I submit that to take a narrow view upon this point will cause pain and consternation in many a household where the people may not consider themselves religious, but at any rate want to know one thing: when they are laid aside it shall be by the grave of their mother or other dear, departed ones. Whether they are active members or not, or whether they are Nonconformists or not, surely we ought not to treat this matter in any way as a light matter. They should still have those same rights of burial in the ancient parish where lies the dust of their respected forefathers.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: One question I would like to ask before the Question is put, and that is as to the exact force of the word "existing." I do not want to press the Government for an answer, but I wish to call their attention to the matter. A right is a claim which an individual is capable of enforcing in a Court of Law. I know no other meaning that can be attached to it. The Bill only says "existing" rights. Is it quite certain that anyone who is not alive at the present time will have any rights under this Bill at all? They will not be rights exist-
    266
    ing at the passing of this Act; they will be rights that will come into existence after the passing of this Act, namely, when the person is born after the passing of this Act. It appears to me to be a matter in which the word "existing" ought to be struck out.
    Mr. McKENNA: I will inquire into that point.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Dudley (Sir A. Grimth-Boscawen) proposes to move to leave out Sub-section (3). I will accept that Amendment, which will give a rather broader discussion.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (3).
    In most cases the burial ground of the parish is the churchyard, unless it has been closed. If it has been closed in most cases there will be a cemetery which probably will adjoin the Church. By Clause 8 we have already decided that all churchyards and burial grounds that are still open 'are to be transferred to the Welsh Commissioners, and by them subsequently to 'the local authority. But we on this side do protest very strongly against the proposal to transfer the churchyards actually adjoining the Church. There is a great deal of feeling about that. The churchyard adjoining the Church has always been regarded as "God's Acre," practically regarded as part of the Church, and there are all kinds of associations attaching to it. It is used now not merely for burials; it Is used very often for processions which may take place in connection with the Church services. The approach to the Church lies through it. We hold very strongly that it is a grave injustice and a thing likely to be much resented if this Bill gives power that the adjoining 'churchyard should be taken away from the Church. Let me point out to the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman— though I have no doubt he is aware of it— that in the case of the Irish Act whenever a burial ground adjoined a church it was left to the representative body; it was not taken away. We have said very often that we do not accept the Irish case as a precedent on all-fours; that it is far from it; but we do think, when you come to deal with a specific point like the one as to how you are to treat the burial grounds adjoining the church, the Irish case is a precedent. Let me quote the words used

    267
    by Mr. Gladstone when he was dealing with this very point. He said:—
    "When the church was entirely surrounded by the burial ground it was impossible to separate the two, and that consideration appeared to have greater weight than the theoretical infringement of the abstract principle of religious liberty."
    He went on:—
    "The facts could not he got rid of, and it must be seen that they were not attended with practical grievance; while there would be a grievance to the Church authorities if they had not command of the site in case, for instance, of their requiring to rebuild and enlarge the church."
    It is quite easy to point out the many great inconveniences that will arise unless burial grounds adjoining the church belongs to the Church authorities. I have spoken of the approach. It is quite true that there are words in this Clause which compel the local authority to keep the roadway and the path in good repair, and secure to the church a right-of-way. We hold very strongly that rather more is wanted, and that the actual approach and the roadway to and from the churchyard ought to belong to the church itself. I do not see why that should not be the case. It may be used, not merely as the approach to the church, but also for processions and for functions of a really semi-religious nature. As to the question of repairing the church, we cannot find anything more inconvenient when the church is to be repaired: there will be scaffolding poles, and so on, upon land that does not belong to the Church authority! I do not quite know what the Government propose in relation to that, but whenever the Church authorities happen to be trying to repair the church they would be in the nature of trespassers. So far as I can judge, no provision whatever has been made to meet that point. It it quite true, when we come to the question of enlarging the church, that the Government have put an Amendment down, but it is a very remarkable one. It reads "thus:—
    "Where the use of part of the burial ground is required for the enlargement of the church, it may be so used in any case where it might lawfully have been so used, and subject to the like conditions and restrictions, as if this Act had not been passed, and the part so used shall thereupon vest in the representative body."
    What on earth does "may be so used" mean? Actually the freehold will have been vested in the local authority! Do you mean the Church to make good the trespass of using a bit of ground that
    268
    belongs to another body, and after that has been done for this piece of the churchyard to be vested in the representative body?
    5.0.p.m.
    Apparently, by some sort of French leave, the Church authority are to suddenly come down and enlarge the church; they may even double it. They may throw out porches and erect considerable buildings; they may erect side aisles and vestries, but no provision is to be made made as to how that is to be done, and the Church authority are to come down and by French leave seize a piece of property to build on. I can imagine nothing more likely to cause trouble and friction than that, and it seems to me you are driven back to the only alternative and that alternative we were not permitted to discuss because it is already decided by Clause 8, Sub-section (1), paragraph (b)At all events, we may ask that first of all that the approach to the church should vest in the representative body, and, secondly, that a sufficient space round the church should vest in the representative body, which would enable them to repair the church and if necessary to enlarge the church at some future date. At any rate, all these questions can be raised upon the discussion of the Subsection.
    The Government, it seems to me, by taking away these adjoining churchyards, are taking steps that will cause more bitterness, ill-will and rancour than any other provision in the Bill. It is practically impossible to separate, as Mr. Gladstone said, the church from the churchyard in the minds of the people. The two things are taken together and looked upon with reverence. What is true of the approach to the church is true of the churchyard, which contains the remains of the ancestors of the parishioners, and it is to my mind because the churchyard? part of the church precincts that it should not be alienated from the Church body. If it was in order to do so, I should very much prefer to move that, notwithstanding anything that occurred under Clause 8, it should be lawful for the Welsh Commissioners, or rather the local authorities, to retransfer the adjoining churchyards back to the representative body. I do not know how far such an Amendment would be in order, but in any case I am called upon now to move the omission of this Sub-section. This Sub-section makes provision as to what it is in the adjoining churchyard that is

    269
    to be transferred. I move this Amendment because I think it affords a good opportunity of discussing the whole policy of this part of the Bill. If the Government really mean what they say that they do not want to hurt the Church, and that they do not want to start all sorts of bitter memories, and if they do want to get rid of any bitterness this Bill may cause, they should be ready to meet us in a generous way in this matter, because nothing will rancour more in the minds of Welsh Churchmen than the alienating of the churchyards adjoining the churches.
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not understand that the hon. and gallant Member moves this Amendment with any desire at all that the Sub-section should be in fact omitted from the Bill, but in order to raise a discussion upon the policy of the Clause?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: And to ascertain what concession you are prepared to make.
    Mr. McKENNA: The property of the churchyard adjoining the church having been vested in the public authority under Clause 8, this Sub-Clause mitigates the evil and does not increase it, and therefore I assume the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not desire that his Amendment in its present form should be carried?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: That is perfectly true, but this is the only way in which I could raise the question, inasmuch as Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), of Clause 8 was taken without discussion.
    Mr. McKENNA: Let us now see what is the origin of this Sub-clause. In the Bill introduced in 1885 there was a long Debate on the question of granting the graveyards to local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who was then in charge of the Welsh Church Bill, promised in the course of the Debate that he would introduce Amendments in order to mitigate what was then described as a great hardship in connection with this particular Clause on the question of the churchyards which adjoin or surround the Church. This Sub-clause is introduced here in order to carry out the promise given by the then Home Secretary seventeen years ago, and we have even gone beyond the extent of his exact promise, because we have put down a further Amendment "which will enable the Church to extend the building where it is required and for that purpose to take back and to use part of the burial ground. I have looked back upon that
    270
    Debate of 1905, and I am bound to say that having read it with some care we have in this Clause gone, I will not say to the full length of what was asked for in 1895, but very near it. I ask the Committee in fairness to observe what happened. We do carry out the promise given in 1905, and we go beyond it and we introduce a new Amendment giving the Church power to get back part of the churchyard.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: That was his promise.
    Mr. McKENNA: No, he said he would consider it.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: He said that something should be done.
    Mr. McKENNA: And we have done it to the fullest, and what is the result? The hon. and gallant Gentleman gets up amidst the applause of his Friends and complains of this Amendment. I will not press this Amendment or Sub-clause, although I recognise that he does not wish me to drop it. The only point we have to consider is are we really acting fairly and doing justice between the parties? Where the churchyard adjoins the church all the parishioners of every denomination have certain rights in the churchyard. The only question we have to decide in principle is, Who ought to be the custodians of these rights? Are the custodians of these rights to be in future an irresponsible body, the governing body of the Church of England, or should the custodians be some public body? We have decided that the parishioners have substantial rights to the graveyard, and it naturally follows that those to whom the safeguarding of these rights should be committed should be a public authority. Having agreed upon that in principle, and I should think it cannot be disputed, what does the Church suffer? How do we meet its difficulty? If the churchyard is vested in the public authority not very sympathetic to the Church, perhaps the Church services might be disturbed. Immediately we put in a proviso safeguarding against any disturbance. Perhaps the public authority may not keep the right-of-way open. Immediately we put in protection for the right-of-way. We secure access for the members of the Church; we secure quiet and peace in the conduct of the Church services. What grievances do they suffer? We are told there is the sentimental grievance of the Churchman who wishes to retain his freehold of the

    271
    churchyard in which his ancestors are buried. So are the ancestors of the Nonconformists. Their ancestors are buried there as well as the Churchmen's, and they desire equally strongly to retain public rights which they share over the churchyard. If we are agreed that the proper custodian of public right is to be a public authority, can we do more than give the Church the security which we give under this Sub-clause? By the protection against all these risks, and the preservation of what I may call the amenities of the Church we think we have secured these amenities, and having done that, I submit we have done all that can be fairly asked of us.
    Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman seemed as if he really regarded my hon. and gallant Friend's speech and the moving of this Amendment as a grievance in the year 1913, I suppose against the present Prime Minister, who was Home Secretary in 1895. That is a very unique effort on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. He says that we have agreed that the churchyard should be vested in a public authority, but we have had no chance of agreeing; we have not even had a chance of discussing it at all. The right hon. Gentleman talks as if the vesting of the churchyards had been arrived at after careful consideration and Debate of all the circumstances affecting the case. There was no Debate. When he said we agreed he meant that he and his draftsmen agreed. It was not decided by the House; there was no Debate and no discussion, and although it is quite true that Clause 8 is embodied in the Bill no human being could say that the results of the joint efforts of the framers of the Bill and the Committee are embodied in the Bill. We never discussed the question of what body the churchyard should be vested in. Mr. Gladstone in the views and action he took in dealing with the Irish Church, shows the value he attached to sentiment existing in connection with the churchyards, and shows he felt that people were really touched, and touched to the quick, upon that question. The churchyard in many respects is almost part of the church, and it should not be violently taken away. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman in saying that the Nonconformists or those who do not belong to the Church not only have a legal right, but have what I may call a senti-
    272
    mental right to be buried in the churchyard. Their sentiments are as sacred and ought to be as carefully considered as the sentiments of Churchmen in this matter. I draw no distinction between Churchmen and non-Churchmen in all these matters of burial in the ancient and traditional burial grounds. I fully admit that everything a Churchman feels a Nonconformist may well feel in connection with the graves of his forefathers, and may desire as much to be laid at rest by them as any man who is a member of the Church. But while I admit that would fail, I think you cannot get away from the fact that those to whom the churchyard belongs will suffer a real loss. Do not deceive yourselves on that point; it was so felt by Mr. Gladstone in dealing with the Irish Church, and assuredly the sentiments of members of the English Church in Wales are not different from those of the members of the Irish Church across the Channel. Therefore, I think the Home Secretary has done much less than justice in his speech just now to the legitimate feelings of the Church in Wales. I agree that so far the right hon. Gentleman is justified in saying that this Sub-clause is a genuine attempt to meet the grievance, but he starts with the illegitimate premise that the House has agreed to the principle of vesting the burial ground in a non-ecclesiastical body. I do not think we have done anything of the kind. That principle, however, has been embodied in the Bill.
    The right hon. Gentleman has tried to take advantage of the known methods of the Closure, and he has been reproaching us on this side in regard to this point. I wish to point out that we have never had an opportunity of discussing this matter. The right hon. Gentleman says this sub-clause is intended to mitigate the difficulty. I go further and say that, in my opinion, this is a great and invaluable safeguard to the Church, and if you are to vest these graveyards in an alien body it is absolutely necessary to bring forward a Sub-section of this kind. I hope this arrangement will work without any friction between the public authority and the ecclesiastical authority. If there is no feeling, and they work in harmony, this arrangement, in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred, will produce no great or substantial grievance. On the other hand, I am afraid if they do not work in harmony, and if unfortunately ecclesiastical differences are brought into

    273
    the relations between the public authority and the Church authority, I am afraid you will have great difficulty and undoubtedly a great amount of friction. There is one point which, I think, the right hon. Gentleman will be ready to admit. It is provided that if the church is to be extended part of the burial ground may be taken for that purpose. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has made any provision for such interference with the burial ground as would be necessary if extensive repairs are to be undertaken in connection with the existing buildings. That is something which is more likely to occur than the extension of the buildings. That is something which is almost sure to occur from time to time, and I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman and his draftsman will consider whether they could not introduce some words which would make it impossible for a hostile public authority to be obstructive if the ecclesiastical authority desired to have reasonable access to the burial ground and such privileges as are necessary in the way of using parts of the burial ground for carrying out such work as is necessary for the proper repair of the Church buildings. I think this suggestion is entirely in conformity with the spirit of the Subsection, and although I regret the whole framework of the Bill, as we are permitting this to be done by the public authority, all we can do is to ask them to mitigate the hardship upon the Church as far as possible, and I think I have suggested a practical step with which I am sure the Government is quite sympathetic, and, if they adopt it, I think it will be a useful and a substantial improvement.
    Mr. BOOTH: I wish to support the appeal which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and I urge upon the Government the necessity of making this point more clear if it can be done. I would like to point out another way in which the churchyard might be dealt with in a sympathetic way. In the case of my own parish church we have had to cut down some trees which were obscuring the light of the chancel and the vestry windows. That is just one of those things which, if there was any difficulty, there would have to be correspondence, and meetings held and probably deputations, and those are things which might lead to friction. I should have thought that the provision in the Sub-section which gives the right of access to all persons who may resort to the churchyard for the purpose of repairing
    274
    the church would have included the right to convey materials, erect scaffolding, and so on. Perhaps there is some doubt on this point, but I appeal to the Government that it should be put beyond all doubt. With regard to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member who moved this Amendment (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen), I do not follow his argument in regard to the actual possession or ownership of the path. Ownership of the path carries with it the cost of repairs. If the authorities of the burial ground had to engage in alterations dealing with the boundary walls they might cut off a path, and it would be unpleasant if a path leading to a church was cut off by the burial ground authority and the bill sent in to the churchwardens. The only difference is that an additional cost would be put upon the churchwardens if they owned a path which would not fall upon them if they had a complete right-of-way. That right-of-way must not mean simply walking into the church and out of it. There is, for example, the Sunday school procession, which is a common feature of the anniversaries in the North of England. It certainly would be contrary to all our wishes if the church had not the right to hold those processions, not only through the churchyard, but from one boundary of the churchyard to the other, for they very often pass the graves of some well-known parishioners. This is not merely an excellent exercise for those who take part in it, but many parents watch these processions in which their own children, dressed in white, on Sundays take part. I think these processions are a very excellent feature, and if I thought that under this Bill they would not continue to have that right, I should take a very different view.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: They will have no such right.
    Mr. BOOTH: Then let us put it beyond all doubt. In regard to the right of passage through these burial grounds, let us see that the body representing the community as custodians for the common good do not take away from those who worship in the church the right to conduct their services in the same manner as they had hitherto done.
    Mr. POLLOCK: The hon. Member who has just sat down has pointed out a certain number of cases which ought to be provided for in this Bill. I want to look at this Clause as it stands and to see

    275
    whether it accomplishes the object which the Home Secretary says it purports to do. Let us take Sub-clause (b), which provides that—
    "no funeral shall be allowed to take place during the usual time of the ordinary services in the church, and such other regulations shall be made as may be found necessary to prevent any interference by persons attending funerals with the clergy or congregation attending the Church."
    Who are those regulations going to be made by? The Sub-section (3) commences with the words:—
    "Where any burial ground which, under this Act, is transferred to any authority."
    If you look at Clause 8, Sub-section (2), you will find that the authorities to which they are going to be transferred are not always the same persons. Obviously the intention is that quiet should be secured during the progress of a funeral. Who is going to make those regulations? Are they going to be made by the incumbent and the person who has the custody of the church, or the person who is probably conducting the funeral? Is it to be the person who is in charge during the time the funeral is being conducted? It would probably be for the convenience of those attending the funeral that regulation should be made, but if those regulations are to be made by the public authority and not by the incumbent, you really fail to meet the difficulty which you set out to meet. It is quite clear that some words must be put into Sub-section (b)in order to specify the authority which has to make these regulations. They ought to be made either by the incumbent or the public authority in concert with the incumbent. Let me now turn to paragraph (c) which provides:—
    "Any road or path through the burial ground to the church shall be kept in good and sufficient repair."
    Who by? Obviously, this is a question of expense. An hon. Member opposite indicated that he took a somewhat different view of this Clause, but I thought the intention was that the public authority should keep that path in repair and enable the persons to have lawful access to pass and re-pass through the churchyard. The hon. Member for Pontefract put the case of repairs being effected to the church which would probably cut up the path and
    276
    place an unfair burden upon the authority owning the burial ground. That is the way it presented itself to the hon. Member's mind. To my mind it occurs that inasmuch as the public authority is the body to whom the burial ground was transferred, they ought to keep the path in repair, and ought to allow free access over it. The fact that these two different views have presented themselves to hon. Members of this House shows that the Clause is quite ineffective for the purpose intended, and you must put in not merely a provision that the road should be kept in good and sufficient repair, but you must put in what you mean, and provide that some person has got to undertake the liability to keep the path in repair. You must provide clearly upon whom the liability and expense of keeping this road in repair is intended to fall. I think on those points we are entitled to have not only a clear answer, but words ought to be inserted which will be effective for carrying out the benevolent purpose for which the Home Secretary told us this provision was put in the Bill. Amendments ought to be put in at once, or, at any rate, the Under-Secretary ought to undertake to put in Amendments to clear up these points. Otherwise both Sub-sections (b) and (c) are really of no use at all, and do not meet the point, which I quite understand the Government desire to meet by putting in this Clause. It is a badly drafted Clause, and I only rose for the purpose of stating those points, because I am sure I shall have a sympathetic answer from the Under-Secretary.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I will answer the questions put to me by the hon. and learned Member. First of all, the words in Sub-section (b) follow the precedent of the Irish Act. There is no doubt that what we want is that the regulations should be made by the burial authority, and, if there is any doubt about that, it will be made clear.
    Mr. POLLOCK: There is a doubt.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: With regard to paragraph (c)—
    "any road or path through the burial ground to the church shall be kept in good and sufficient repair"—
    that, again, is by the burial authority. I quite appreciate the point of the hon. and learned Member that it is left rather in doubt.
    Mr. POLLOCK: It is differently interpreted on different sides of the House.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I quite appreciate it is open to discussion, and that it ought to be made clear. If one reads Sub-section (3), he will see that prima facie the burial authority ought to repair.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I read it so.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: If there is any doubt about it, it should be put right. With regard to the point of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), it is quite obvious, if there is a process of repair going on in the church, or to the church buildings, the representatives of the church should have free access for that purpose. We propose to amend the Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, so that it shall read:
    "(d) Where the use of part of the burial ground is required for the enlargement or repair of the church, it may be so used in any case where it might lawfully have been so used, and subject to the like conditions and restrictions, as if this Act had not been passed, and the part so used for the enlargement of shall thereupon vest in the representative body."
    I think that meets it, but, if there is any doubt, we can put it right on the Report stage. That is the Amendment we suggest, but, if there are any other words which will more favourably carry out the intention, we shall, of course, be prepared to consider them.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I quite recognise the spirit in which the Under-Secretary has suggested this Amendment, but I want to call the attention of the Committee to the general position, and to see what has been done by the Government both in reference to the Bill as it stands and this proposed Amendment and the alteration to it. The Home Secretary spoke as if Churchmen, in seeking to retain the churchyard as at present, were in some way seeking to trespass upon the rights of other denominations than their own. I repudiate that at once. It has been expressed very often, but I wish to express it again to make it quite clear: All the rights of all parishioners, whether Nonconformists or Churchmen, ought to be preserved, and preserved to the fullest extent possible. I think there is a difficulty in a Disestablishment Bill in this respect. Of course, whereas all non-parishioners have rights
    278
    so long as we have an Established Church, when you reduce that Church from art Established Church to a voluntary corporation, then it is hardly possible to give the same wide range of rights as the Church now offers to every citizen, whether he accepts them or not. I intensely regret Disestablishment, because it deprives citizens of a religious right they have now, and which I should like to preserve under all conditions. That is a necessary evidence, and I think one of the worst evidences, of Disestablishment. You deprive people of religious rights they have at the present time. Starting from that point of view, we do not desire in any way to interfere with the right of Nonconformists in the churchyard. It is not only a right of burial, but since 1880 they have also had the right of having their own services as regards burial. At the present time there is no right which the Nonconformist could desire in a churchyard to put himself on an equality with the Churchman which he-has not got already. There being in my View no ground for any feeling of that kind, it appears to me one of the worst-possible features of this Bill to introduce a different body as regards the control of 'the adjoining churchyard from the body in whom you invest the control of the Church itself. I put down an Amendment to deal with that point, and I think it would have been perfectly in order. I suggested that although the adjoining churchyard might be vested in the public authority, yet you might give the control to the representative body. There is nothing inconsistent as regards matters of this kind—in having the property in one body and the control in another. That is constantly done as regards a great many ecclesiastical rights.
    I should like to emphasise the point of view I am putting a little further. I think the discussion has shown no safeguards that can be devised can do away with the almost necessary friction and trouble which, so long as human nature is as it is-now, will arise by the separation of the adjoining churchyard and the church. The Home Secretary talked about the sentimental view of Churchmen. I agree it is an extraordinarily strong sentimental View of Churchmen, but it is one they are thoroughly entitled to hold, both on historical and on religious grounds. It is hot a mere matter of sentiment. It is a sentiment which has its foundation in the history and traditions of this country, which are so nearly entwined with the history and traditions of our great

    279
    National Church. That being so, in every line, and even as regards the proposed Amendment, you will have possible sources of trouble and friction, because you are starting from a wrong principle. Once try to separate the adjoining churchyard and the church and you cannot by any provision so cover the position as to remove an unfortunate, an unhappy, and an almost certain source of friction and trouble. Why cannot you leave what we call "God's Acre" attached to our Churches under the same conditions and control as at the present time? I have not heard a single argument against that position, nor do I understand how the Home Secretary or anyone on the opposite side of the House has dealt with the view of Mr. Gladstone at the time of the Irish Church Bill. Mr. Gladstone saw that to separate a church and an adjoining churchyard would necessarily lead to friction and trouble, and wherever the churchyard and the church are adjoining in Ireland, you leave the churchyard ill the same control as the church.
    The church and the churchyard in our country districts in England and in Wales, stand as the symbol of our religious life, and as the centre of our religious and parish life. Just conceive the position if you get friction between the people interested in the church and the people interested in the churchyard. You would create friction and trouble in connection with funerals and burials. Just at the very time when every man of whatever denomination would desire to eliminate the possibility of friction and trouble, you deliberately set to work in order to cause trouble. I should have thought that Nonconformists upon this matter would have taken the same view as Churchmen. They are at least as interested as we are in the maintenance o£ the sacred solemnity of our burial services and of our churchyards. I would appeal to them just as much as I would to Churchmen, that the proper solution here is not the one proposed in the Bill, but that you should leave the adjoining churchyard and the church under the same control and authority. I hold so strongly that the whole purpose of this Sub-section (3) is wrong that I no doubt approach the suggested limitations introduced by the Government in a spirit of suspicion. I quite agree I approach them with a bias from that point of view, but directly we look at them and examine them, we see
    280
    they are wholly insufficient to carry out the purpose which I understand it is the view of the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary we ought to carry out. It is as though you compulsorily took away from a man the garden round his house and only allowed him to approach his own house under certain specified conditions. It would be almost impossible to give him the same liberty as he had without interference by any series of Clauses to cover all the conditions which might possibly arise.
    I am very glad indeed the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) has raised the question of processions in the churchyard. You may have processions in connection with services such as harvest festivals, in connection with children's services, or in connection with our actual funeral services. Certainly whenever I have attended a funeral service the ecclesiastical authorities have met the coffin not at the church door but at the entrance to the churchyard. Not one single one of those old rites of much sacred import and value could be carried out as a right if this Bill was passed in its present form, nor do I believe you could amend the Bill. You cannot foresee everything you want as regards these religious ceremonies which take place partly in the churchyard and partly in the church. Under this Bill as it stands those processions could be negatived. There is not a word here which allows processions of any kind. All that is allowed is a bare right of access to the church. Of course, it would be-unthinkable to leave the church with no right of access to it. I do not profess to have any gratitude for what could not be refused. To assume where you have a church in a churchyard that no one could approach it is so impossible that you really need not consider a proposition of that kind. Yet when we come to the suggested limitations we really find nothing more than that. For instance, under the very first portion of this Sub-section (3) the Home Secretary says the burial ground shall be held subject to a right-of-way of the representative body, the clergy, the congregation attending the church, and such other persons as may resort thereto for the purpose of Divine worship.
    In my view a church ought always to be open. Everyone ought to be able to have access to a church. Under the Clause as it stands, you could close the gateway and prevent the ordinary Church-

    281
    man going to church for what I may call private service. It is quite clear that no lawyer would say that; on the contrary, this would not enable the representative body to assert that the gateway, as regards access to the church should be open at all times, whether wanted for public purposes or not, or for any purpose. It is quite clear it does not govern cases of this kind. It does not govern cases like that mentioned by the hon. Member for Pontefract, and directly you have words of this kind introduced it is impossible to define the various relationships which arise as between the church and the churchyard. I should like to call the attention of the Under-Secretary of the Home Office to the Sub-section, which says that a funeral is not to be conducted in such a way as to interfere with the clergy and people attending the church for service. That is wholly inadequate. So far as this is concerned you might have all sorts of matters going on in the churchyard outside the church, seriously interfering with the service and with the congregation, and they are to have no protection at all. The position is limited here to the case of funerals so far as the churchyard is concerned, and the churchyard might be used for any purpose which the public authority liked. I think it is a monstrous thing that, as regards churches and the adjoining churchyards, Churchmen should not be protected so far as their services are concerned—that they should not be protected against what would be an insult by reason of what is going on in the churchyard outside. Yet under this provision there is no protection afforded except in the case of funerals.
    This Clause only deals with the main path through the burial ground of the church. But there are a large number of other paths in a burial ground which the church might want to use for processional or other purposes; yet it is suggested that they might be taken away altogether, or, if they are left, they are to be kept in repair at the expense of the church. The real truth is this: The Government are starting on a scheme which I consider to be iniquitous and unfair both to Nonconformists and to Churchmen. They are separating the control of the church from the adjoining churchyard. It is impossible in this suggested Clause to foresee all the difficulties and all the restrictions to which that will very naturally give rise. I hope that the hon. Member for Pontefract will join with
    282
    us in voting against this Clause— that he will associate himself with the protest we are raising against the use of the churchyard being taken away from Churchmen, and allowing it to be used for other purposes quite inconsistent with their sacred views and their sacred service. The hon. and learned Under-Secretary has asked me to say a few words about his Amendment. In the Clause as it stands, I do not find that objections are met so far as repairs or enlargements are concerned. He says it is temporary and that any enlargement will be vested in the representative body. I want to ask him one or two-questions with regard to his proposed Amendment. What does he mean by the words "where it might lawfully have been so used, subject to like conditions and restrictions"? That is just one of those points where, unless we get a legal decision, there may be difficulty in the future. I want the Under-Secretary, if he will, to explain how the existing conditions can be met in the future without applying for a faculty. The essence of Disestablishment is that no faculty can be granted. Who is to decide as regards enlargement so as to make it lawful that there shall be that enlargement? The present authorities cannot decide; they will practically be dead; and there is no new authority set up to decide these things. Therefore, I want the hon. Gentleman to tell us what he considers will be the lawful body to decide these questions when the Ecclesiastical Courts have ceased to exist. I have drawn attention to the limitations because they appear to me to be inadequate. But my view goes much further. I think that this separation of the churchyard from the adjoining church is an insult both to Nonconformists and to Churchmen, and it is likely to have the worst results. I protest against this most iniquitous subdivision under this Dismemberment and Disestablishment Bill.
    Mr. EVELYN CECIL: Before we go to a Division I would like to ask if the Government can be persuaded to tell us why they insist upon taking the churchyards which are so situated. It does not seem to me in any sense necessary to the principle of the Bill, and it is certain, as hon. Members have pointed out, to create friction and disagreement among the local authorities. A local authority, if it is hostile, may seriously interfere with the ecclesiastical authority—with the representative body of the Church. It can make itself disagreeable in many petty, irritating ways, and

    283
    that, I am sure, cannot be the object of the Front Bench opposite. The hon. Member for Pontefract has suggested one or two of the ways in which irritation may be caused; for instance, by cutting down trees, and matters such as that. The Amendment proposed by the Home Secretary, further amended by the suggestion of the Under-Secretary, meets our views as far as it goes. But it does not deal with such small matters as the cutting down of trees and other irritating actions. Cannot the Government frame some other Amendment which would deal with these circumstances, and which, at the same time, would make this Clause more workable? Before we go to a division on this Clause I should like the Government to state clearly why it is they think it necessary to take these churchyards adjoining the church. It was not thought necessary in the Irish Church Act, and surely, in a matter of this kind, we might take the parallel of that Act and proceed on similar lines. I hope that the Government will reconsider their position, because it is a matter which affects the sentiments and feelings of honest and sincere Churchmen. I cannot see what object they have in inflicting this irritation on Churchmen: what object they have in giving this power of annoyance to the local authorities, when a slight alteration in their Disendowment proposal would effect the object they have in view, and, at the same time, save all this difficulty. It would not interfere at all with the principle of their Bill. They may desire Disestablishment and Disendowment, and we may oppose it, but I do venture to point out that this is not a matter of principle, and therefore they might very well meet us in regard to it.
    Colonel WILLIAMS: I believe hon. Members opposite have expressed their desire to maintain the rights of parishioners in the churchyards. But directly this Bill passes there will be no parishioners; there will be no ecclesiastical parish at all; there may be a geographical division, and that geographical area may be retained, but, after the Bill has passed, the Church will no longer have an area attached to it, unless, indeed, the new Disestablished body chooses to re-establish the old boundaries, and, for the purposes of the congregation, adopt the old parish boundary. I repeat that, ecclesiastically, there will be no Established Church and no legal rights of parishioners, because there will be no parishioners to have any
    284
    legal rights. Therefore, it seems to me that the proposal to take away the churchyards in this way is adding insult to injury. It is really trying to take away from the Church that which she has always had and which belongs to her; it is, in fact, robbing her not only of her money but of her churchyard in the supposed interests of people who do not exist. Remember, the parishioners are practically, as such, to be done away with; there will be no legal parishioners at all when this Bill has been passed into law. There is, therefore, no one who can have any legal right in the churchyard. If a non-ecclesiastical body provides a civil burial ground they will have their rights in it, but when the Church is Disestablished there can be no parishioners. The logical thing is that the churchyard surrounding the church should be kept under the control of the same body as the church itself.
    6.0.p.m.
    Mr. HOARE: I want to put two questions, which I think of some interest. I should like the Under-Secretary, in the first place, to explain what will be the effect in the case of churchyards which are partly ancient churchyards and partly modern churchyards? There must be many cases in which churchyards have, at comparatively recent dates, been enlarged by private donations. I am quite aware that, under previous Clauses in the Bill, the representative body will be empowered to keep post 1662 benefactions, but in this particular case considerable inconvenience will arise. You may have a churchyard with some isolated part in the middle of it which has recently been given by a private benefactor. It will be the height of inconvenience to have one part under one jurisdiction, and some isolated part under another jurisdiction. A state of affairs like that might lead to considerable inconvenience and to friction. With reference to the Amendment which the Government has foreshadowed, the words are included, "That part of the burial ground which is required for the enlargement and repair of the church." Before we accept words of that kind we ought to know who is to decide whether an enlargement is required or not. Is it to be the burial board or the Church authority, or who? That is a matter of very great importance.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: With regard to what the last speaker has said, I take it that under the Bill the post-1662 part goes to the representative body, and the pre-

    285
    1662 part to the burial board. There may be difficulty in adjusting matters, but I will not go into that. With regard to the enlargement of the church, I do not think there can be any doubt about it that the burial authority has no concern in that; it is outside their jurisdiction, and it must be the representative body or the Synod, whichever has charge of the church, which must be the only body to determine whether there ought to be an enlargement. The hon. and learned Member for South Bucks (Sir A. Cripps) asked me a question about faculties. In Ireland faculties are constantly granted for the enlargement of churches. He is a Chancellor of a Diocese, and in the ordinary course applications will come to the Chancellor of the Diocese for the enlargement of the church, and if that were granted, in due course the enlargement would take place, and the burial authority would be under a certain obligation with regard to the enlargement under this Clause. With regard to the right of the parishioners to go to the church at all times, that is a matter with which I feel great sympathy myself. I submit to the hon. and learned Member that that is included in the words of the Clause at the present time. I pay a great deal of deference to the hon. and learned Member on these matters, but that is the submission I make to him, that the right of access to the Church for meditation and prayer is included in these words:—
    "and such other persons as may resort thereto for the purpose of Divine worship or of repairing the church, or for any other lawful purpose."
    If there be any doubt about that—I am sure it is a matter upon which both sides of the Committee will agree—it would be possible to put in such words as would make it absolutely certain if the hon. and learned Member, after my suggestion, still has doubts that the actual words of the Bill do not cover the point.
    Viscount WOLMER: On this question of churchyards I would remark that wherever the precedent of the Irish Church Act was in the slightest degree lenient, or mitigated the iniquity of Disendowment that precedent is invariably rejected by the Government in regard to the present Bill. For the life of me I cannot see what possible justification we have for this extraordinarily complicated and most unjust plan of confiscating the churchyards, and allowing Churchmen a right of way through their own churchyards to get to their own churches. Every claim the
    286
    Church has to her Churches applies equally to her churchyards. The principles upon which hon. Gentlemen opposite have confiscated them are not principles of equity or justice. They merely confiscate what they want. They confiscate the Endowments because they have use for them; they do not confiscate the churches because they cannot use them; but they confiscate the churchyards because they can use them. I should like to point out to the Government how exceedingly hard they deal with the Church in this connection. They say to the Church, "You shall not have your Endowments because Nonconformists have no need for them," and they say to the Church, "You shall not have your churchyards because the Nonconformists do want them, and therefore they shall be confiscated." Taken either way the Church is to be robbed of her property. There are some words in paragraph (b) which have not yet been properly explained. What is meant by
    "the usual time of the ordinary services in the church."
    That appears to be an exceedingly vague phrase. Does it simply mean matins and evensong on Sundays; does it mean matins on week-days; does it mean the services of the Church on feast days? The times of Church services are determined by the incumbent alone. He has a perfect right to choose what time he pleases. What is the situation created by this paragraph? It means that no funeral shall be allowed to take place during the usual time of the ordinary services of the Church—that is to say, the authority who arranges at what time a funeral shall take place will apparently invariably have to consult the vicar or rector as to when they shall be allowed to have their funeral. That would be the only possible way of providing that the funeral should not clash with a service that may have been determined upon by the vicar, but of which the parish authority, not being composed of Churchmen, would have no knowledge or information. That appears to be an arrangement which is bound to lead to the maximum amount of friction.
    Here you have practically two authorities in the same place. You have the parish authority, which is given the management of the churchyard, and has power to decide when and where a funeral shall take place, but they will have to go to the vicar for leave as to the particular hour when that funeral shall take place. That only shows the inherent difficulty, the

    287
    almost impossibility of putting any such scheme as this on paper. It is, of course, impossible that any such arrangement should work smoothly. It is as impossible for one body to manage the church and another body the churchyard as for one man to own his house and another man to own the garden. I submit that the whole purpose of this Clause and of the extraordinary devices to which the Government have had recourse in this Sub-section show the amount of friction they are laying up for Wales in the future. I deny absolutely the right of the parishioners to a churchyard of a Disestablished Church. I deny absolutely the right of individuals, who are not members of the Church once she has been Disestablished, to use the churchyard. The Church has every bit as good a claim to her churchyards as she has to her churches. They have been used by the Church for hundreds of years. They have been maintained by the Church; they are almost part of the building of the Church, and they are as sacred and as dear to Churchmen as the very church buildings themselves. It was for the reason that the churchyards were, as it were, part of the churches that they were left by Mr. Gladstone to the Church of Ireland, but they have been torn away and confiscated by this Government from the Church in Wales, not because the Church has not as good a claim to them as she has to the property which is left to her, but because Nonconformists think that the churchyards will be useful to them.
    Mr. H. T. CAWLEY: The Noble Lord who has just sat down has laid down two propositions with regard to burial grounds. In the first place, he suggests that the reason they are taken from the Church in this case and were left in the case of Ireland is some malignant spirit which makes the Government avoid every leniency that was shown in the case of the Irish Church. It must be obvious to everyone that the case of burial grounds in Wales is very different from the case in Ireland. In Ireland a great body of the people were Roman Catholics, men who were not buried in the parish churchyard, as they are in Wales. In Wales, where dissent is of rather recent growth. Nonconformist parishioners have never abandoned 1heir claim to burial in the parish churchyard. It is a claim and a right they hold very dear, and to-day they have far more potential rights than the Noble Lord suggests. The
    288
    Noble Lord speaks as if the churchyard were the freehold either of the incumbent or of the churchwardens, or of some Church body. It is nothing of the kind. The rights of the parishioners to the churchyard are rights of property, and they are rights of property they have had from time immemorial, and they belong to the whole of the parishioners, both Nonconformists and Churchmen. A quotation was read in the 1895 Debate by Sir Francis Lockwood from a distinguished relative of the Noble Lord, the late Lord Selborne, to the effect that the churchyard alone belonged to the clergyman and the rest of the ground belonged to the parishioners for the purpose of burial, so that as far as rights of property go, the parishioners have very real rights of property, and it is those rights which "we have to recognise in deciding who is to have control over the Disestablished Church. The question of the rights of the parishioners is distinctly a question of who shall be trustee and guardian of the churchyard, to which all the people have a right of access, and when the Church ceases to be, as it is now in fact, an agent of the Government in matters of this kind, when it ceases to hold the position of a State or Government Church, those powers and duties should be put into the hands of public bodies who will represent the parishioners, that is to say, all those who have a right in the property. There are in this Sub-section attempts made by the Government to meet objections which have been put forward, objections which are naturally felt by Churchmen, to anything which may possibly interfere with their immemorial rights to burial service in the churchyard. I suggest that the 'Government should not stick necessarily to any words put down here, but between this time and Report they should consider 'any suggestions which have been made, 'such as those about the right to silent prayer at all times. I do not sec why the words "at all times" should not be introduced into that paragraph. They might consider whether words might not be introduced to make this a more complete protection of all the amenities and rights and privileges which the Church has had hitherto compatible with the public guardianship of the rights of all the parishioners to be buried in that spot of land.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I think the speech of the hon. Member is not perhaps altogether a revelation, because we knew

    289
    it before; but is a distinct emphasis of the view which we have always held on this side that hon. Members opposite have entirely mistaken both the nature of the Establishment and also the nature of what "they are doing by this Bill. He laid claim to the rights of the parishioners to be buried in the churchyard, and I do not Suppose that anyone on this side of the House or anywhere else would dispute that right for a moment as long as the Church remains Established. A parishioner has a right to be buried in the churchyard because it is an Established Church in the same way that every parishioner has a right to the ministrations of the clergy of the Established Church if he chooses to ask for them These are rights which are inherent in the Establishment.
    Mr. CAWLEY: My claim was a claim to a right to the property based on Lord Selborne's statement that the ground belonged to the parishioners.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to take an individual judgment out of its context and to base upon it an argument which appears to us to be entirely without foundation. I do not think the right which was alluded to in that case was other than a right inherent to the parishioners by the Establishment. That to my mind is the whole point, and I fail to see that the hon Member has made out any case whatever for this right of the parishioners once you take the Establishment away. No one can pretend that the two things are on all fours, and it seems to me a monstrous injustice for hon. Members to take away the property of the Church and to keep that part which they want because of some imaginary right. They adhere to that part of the Establishment which they like, and they take away other parts which they do not think so convenient. One of the drawbacks of Disestablishment is that you are going to take away from parishioners a great many rights which they have hitherto had. That is a fundamental objection to the whole proposal, and when you get a Clause like this which brings up a particular right which you are going to take away, which in justice you ought to take away, it is no argument to say, "we are going to leave the right exactly the same under Disestablishment as it was under Establishment." Hon. Members may do it by force of strength, but it is no argument. It is not done on
    290
    any grounds of justice or right, and if they choose to say, "whether you like it or not we are going to give the parishioners this right to be buried in the churchyard which belongs to the Church, and we are going to take the churchyard away from the Church for that purpose," we know where we are; but do not let hon. Members, in a spirit of what I can only describe as somewhat canting hypocrisy, pretend that they are reserving a right to the parishioners. Let them understand once for all that it is quite different under Disestablishment from what it is under Establishment. I should like to emphasise what the Noble Lord (Viscount Wolmer) said, with reference to paragraph (c) of this Sub-section, because it seems to me if any words could be drafted with the object of creating friction between the Church and other bodies, these words are they, and I cannot see how anyone can imagine that paragraph (c) can be carried out without the most intense friction occurring on all kinds of occasions. I do not know that I shall be considered uncharitable if I suggest that if the Bill passes the clergy of the Church in Wales will not feel particularly well disposed towards those who had so large a hand in depriving them of their rights and of their property, and I cannot help thinking that there will be certainly a tendency to friction, to say the least of it, and that sectarian bitterness, if it exists now, will certainly be very largely increased in the future. I do not think any Member representing the Government has yet told us what they mean by this paragraph. They have not answered the question of my Noble Friend as to what is meant by the words "during the usual time of the ordinary services of the church." Does it refer to matins only, to Sundays only, or to any special services which the vicar may choose to appoint?
    The CHAIRMAN: Before the discussion proceeds any further I ought to point out that the last three speakers have been referring to the rights of the parishioners. They were dealt with on the preceding Sub-section, and they do not really arise on Sub-section (3), which we are now discussing and which deals only with reservations for the protection of the users of the church.
    Mr. NEWTON: I do not think I shall be putting it too high if I say that everyone in this House entertains some fear that the result of vesting grave-

    291
    yards in a local authority, while the representative body maintains the church, may result in friction. I think that view is very generally entertained. I am quite sure the view is felt that if by consideration now some of that friction can be done away with, we ought to consider the matter and take steps to lessen the friction. The Under-Secretary foreshadows an Amendment dealing with the case when the church desires to make repairs which I think fairly meets the situation, but a possible cause of friction was suggested by the hon. Member (Mr. Booth) to which the Under-Secretary has not thought fit to make any reference. The hon. Member raised quite an interesting and possibly a real and acute question, "Who is to have control over she graveyard from the upkeep point of view?" Take the question of the cutting down of trees. It is not difficult to imagine that there might be a very ornamental but somewhat overgrown tree which was the pride of the parish, but which might cause annoyance to those worshipping in the church by reason of the obstruction of light. What is to be done? Is there to be a strike in the parish? Is one section of the population going to advocate that the tree should be left in all its ancient glory, whilst those who worship in the church would very much rather see it pruned and reduced? That is a small point, but clearly it is one which may tend to cause friction. A question was addressed to the Under-Secretary by a Member on his own side as to who would have control of such a situation, and as it is a typical ease perhaps the Under-Secretary would deal with it.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: It is a very small point, but I take a higher view of the common sense of the representative body on the one side and the burial authority on the other. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware that the incumbent now has no right to cut down a tree. Under the Bill the burial authority will have the right, but I do not think it will be exercised in a wanton way to annoy Church people. That is taking too low a view of the future of the Church of England in Wales.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I suggest that these specific points will be better raised by separate Amendments. Therefore I ask leave to withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I beg to move, in Subsection (3), paragraph (a), to leave out the words "and the clergy and congregation attending the church, and such other persons as may resort thereto for the purpose of Divine worship, or of repairing the church, or for any other lawful purpose; and," and to insert instead thereof the words "and in all persons declared by them to be entitled to use the same on terms and conditions laid down by them."
    I think these later words would get over a great many of the difficulties we have to deal with. The Amendment would leave the representative body to determine matters with respect to the right of access, and the purposes for which the churchyard should be used. I understand that the desire expressed by the Under-Secretary is to give the fullest powers, whether for the purposes of Divine worship or of private worship and contemplation in the church. All these matters could be dealt with by the representative body if they had powers. They are the body in which the church itself is vested, and they would be the body to determine questions relating to the right of access to the churchyard and the church. These questions would be left in all respects in the absolute discretion of the representative body. In that way you would avoid the use of words which would eliminate forms of user which Nonconformists or others might desire.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: Although I thought we were in fair accord as to what was to be done, I do submit to the Committee that the words now proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman are exceedingly wide. The paragraph would read:—
    "The burial ground shall be held subject to a right-of-way in the representative body, and in all persons declared by them to be entitled to use the same on terms and conditions laid down by them;…"
    The Government cannot accept these words. First of all the Amendment gives the churchyard to the representative body. Of that I make no complaint. Then it gives it to all persons declared by the representative body to be entitled to use it. I do not make any complaint about that. But when you say "on terms and conditions laid down by them," I submit that is going too far. I was rather impressed by a point in the hon. Gentleman's speech as to whether the words in

    293
    the Clause as it stands cover the case of men and women going to church, not for public Divine worship, but for meditation and prayer. I intimated my desire to meet that case. In my view the words of the Clause cover that case. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not say whether he thought they did or not.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I think they do not.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The hon. and learned Gentleman takes a contrary view. Although I am resisting this Amendment, if he can propose any words to cover the specific case of persons using the church, not for public worship, but for private meditation, I will accept them. I cannot accept the Amendment in its present wide form.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I am sorry the Under-Secretary cannot accept these wide words, as he calls them. He says he wishes to give free and generous access to the churchyard for all legitimate purposes under this Clause. We wish to know whether the words in the Clause are sufficiently wide to cover the use of the churchyard by persons going to the church not at the time of public worship, but for the purpose of private prayer. We ail sympathise with that, and the Under-Secretary wishes that to be included. If a little time were given, I am quite certain that a number of further cases would occur to us which would have the sympathy of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and which we should also wish to include. But the difficulty about putting in words for particular purposes is this: Every time you put in particular words they become words of limitation. If you specify the objects you are dealing with, the effect is that, having specifically included a certain number of cases, you by that course exclude a number of other cases. Therefore, what you want to do is to find some wide general words which will cover all the legitimate purposes you have in your mind.
    It seems to me that my hon. and learned Friend has discovered these words, and all it comes to is this: Are you going to trust the representative body? I think the Home Secretary does mean to trust that body. I think, looking to the terms of the Clause, his intention is to give as full rights as he possibly can to the representative body. The Under-Secretary says that these are very wide words, but they confer a power which will be used only by the
    294
    representative body. You cannot suppose that the representative body would give freedom to persons to use this right-of-way except for proper purposes; or that they would lay down anything but right terms and conditions on which the user should be exercised. You come back to what is at the root of this Amendment, namely, confidence in the representative body. I do hope the Home Secretary will accept the Amendment. If you distrust the representative body, and the terms and conditions they will lay down, well and good; but that is not the gulf that divides us on the present occasion. The Under-Secretary has told the Committee in regard to paragraphs (b) and (c) that the idea is to trust the representative body. Then why not accept the words of the Amendment, which would do no harm at all. It does not matter how wide the words are if you trust the representative body, but if you distrust them, the Clause ought to be drawn more carefully than it has been. I say, that inasmuch as this Clause is intended to meet a real difficulty, and to generously meet the feelings of Churchmen, the Home Secretary should accept the Amendment. I hope that the explanation I have given may lead him to follow out his real purpose, namely, to give wide powers to a body which should be trusted.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I hope the Home Secretary will accept the Amendment. I do not quite follow the objections of the Under-Secretary. He says he entirely agrees with the proposal to give this right-of-way to the representative body. He quite agrees also that it should be given to people authorised by the representative body. But when it comes to the representative body laying down the terms and conditions, he says the words are too wide. After the Bill passes, churchyards adjoining churches will be vested in the burial authority. We shall expect that the burial authority will make such conditions as appear to it right and proper with regard to the conduct, of funerals, and the use of the burial ground for the purpose of funerals. When it comes to the question of what is to be the user for church purposes, what oilier body can you have except the representative body? Why cannot you trust that body? After all, what we are asking is not that the representative body should interfere with the conditions under which funerals take place, but that the representative body should lay down the terms and conditions

    295
    on which the churcyard is to be used for church purposes. We have discussed the matter of access to the Church for private prayer, but there is a point with respect to which I am not sure how far the Clause would apply, namely, the holding of processions. Surely that is a point of which the representative body is the best judge. I do not know what other judge you could have. The Amendment was brought forward on short notice, and I can understand that the Under Secretary has some difficulty in accepting it right away. I think that on consideration he will see that Church people ought to have the right of access to the churchyard for church purposes, whether for sermons, private prayer, processions, or other purposes that may occur as time goes on. The representative body should have power to judge in these matters. In the circumstances I earnestly hope that the Home Secretary will agree to the insertion of these words.
    The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Hobhouse): I may point out before going into the other point that the concluding words of the Amendment are: "and upon terms and conditions to be laid down by the representative body." The hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that under the Bill the burial ground is to be vested in the burial authority. It will be admitted that it would be unreasonable to allow some other authority, which is not the burial authority, without any question of agreement with the burial authority, to settle the terms and conditions upon which the user of the burial ground is to be exercised. Upon reflection the hon. and learned Member will see that even upon his own limited application of the words this is not a reasonable proposition. I would like to remind him that the words which we have put into the Bill are precisely the words which occur in the Irish Act.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The right hon. Gentleman will pardon me for reminding him that under the Irish Bill the churchyards adjoining the churches were handed over to the representative body.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes. We are not dealing with the question whether or not they should vest in the Church body or the burial authorities. We are dealing with those which are to be vested in the burial authority.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: If they adjoin.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The point at issue at the moment is, What is to happen to those burial grounds which are to be vested in the burial authority? Upon what use and conditions is the right-of-way to be granted? The words of the Irish Act, which apply to the case of those burial grounds which were vested in the boards of guardians, are—
    "subject to a right-of-way in the said representative body, the clergy and congregation attending the church, and such other persons as may resort thereto for the purpose of Divine worship, or of repairing the church, or for any other lawful purpose."
    These are precisely the words which we have got here, and, upon those words being enacted, no trouble and no dispute and none of the difficulties which are suggested will ever take place.
    Mr. POLLOCK: There is no good in telling us that.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The whole argument of the other side is based upon some supposed difficulty which will arise between persons who want to go to church and the inhabitants of the surrounding district.
    Mr. POLLOCK: How does it help us to show that in burial grounds which are in no sense attached to churches in Ireland no difficulty has arisen? The difficulty that will arise here is that in the case of churchyards attached to the church there will be persons who want to go to church over the churchyards, and to tell us about Ireland, where there are burial grounds in no sense attached to the church, is not at all to give us a case in point.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I suppose it is very difficult for people who are looking at the matter from entirely different points of view to come to an agreement, but for the life of me I confess I do not see the force of the argument which has been addressed from the opposite side of the House.
    Mr. POLLOCK: Disused burial grounds.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am not talking about disused burial grounds, but as to whether there will be such disturbance in a churchyard as to interfere with the Divine worship, whether of a public or a private character; and, further, whether the right of access to the church is suffi-

    297
    cient for all purposes under the words we use. The words, "terms and conditions," which have been mentioned by the hon. and learned Members opposite will limit the words in the Clause, and where there is a right of way they will only tend to a narrow use. They will deprive people who wish to reach the church of a right which they have to access for any other purpose, and I submit that the words will permit all possible right of access that any reasonable person can desire. It is primarily for the purpose of Divine worship or repairing the church, but also "for any lawful purpose." I cannot see any limitation in those words upon the right of access, and the preservation of that right which is now inherent in everybody, to go to the parish church for the purpose of worship, whether public or private.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I really think it a pity that the Chancellor of the Duchy has not studied the question a little more closely before getting up to address the Committee, because his speech to-night, not for the first time in these Debates, displayed nothing except how thoroughly ill-informed he is about this Bill. It is manifest that the greater part of his speech had no value whatever as a contribution to the Debates. It was founded on a misconception of the proposal in this Amendment, which is trying to make the best of the exceedingly bad arrangement which the Government are setting up in this part of the Bill, and saying, as I understand, that the burial ground is to be for some purposes in the hands of the burial authority, and that, on the other hand, the Church is to have the user of the burial ground, so far as is necessary for due attendance in church, and for other religious purposes. We suggest that the only way to make that system, which is a very difficult one, work at all, is by giving the Church
    representative body complete control of the user of the churchyard for all purposes of right-of-way. You then divide the thing, not easily or simply, or in a workmanlike way, because that is not possible, but you divide it in the best way you can between the two authorities. As the Bill stands, the Church has no control of the user. For example, you might have two processions going, at the same moment, into the churchyard, to the scandal and annoyance of both parties. You must have some body which is to make regulations for settling these users, if there is to be a right-of-way to such other persons as may resort thereto for the purpose of Divine worship; and suppose it was held, which, of course, is doubtful, that a procession round the churchyard is for the purpose of Divine worship, then you might have different religious bodies using the churchyard at the same time with different processions; and, for the sake of decency and order, you must have some control. You must have it it in the hands of some body; why not the representative body, who are given the right-of-way up to a certain point? Surely it is most reasonable to accept the view of my hon. and learned Friend, and give the whole matter over to them. They are a responsible body and exceedingly unlikely to use their power in an unreasonable way. If you make that arrangement you do something to smooth matters between the two authorities you are setting cheek by jowl in the churchyard, and you diminish as far as possible the chances of any friction arising.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 302; Noes, 188.

    Division No. 532.]

    AYES.

    [6.55 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Adamson, William

    Barton, W.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

    Agnew, Sir George

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Bethel, Sir J. H.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Alden, Percy

    Birrell, Rt. Hon Augustine

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lanes., Heywood)

    Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Boland, John Pius

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Arnold, Sydney

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Clough, William

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Clynes, John R.

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Brace, William

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Brady, P. J.

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Crooks, William

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Radford, G. H.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Cullinan, John

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Jones, W. S. Glyn (Stepney)

    Reddy, Michael

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Joyce, Michael

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Keating, Matthew

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Dawes, J. A.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    De Forest, Baron

    King, Joseph

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Delany, William

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Molton)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Dillon, John

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Leach, Charles

    Robinson, Sidney

    Doris, William

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Duffy, William J.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yerks, Otley)

    Lundon, T.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Rowlands, James

    Edwards, J. H. (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    McGhee, Richard

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Farrell, James Patrick

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Ffrench, Peter

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lines., Spalding)

    Sheeny, David

    Field, William

    Manfield, Harry

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Shortt, Edward

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Gilhooly, James

    Martin, Joseph

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Gill, A. H.

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Ginnell, Laurence

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Snowden, Philip

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Meagher, Michael

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Glanville, H. J.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Millar, James Duncan

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Molloy, Michael

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Sutton, John E.

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Grey. Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Morrell, Philip

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Morison, Hector

    Tennant, Harold John

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Thomas, James Henry

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Muldoon, John

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Munro, R.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham)

    Hackett, J.

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Hancock, J. G.

    Neilson, Francis

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Wadsworth, J.

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Wardle, George J.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Waring, Walter

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Dowd, John

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Grady, James

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Kelly. Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Webb, H.

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    O'Mailcy, William

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    White, Patrick (Mcath, North)

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Shee, James John

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Whyte, A. F.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Kinds, John

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Hodge, John

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Winfrey, Richard

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

    Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Hudson, Walter

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Hughes, S. L.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    300

    301

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton]

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Colliding, Edward Alfred

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Grant, J. A.

    Nield, Herbert

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Greene, W. R.

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Balcarres, Lord

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

    Peel, Captain R. F.

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond)

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Barnston, Harry

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc, E.)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hills, John Waller

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Royds, Edmund

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Bird, Alfred

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Boyton, James

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Waltor.)

    Burdett-Coutts, William

    Hunt, Rowland

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Butcher, John George

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Stanler, Seville

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Jesset, Captain H. M

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Campion, W. R,

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cassel, Felix

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Kerry, Earl of

    Swift, Rigby

    Cator, John

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Cecil, Evelyn, (Aston Manor)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Clyde, James Avon

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Touche, George Alexander

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Lloyd, George Ambrose

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Lockwood, Rt. Hen. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Doughty, Sir George

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    White, Major G. D. (Lanes, Southport)

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Faber, George D. (Clapham)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Malcolm, Ian

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Fell, Arthur

    Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Forster, Henry William

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Moore, William

    Younger, Sir George

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Mount, William Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Cripps and Mr. Pollock.

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Newman, John R. P.

    It being after Seven of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 28th November, 1912, successively to put forthwith the Question on an Amendment proposed by the Government, of which notice had been given, and the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at Seven of the clock at this day's Sitting.
    Government Amendment made: Insert at the end of Sub-section (3) the words,
    "(d) Where the use of part of the burial ground is required for the enlargement
    302
    of the church, it may be so used in any case where it might lawfully have been so used, and subject to the like conditions and restrictions, as if this Act had not been passed, and the part so used shall thereupon vest in the representative body."—[Mr. McKenna.]
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 306; Noes, 192.

    Division No. 533.]

    AYES.

    [7.6 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Macpherson, James lan

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Adamson, William

    Ffrench, Peter

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Field, William

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Fitzgibhon, John

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lines., Spalding)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Manfield, Harry

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Gilhooly, James

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Alden, Percy

    Gill, A. H.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Ginnell, L.

    Martin, Joseph

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles p. (Stroud)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Glanville, Harold James

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Meagher, Michael

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Goldstone, Frank

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Molloy, M.

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Barnes, G. N.

    Griffiths, Ellis J.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Barran, Sir J. (Hawick Burghs)

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Morrell, Philip

    Barton, W.

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Morison, Hector

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Hackett, J.

    Muldoon, John

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Munro, R.

    Bentham, G. J.

    Hancock, John George

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon R. C.

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Neilson, Francis

    Black, Arthur W.

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)

    Boland, John Pius

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Brace, William

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Brady, P. J.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Donnell, Thorn s

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Dowd, John

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Grady, James

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Helms, Sir Norval Watson

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    O'Malley, William

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

    Henry Sir Charles

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J,

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Shee, James John

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lanes., Heywood)

    Hinds, John

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hodge, John

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Clough, William

    Hogge, James Myles

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Clynes, John R.

    Holmes, Daniel turner

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Howard, Hon, Geoffrey

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Hudson, Walter

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Hughes, S. L.

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Crooks, William

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Cullinan, J.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Radford, G. H.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

    Joyce, Michael

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Keating, Matthew

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Da Forest, Baron

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Reddy, M.

    Delany, William

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S.Molton)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Dillon, John

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Doris, W.

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Duffy, William J.

    Leach, Charles

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan. Mid)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Robinson, Sidney

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Roch, Walter F.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    McGhee, Richard

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Farrell, James Patrick

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Rowlands, James

    304

    305

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Webb, H.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Tennant, Harold John

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Thomas, J. H.

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Scott, A. MacCaltum (Glas. Bridgeton)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Wiles, Thomas

    Sheehy, David

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Shortt, Edward

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Wadsworth, J.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Snowden, Philip

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Wardle, George J.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Waring, Walter

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Sutton, John E.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Malcolm, Ian

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Forster, Henry William

    Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Gardner, Ernest

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Ashley, W. W.

    Gibus, G. A.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Baird, J. L.

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Baker, Sir Randolph L. (Dorset, N.)

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

    Moore, William

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Mount, William Arthur

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City. Lond.)

    Grant, J. A.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Greene, W. R.

    Newman, John R. P.

    Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Barlow, Montague (Sallord, South)

    Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Barnston, Harry

    Gwynne. R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Nield, Herbert

    Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Berestord, Lord C.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Bird, A.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Hickman, Colonel T. E.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Kill, Sir Clement L.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Boyton, James

    Hills, John Waller

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Butcher, J. G.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin, Univ.)

    Home, Edward (Surrey, Guildford)

    Rolleston, Sir J. D.

    Campion, W. R.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Royds, Edmund

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Cassel, Felix

    Hunt, Rowland

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Sandys, G. J.

    Cator, John

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton),

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Kerry, Earl of

    Stanler, Beville

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormsklrk)

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Craig, Charles (Antrim, S.)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Larrnor, Sir J.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

    Swift, Rigby

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    Lee, Arthur H.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Doughty, Sir George

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Lloyd, G. A.

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Lowe, Sir F. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Thompson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Fell, Arthur

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Touche, George Alexander

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    M'Neil I, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Fleming, Valentine

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    306

    307

    Valentia, Viscount

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Younger, Sir George

    Wheler, Granville C H.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. G. Locker-Lampson and Mr. Hewins.

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    CLAUSE 24.—(Powers of Vestries and Church-wardens.)
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 304; Noes, 195.

    Division No. 534.]

    AYES.

    [7.16 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin. Harbour)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Hudson, Walter

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Dillon, John

    Hughes, S. L.

    Adamson, William

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Doris, W.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Duffy, William J.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Duncan C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Alden, Percy

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Jones, Leif Straiten (Rushcliffe)

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Joyce, Michael

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Esmond, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Keating, Matthew

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Kilbride, Denis

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    King, J.

    Baring, sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S.Molton)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Field, William

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Barton, W.

    Fitzgiblion, John

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)

    Gilhooly, James

    Leach, Charles

    Bentham, G. J.

    Gill, A. H.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Ginnell, L.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Black, Arthur W.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Lundon, Thomas

    Boland, John Plus

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Goldstone, Frank

    Lynch, A. A.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    McGhee, Richard

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, North)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Brace, William

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Brady, P. J.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Brocklehthust, W. B.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Gulland, John William

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hackett, J.

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Martin, Joseph

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

    Hancock, John George

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Meagher, Michael

    Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Heywood)

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Mechan, Francis (Leitrim, N.)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Molloy, M.

    Clough, William

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Clynes, John R.

    Harvey, T, E. (Leeds, W.)

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Morrell, Philip

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Morison, Hector

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Cotton, William Francis

    Hayward, Evan

    Muldoon, John

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Munro, R.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon R. C.

    Crooks, William

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Neilson, Francis

    Cullman, J.

    Henry Sir Charles

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Davies David (Montgomery Co.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Hinds, John

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Nuttall, Harry

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Hodge, John

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    De Forest, Baron

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Delany, William

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    O'Dowd, John

    Denman, Hon. R D.

    Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Grady, James

    Devlin, Joseph

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    O'Keily, James (Roscommon, S.)

    Roberts, Sir H. (Denbighs)

    Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    O'Malley, William

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Thome, William (West Ham)

    O'Neill, Or. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    O'Shee, James John

    Roch, Walter F.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Wadsworth, J.

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Rowlands, James

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Wardle, George J.

    Philips, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Waring Walter

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Sheeny, David

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk. E)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Shortt, Edward

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Radford, G. H.

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Snowden, Philip

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Reddy, M.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Redmond, John E. (Watertord)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Sutton, John E.

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Tennant, Harold John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. W. Jones and Mr. Webb.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Thomas, J. H.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Hunt, Rowland

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Ashley, W. W.

    Doughty, Sir George

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Baird, J. L.

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Jessel Captain H. M.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M,

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

    Falle, Bertram, Godfray

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Fell, Arthur

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Fleming, Valentine

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Barnston, Harry

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc. E.)

    Forster, Henry William

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Lee, Arthur H.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Lloyd, G. A.

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Beresford, Lord C.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Bird, A.

    Grant, J. A.

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Greene, W. R.

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    MacCaw, Win. J. MacGeagh

    Boyton, James

    Guinness, Hon.W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Butcher, J. G.

    Hall, Marshall, (E. Toxteth)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Campion, W. R.

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Cassel, Felix

    Helmsloy, Viscount

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Moore, William

    Cator, John

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hickman, Colonel T. E.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Hills, John Waller

    Newman, John R. P.

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Hohler, G. F.

    Nield, Herbert

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Orde-Powlett Hon. W. G. A.

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    310

    311

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Peel, Captain R. F.

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l., Walton)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Stanier, Beville

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Stanley, G. F. (Preston)

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Rawlinson, J. F, P.

    Swift, Rigby

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    Royds, Edmund

    Terrell, G. W. (Wilts, N.W.)

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

    Younger, Sir George

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Sandys, G. J.

    Thymic, Lord Alexander

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Earl of Kerry and Mr. Sanderson.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Touche, George Alexander

    Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 26.—(Powers of Management and Sale.)
    Motion made, and Question, "That the

    CLAUSE 27.—(Supplemental Provisions as to Tithe Rent-charge.)
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 300; Noes, 195.

    Division No. 535.]

    AYES.

    [7.30 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Clynes, John R.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Adamson, William

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Goldstone, Frank

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Agnew, Sir George

    Cotton, William Francis

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Alden, Percy

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Crooks, William

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Cullinan, J.

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Gulland, John William

    Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Davies, E. Wiliam (Eifion)

    Hackett, J.

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Davies, Timothy (Lines, Louth)

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Hancock, John George

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Rossendale)

    Barnes, George N.

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Barton, W.

    De Forest, Baron

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Delany, William

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Devlin, Joseph

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Birred, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Dillon, John

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Boland, John Pius

    Doris, W.

    Havelock Allan, Sir Henry

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Duffy, William J.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Hayward, Evan

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Brace, William

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Brady, P. J.

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Brunner, John F, L.

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tinperary, N.)

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Higbam, John Sharp

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Hinds, John

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Hodge, John

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Hogge, James Myles

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Field, William

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Cawley, H. T. (Lanes, Heywood)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Gilhooly, James

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Gill, A. H.

    Hudson, Walter

    Clough, William

    Ginnell, L.

    Hughes, S. L.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Norton, Captain Cecil

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Nuttall, Harry

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Sheehy, David

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

    O'Dowd, John

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

    O'Grady, James

    Shortt, Edward

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Keily, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Simon, Rt. Hon, Sir John Allsebrook

    Keating, Matthew

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    O'Maliey, William

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Smyth, Thomas F.

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Snowden, Philip

    King, J.

    O'Shee, James John

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S.Molton)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Sutton, John E.

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Leach, Charles

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Lundon, Thomas

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Thomas J. H.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Thome, William (West Ham)

    McGhee, Richard

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H,

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    MacNeill, J. G. Swilt (Donegal, South)

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    Wadsworth, J.

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Radford, G. H.

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Linos., Spalding)

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Wardle, George J.

    Martin, Joseph

    Reddy, M.

    Waring, Walter

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Meagher, Michael

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Molloy, M.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Morrell, Philip

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Morison, Hector

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Robinson, Sidney

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Muldoon, John

    Roch, Walter F.

    Winfrey, Richard

    Munro, R.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Young, W. (Perth, E.)

    Nellson, Francis

    Rowlands, James

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Nolan, Joseph

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. W. Jones and Mr. Webb.

    Merman, Sir Henry

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Boyton, James

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    Amery. I., C. M. S.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Doughty, Sir George

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Ashley, W. W.

    Butcher, J. G.

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Baird, J. L.

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Faber, George Denlson (Clapham)

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Balcarres, Lord

    Campion, W. R.

    Fell, Arthur

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Ballour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

    Cassel, Felix

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Fleming, Valentine

    Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Cator, John

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Forster, Henry William

    Barnston, Harry

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Beach. Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Giazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Beresford, Lord C.

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Grant, J. A.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Greene, W. R.

    Bird, A.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Croft, H. P.

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    314

    315

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Sandys, G. J.

    Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Hambro, Angus Valdemar

    Macmaster, Donald

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Magnus. Sir Philip

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Stanier, Beville

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Hickman, Colonel T. E,

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Mills, Hon, Charles Thomas

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Hills, John Waller

    Moore, William

    Stewart, Gershom

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Strauss. Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Mount, William Arthur

    Swift, Rigby

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Newman, John R. P.

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Nield, Herbert

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Perkins, Walter

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Kerry, Earl of

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Pole-Carew, Sir R,

    Wheler, Granville, C. H.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Lee, Arthur H.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Lloyd, G. A.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Locker-Lampson, G (Salisbury)

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Younger, Sir George

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Royds, Edmund

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Wolmer and Mr. Ormsby-Gore.

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 28.—(Delivery up of and Access to Books and Documents.)
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 292; Noes, 191.

    Division No. 536.]

    AYES.

    [7.41 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Abraham, Rt. Hon, (Rhondda)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Adamson, William

    Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Heywood)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Esmonds, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Clough, William

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas Walter

    Alden, Percy

    Clynes, John R.

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Parrell, James Patrick

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Arnold, Sydney

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Ferons, Pt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Ffrench, Peter

    Baker, Joseph Allan (Finsbury, E.)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Field, William

    Baltour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Crooks, William

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Barnes, G. N.

    Crumlsy, Patrick

    Gilhooly, James

    Barton, W.

    Cullinan, J.

    Gill, A. H.

    Beck, Edward Cecil

    Dalziel, Ft. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Ginnell, L.

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Bentham, G. J.

    Davies. E. William (Eifion)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Black, Arthur W.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Geldstone, Frank

    Boland, John Pius

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    De Forest, Baron

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Delany, William

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Brace, William

    Denman, Hon. R, D.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Devlin, Joseph

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Dillon, John

    Gulland, John William

    Bryce, John Annan

    Donelan, Captain A,

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Doris, W.

    Hackett, John

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Duffy, William J.

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Hancock, John George

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Meagher, Michael

    Roch, Walter F.

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Molloy, Michael

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Rowlands, James

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Morrell, Philip

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Morison, Hector

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Hayward, Evan

    Muldoon, John

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Munro, R,

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Sheehy, David

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Neilson, Francis

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)

    Shortt, Edward

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nolan, Joseph

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Hinds, John

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clltheroe)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Hodge, John

    Nuttall, Harry

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Snowden, Philip

    Holmes Daniel Turner

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Dowd, John

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Grady, James

    Sutton, John E.

    Hughes, S. L.

    0'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Malley, William

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Thomas, J. H.

    Jones, H. Hayden (Merioneth)

    O'Shee, James John

    Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Thome, William (West Ham)

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Outhwaite, R. L,

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Palmer, Godlrey Mark

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Joyce, Michael

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Keating, Matthew

    Peace, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Wadsworth, J.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    King, J.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S.Molton)

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Wardle, George J.

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Waring, Walter

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Leach, Charles

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Pringle, William M. R.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Radford, G. H.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Lyell, Charles Thomas

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Lynch, A. A.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    McGhee, Richard

    Reddy, M.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Maclean, Donald

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Winfrey, Richard

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald'

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lines., Spalding)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Marks, Sir George (Croydon)

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. William Jones and Mr. Webb.

    Martin, Joseph

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Campion, W. R.

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Ashley, W. W.

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Cassel, Felix

    Baird, J. L.

    Beresford, Lord C.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Bird, A.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Boyton, James

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Baring, Ma|. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Barnston, Harry

    Burn. Colonel C. B.

    Courthopc, G. Loyd

    Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)

    Butcher, J. G.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet).

    318

    319

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Croft, H. P.

    Kebty-Fietcher, J. R.

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Doughty, Sir George

    Kerry, Earl of

    Royds, Edmund

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Ouke, Henry Edward

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M,

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Sandys, G. J.

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Fell, Arthur

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Lee, Arthur H.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'pl, Walton)

    Fleming, Valentine

    Lloyd, G. A.

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Forster, Henry William

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Gardner, Ernest

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Stanier, Beville

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    MacCaw, Win. J. MacGeagh

    Stewart, Gershom

    Goldman, C. S.

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Swift, Rigby

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Sykes, Alan John (Glas., Knutsford)

    Grant, J. A.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Greene, W. R.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

    Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

    Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Touche, George Alexander

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Mills, Hon Charles Thomas

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Hall, Marshall, E. (Toxteth)

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Valentia, Viscount

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Newman, John R. P.

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Hickman, Colonel T. E.

    Nield, Herbert

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

    Hill, Sir Clement T. E.

    Orde-Powlett, Hen. W. G. A.

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Hills, John Waller

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Wilson, Hon. A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Younger, Sir George

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Hunt, Rowland

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Cator and Mr. Fletcher.

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Committee report Progress; to sit again this day, immediately after the disposal of the Order relating to Established Church (Wales) (Money), Report.

    ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) (MONEY).
    Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be necessary for payment of principal and interest of any money borrowed by the Welsh Commissioners in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to terminate the establishment of the Church of England in Wales and Monmouthshire, and to make provision in respect of the Temporalities thereof, and for other purposes in connection with the matters aforesaid."
    Resolution read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Last night there was no opportunity of discussing this matter, and this is now the only opportunity we will have of endeavouring to ascertain from the Government what the real meaning of this Financial Resolution is, how much money they think they will need, what borrowing powers will be required, and what, in effect, is the ultimate liability to the taxpayer of this country. So far as my limited experience goes almost every Bill which this Government brings in needs a Finance Resolution. Certainly this Session the Bills have been so distinguished. The Home Rule Bill, now this Bill, a week or two ago the Pilotage Bill, and, in fact, every single Bill the Government brings in involves the adding of a number of new officials of various kinds, and I think we shall find before the Committee stage of this Bill is finished that the country will be saddled with the payment of more officials under the provisions of this Bill. I quite agree that a

    321
    Finance Resolution is needed actually and verbally, though it merely authorises the Treasury to guarantee the loans made by the Welsh Commissioners. I understand that the Welsh Commissioners when they have got any property, which cannot possibly be until some of the advowsements fall in, will be entitled to deal with them and to sell or otherwise to deal with them. In the meantime it is possible they will have to borrow money in order to carry out the methods adopted by the Government of spoiling the Church in Wales. The Treasury will be asked, are asked, under the provisions of this Resolution to guarantee any loan whatever which the Welsh Commissioners choose to make or the Treasury chooses to sanction.
    In the first place, I am one of those who strongly object to giving the Government of the day, or the Treasury, the unlimited power of borrowing that this Resolution gives. There is no limit whatever in this Resolution, although in the last Money Resolution passed by this House in connection with the Pilotage Bill the House did very rightly impose a limit. It was a small Bill. The amount that the Government desired to take from the pocket of the taxpayers was not large. But I think very rightly a maximum was inserted in that Money Resolution. That maximum, of course, guides the Treasury for all time unless they can get a further Resolution passed by this House. I certainly thought of moving an Amendment to this Resolution limiting the borrowing powers of the Welsh Commission. Of course the Welsh Commission can borrow without any leave from this House. I quite agree to that; but we want to limit the borrowing power of the Welsh Commissioners so far as pledging the credit of this country is concerned. I am in this predicament: I take it that a large portion of the borrowing of the Welsh Commissioners will be needed for commutation schemes. We understood a few days ago that the Government were prepared very shortly to place their scheme before this House in regard to the provision made for valuing the life interests. That, I take it, is the principal item which will necessitate borrowing powers on the part of the Welsh Commissioners. There are small items, such as salaries and so forth, which I will deal with in a moment, but the large item is the item of commutation. It is exceedingly difficult to those of us who desire to control Treasury expenditure, and keep some check upon the public purse, to know what limit to impose without knowing the
    322
    Government provision with regard to commutation. I think I am entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who has had control of this Bill for many weeks past, for information upon the point. I suppose he considered, in view of bringing in his Bill, the various proposals that might, would, or could be made from this side of the House—he must have had some idea in his mind what commutation schemes would be put before the House. Under ordinary circumstances I think we should have been quite entitled to move the Adjournment of the Debate on this Resolution until the right hon. Gentleman had put before the House his commutation scheme. That is impossible now. Under the Guillotine Resolution it is impossible for us to do what might be construed as a dilatory Motion for the Adjournment of this Debate. I do suggest, however, that it is exceedingly difficult under the scheme which the Government has adopted for a very long time in this House for us to debate this Money Resolution giving the Welsh Commissioners power, with the assent of the Treasury, to borrow what money they like, the bulk of which will be needed for this commutation scheme if it comes off.
    I do not hesitate to say if the commutation scheme that is to be proposed by the right hon. Gentleman is one which the Church can accept, is one which would be beneficial to the Church, that I should take one view of this Resolution and one view of the Amendment which I would desire to limit the Treasury in guaranteeing the loan of. On the other hand, if the commutation scheme is one which would not commend itself to the Church, is one at which we cannot look, and which the Church say they have no use for, then, I take it, that we would then be entitled to move an Amendment limiting the amount of the Treasury guarantee to such moderate amounts as may be needed for the purposes of carrying out the ordinary purposes of this Bill. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will immediately after I have spoken, and before other hon. Members on this side speak, give the House sufficient details of his commutation scheme, whatever it may be, in order that on this Resolution we may decide whether we think it right that the credit of the country should be pledged to provide the sum necessary—one, two, or three millions sterling—for carrying out that commutation scheme. Another point arises in my mind. I doubt very much if the taxpayers of this country had any idea six months

    323
    ago, when this Welsh Bill was debated outside, that they were going to be called upon to pay for the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church. I am quite sure, much as Church people throughout England dislike the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church—I am not, of course, going into the main question—much as we dislike this Bill, our dislike, and the dislike of the Welsh Nonconformists would have increased, if they had known that they would have to pay to provide money out of the public purse in order that this scheme of spoliation could be carried out! Whether the money is lent directly by the country or guaranteed by the country, it is exactly the same thing. The credit of the country is pledged for it.
    8.0 P.M.
    Before I leave this matter I would just like to call to the right hon. Gentleman's memory the Debate which took place here sonic few weeks ago—when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair—a Debate on the allocation of time for the guillotine in regard to this Bill, and particularly in regard to the time for taking this Finance Resolution. It was pointed out that it would be impossible to take it in Committee. The hon. Member for Dudley raised a question with regard to the salary for the Welsh Commissioners. I spoke on the matter. The right hon. Gentleman opposite also took part in the Debate. It was generally understood that we should be able to turn to Clause 10 when the Finance Resolution came on. The point then taken, and which I want some definite answer on, was that under Clause 10 certain Welsh Commissioners are going to be appointed. The House wiil remember that by Clause 10, Sub-section (4), certain salaries are to be paid to these Welsh Com-Commissioners, in one case not exceeding £1,500 a year, and in the other case £1,000, as the Treasury might direct. We suggested very strongly then that a Money Resolution was wanted for that Clause, because there was the possibility that those salaries might have to be paid out of the taxpayer's pocket, and out of the provisions of the Money Resolution which we are now discussing. The right hon. Gentleman was rather angry on the two matters. He said that no Money Resolution was required to deal with Clause 10, because the Commissioners' salaries would be paid out of the funds of the Welsh Church which are taken over. We objected strongly to these Commissioners being paid salaries out of our own money.
    324
    It is money taken from our Church, and I think it would be distinctly fairer to the Welsh Commissioners to pay them out of public money and not to take that money out of the Church funds. On considering that fact I think the Finance Resolution is required. I was almost inclined to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I suppose it is too late now as Clause 10 has been passed. Supposing you get your Disestablishment Bill carried through, and you appoint your Commissioners and the officials, unfortunately for you, happen to live for a few years, how are you going to pay the salaries of those Commissioners? Where is the money to come from? The right hon. Gentleman told us it was going to come out of the Church Property Fund, but there will be no fund at the beginning, and the way you will have to pay these Commissioners' salaries I imagine will be by loan. Is that part of the loan which is coming from the Exchequer under the provisions of the Resolution we are discussing? Is that part of the loan that is to be guaranteed by the Treasury for which the people of this country are to be responsible? These are the questions I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman. What is the total liability which the taxpayers of this country can by any possibility under the provisions of this Resolution be called upon to pay? In order to get at that sum the right hon. Gentleman must give some estimation of the commutation scheme and an estimate of the total amount that would be required. Secondly, I want to ask, having regard to his speech in November, whether that estimate was not a mistake, and whether in certain circumstances such as those I have described, the salaries of the Welsh Commissioners may not fall upon the Consolidated Fund by reason of their having been paid by a loan guaranteed by the Treasury of this country? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will answer these questions, and will also say whether or not it is possible to limit the amount.
    Mr. McKENNA: If the House desires that I should answer at once, I shall do so, but it must be remembered that I can only speak once. However, if it is so desired, I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman's questions without delay. The hon. Gentleman usually speaks with such accuracy and knowledge on financial affairs that I cannot help feeling great surprise at the speech he has just made. He has put to me a series of questions. I am sure had he read this Clause 29, in respect to

    325
    which this Financial Resolution is needed, through even once, he would have found the answer for himself with the greatest ease. He talked about the country being saddled with the cost of new officials for which this Resolution was required, and about the taxpayers being called upon to pay for Disestablishment, although there is not one word in this Clause or in the Financial Resolution which would justify in the smallest degree any of these questions. I shall substantiate what I am saying. What is the Financial Resolution required for? It is not required, as the hon. Member suggested, in order to enable the Treasury to borrow money; it is required to enable the Treasury to guarantee a loan if such loan is made to the Welsh Commissioners, and it is further required to enable the Treasury for the purposes of that guarantee to pay out of the Consolidated Fund, if necessary, any sum due upon the Welsh Commissioners' loan which the Welsh Commissioners may not, in fact, be able to meet. This provision as to guarantee is only required by way of extra security, for it is quite manifest to anyone who followed these Debates that the security in the hands of the Welsh Commissioners will be far greater than any possible liability that can fall upon them. The House must remember that under Clause 4, as from the date of Disestablishment, there is vested in the Welsh Commissioners a very large amount of property indeed.
    In a certain respect that property is held subject to particular charges. The largest charge is a charge that is to be met in respect of life interests. The life interests obviously cannot absorb the whole of the freehold, and cannot be as great as the freehold. The other charges except the life interest are all comparatively small. There will be charges upon the properly for the salaries of the Welsh Commissioners. Quite true, they will have to bear that; the Commissioners will have to pay the expenses of management; the Commissioners will have to pay compensation to the lay officials of the Church; they will also have to pay compensation to the holders of advowsements. That is quite true, but those charges are not comparable in relation to the amount of property which will become vested in the Commissioners. They will have vested in them all the tithe rent-charges of the Church which produce an income of upwards of £120,000 a year. It is quite true they will hold that, subject to life
    326
    interests, but with that exception all the charges are really insignificant. It must be remembered that the life interests the Commissioners will have to pay, will be subject to commutation, and will only have to be paid year by year out of the funds which are paid to them. Therefore the liability of the Commissioners in respect to which they would have to borrow, can only be for such trivial amounts as the salaries of the Commissioners, the expenses of their office, the payment of one year's value to the owners of advowsements, and compensation to the lay officials. The whole of that amount could not come to more than a few thousand pounds, while they will hold, subject to life interests, a property which is bringing in £120,000 a year.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: More than that.
    Mr. McKENNA: Not now. Certain property remains in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and is not transferred. The property of which the Commissioners will have charge is worth £120,000 a year.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: It is worth £158,000, subject, to the effect of the life interests which is in dispute.
    Mr. McKENNA: I could not at the common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners remains as a charge and is not transferred, but the point is immaterial. I accept the figure of the Noble Lord, which if he is right, would be £158,000 a year.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an estimate of the value of the advowsements and of the lay offices?
    Mr. McKENNA: I could not at the moment, but the matter is trivial in value; it is limited to one year. The compensation for the owners of the advowsements is limited to one year's value of the emoluments; they are not a large number, and it is quite an insignificant sum. I have not looked into the details, but it is too trivial, too small, to be worth spending much time upon, although it is important to the individual. When you are dealing with such a sum as we are dealing with here, bringing in annually between £120,000 and £160,000 a year, it is idle to talk of the charge upon the Treasury which guarantees a loan, apart from the commutation, of a few thousand pounds. Apart from commutation I do not think I need trouble about the Treasury guarantee at all. I

    327
    think the Commissioners will have enough money and could themselves borrow. It might make a difference of a quarter or a half per cent, in the rate at which they could borrow, and if the commutation were not large I really need not have troubled much about it. I have to have this Clause in because I have to consider that possibly proposals of commutation will be made, and I could not consider them unless I got this Clause, because if the Commissioners had to raise a sum of money of £20,000 or £30,000 or £40,000 upon a security of £3,000,000, I do not want to guarantee it; but if I have to raise perhaps £2,000,000 upon the security of property valued at £3,000,000, the Treasury guarantee may be of much value, and may enable me to offer much better terms for commutation than otherwise.
    This Clause is introduced with a view to having our hands free to meet all the possibilities of the Bill. If commutation was dropped out this Clause is considered to be justified in itself, but not as a charge that we propose that the taxpayers should be called upon to pay for Disestablishment. I would far rather leave the Clause out. It really is not worth while considering a quarter or perhaps a half per cent, interest, if that is to be made the occasion for charges of this kind. When we come to the question of commutation the matter is different. The hon. Member says, I think quite fairly, that this Clause cannot be considered without some indication of the amount of the liability for guarantee which is thrown upon the Treasury under the commutation system. I do not in the least complain of his raising objection that the Commutation Clause is not actually before the House at this moment. I can only say in answer to that that I would have had the Commutation Clause ready before now except for my anxiety, before introducing it to the House, to know something of the views of the actuarial advisers of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as to the circumstances of the case in order that we might not take a wrong basis, a basis which would be found wholly unacceptable to the Chuch in estimating the life-interests; and it is really with a view of having an opportunity of consulting the other side that I have been compelled to delay this White Paper until now. I hope the House will be in possession of the White Paper before the end of this week. With regard to the estimate of commutation, I do not think I can add anything to
    328
    what I said before. It is impossible to give the exact figures, but we know from the Irish experience that it works out somewhere in the neighbourhood of twelve years' purchase. Whether it is a year more or a year less would only affect the total amount to the extent of £158,000. I take twelve years' purchase as the figure, based on a certain amount of authority, judging from our experience that a much longer number of years' purchase than was the case in the Irish Bill will be required, because I recognise that people do live longer to-day than they did forty years ago. I have not the material upon which to make an exact calculation, but I will put it at the largest amount, and the capital sum required I do not think will exceed £2,000,000. Whether it is £1,800,000, £1,900,000, or £2,000,000, does not really matter. If we are to have the Treasury guarantee at all it cannot make much difference which of those is the right amount. The House is asked, by accepting this Resolution, to authorise the Treasury to guarantee a loan which the Welsh Commissioners will have to make in order to provide the capital sum for commutation. I think I have now answered all the points.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with my point about Clause 10.
    Mr. McKENNA: I did not think the hon. Member would raise that point again, for he knows as much about finance as I do. May I point out that a Financial Resolution is not required in respect of Clause 10, the sole purpose of which is to provide for the payments by the Welsh Commissioners out of money which is not public money. A Financial Resolution is only required for any charge that can be laid upon the public, but Clause 10 lays no charge upon the public. The fact that hereafter in another Clause the Treasury is authorised to guarantee a loan which may be raised by the Welsh Commissioners for the purpose of meeting a charge under Clause 10 does not mean that the Financial Resolution must be introduced before Clause 10 is reached, but it means that a Financial Resolution must be introduced before Clause 29 is reached, which might create a technical charge upon the public. This Resolution is required under Clause 29, but clearly it is not required for the purpose of Clause 10. The Welsh Commissioners will have overwhelming funds, and more than are required to meet any of the purposes except commutation. In respect

    329
    of that the liability can only fall upon the Treasury at all if the amount we pay as representing the life interest is grossly-excessive. From what I have gathered in the course of these discussions that is a contingency which hon. Members opposite would not in the least complain of. In these circumstances, I hope the House will consent to pass this Resolution.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman has given us a very clear statement of why he wants this Resolution, but there is one phrase he used which I think it is worth while to emphasise because it throws a little light upon what was said in a previous discussion. He said that the compensation for lay officers was too small for consideration, indeed it was so small that it really was not worth while making an estimate of the amount because it was such a negligible quantity when dealing with £157,000 a year. That throws a very bright light upon the refusal of the Government to extend that compensation to such people as charwomen and curates, who might otherwise have been sharers in this generosity which has now been so restricted. The right hon. Gentleman reproached my hon. Friend for suggesting that the cost of the new officials created by the Welsh Commissioners could possibly fall upon this fund. The right hon. Gentleman said it was clear that the Welsh Commissioners were to be paid out of the national property hitherto devoted to religious purposes, but which is now to be devoted to the payment of the nominees of the Government. On the wording of the Bill, it is quite plain that that is so. I think the Government have made a grave mistake and committed a grave injustice in throwing the cost of the Welsh Commissioners upon the funds of the Welsh Church. I have said so before in these discussions, but perhaps it is proper to repeat that I should have felt more disposed to welcome this Resolution with something like favour if it had provided for the payment of the Welsh Commissioners as well as for the guaranteeing of the loan. As for the guaranteeing of the loan, I agree that, apart from commutation, the matter is not an alarming one. In the interests of financial purity. I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's view that the guaranteeing of a loan of this kind does not throw anything but a technical charge upon the public.
    Mr. McKENNA: I said that as regards commutation up to £2,000,000. Of course,
    330
    the security of £3,000,000 would throw much more than a technical charge upon the public. I said without commutation when dealing with a possible loan of £20,000, £30,000, £40,000, or £50,000 as the security for £3,000,000, the liability in regard to the guarantee is a mere technical charge.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: In regard to small loans of that amount I agree that it is a small matter when you have the revenues of the country behind it, but there is an impression abroad to the effect that you are not paying anything if you use the credit of the country to borrow money. In this respect the right hon. Gentleman used some phrases which I am afraid were rather misleading. As to the commutation I agree with the right hen. Gentleman that it is by far the most important matter that arises on this Resolution. I do not complain of the right hon. Gentleman having taken some days to formulate his scheme, but apparently he never proposed commutation before, and he made no preparation for proposing it. At any rate he has now made a very small preparation. By the end of the week it would be about a fortnight since the Debate took place. If he had made proper preparation, all he had to ascertain was whether his calculations of what was right from a financial point of view were accepted by those who had special experience in ecclesiastical transactions of this character so as to avoid injustice of any description. I must say I do not think that ought to have taken a fortnight. Government Departments constantly make confidential inquiries in financial matters. It is well known the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to make confidential inquiries before he introduces the Budget. There would have been no difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman could have made confidential inquiries at the outset.
    I believe the real truth is he never intended commutation at all, and it was only when he found his supporters were beginning to dislike the Bill very much, and he had to do something to meet their indignation, that he ultimately made this proposal in order to appease the party which the hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. Llewelyn Williams) has described as "the party of private secretaries." I do not know how many private secretaries there are on the other side of the House, but they seem to be sufficiently numerous to terrify the Home Secretary. If this commutation is really honest and

    331
    straightforward, as I hope it will be, it will obviously, I will not say be a great boon to the Church, because it will certainly not give them anything they have not got, but it will make the business aspect of the thing and the transaction easier and less harmful to the Church. It is in that sense an advantage to Church people. I do think the Government before introducing a Bill of this kind ought to have had the scheme perfectly ready. The right hon. Gentleman says he could not put it into the Bill until he knew whether the Church was prepared to accept it, but he ought to have had it cut and dried. He would then have been able to have told us what the liability was, instead of asking us to accept a Resolution, the liability under which is purely a matter of guess work, depending upon the acceptance or rejection of a scheme we have not yet seen. Having made that criticism, I must say the right hon. Gentleman has, at any rate, treated us with every courtesy and consideration, and he has told us he hopes to produce it within the next few days. I therefore admit my grievance is not very serious under the circumstances.
    Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I was glad to hear the concluding observation of the Noble Lord, because I do think it is really unfair to complain of any delay on the part of the Government in regard to financial questions depending upon the acceptance of the commutation scheme. The Noble Lord must know we on this side of the House thought the provisions of the Bill as introduced were designed in the interests of the Church, to make the transition period from an Established Church to a Disestablished Church as easy as possible for the organisation in which he is interested, and I should like him to remember that we on this side of the House said not one word against the acceptance of the commutation scheme. We are not responsible for the provisions in the Bill for gradual Disendowment. The moment the Government signified they were willing to entertain proposals for a commutation scheme coming from this side of the House, and approved on that side of the House, we Welsh Members raised no objection at all to that basis of settlement. It is a little ungracious now, I think, on the part of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House to complain of any delay in regard to a full and complete statement of the financial proposals of the Bill, and,
    332
    as I have said, I am glad the Noble Lord has seen that point already.
    I did not get up to deal with the commutation scheme. It is perfectly obvious the House at the present moment is not in a position to criticise any details, or really to consider the validity or worth of any argument founded upon the amount of money it may be necessary to raise in order to carry out Disendowment upon the commutation basis, if it should be the ultimate verdict of the House. I should like to say a word or two in reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks). I should certainly not complain of his making criticisms in regard to this Financial Resolution. I notice, experienced though he is in these matters, he appears to have fallen into a not uncommon error in his criticism upon Clause 10. He evidently thought because certain words in Clause 10 were italicised it therefore became necessary to have a Financial Resolution in Committee and upon Report in order that the Bill might pass. It must not be supposed, simply because there are words such as "£1,500 a year" italicised in Clause 10 in accordance with the practice of this House in printing its Bills, that a charge is necessarily imposed which requires a Financial Resolution.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think I did say that by reason of the fact that the words were italicised any Resolution was requisite. I said that as the Welsh Commissioners will have no money in their hands at the beginning, their salaries will have to be paid to some extent out of the proceeds of a loan; that loan requires the Treasury guarantee, and that guarantee requires a Financial Resolution. Therefore pro tanto,so far as the salaries of the Commissioners are paid out of a loan, we ought really to have a Financial Resolution.
    Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I said the hon. Member was very experienced in these matters. He was not, then, misled by the italics in Clause 10. It makes it the more surprising he should have committed himself to the proposition that the real meaning of the Resolution was the country was to pay for Disestablishment and Disendowment. After explaining, I think with accuracy, the provisions of Clause 10, he suddenly jumped to the strange conclusion that the country is to pay for Disestablishment and Disendowment. That, with great deference to the

    333
    hon. Member, is not a true conclusion to draw either from Clause 10 or from Clause 29. The important Sub-section is Subsection (6):—
    "The said salaries and remuneration and all incidental expenses sanctioned by the Treasury"—
    the Treasury keep control; that does not affect the ultimate financial liability—
    "of carrying this Act into effect shall be paid by the Commissioners out of moneys in their hands in pursuance of this Act, but not so as in any way to diminish the property to be transferred to the representative body or county councils under this Act."
    We will drop for a moment the question of borrowing. Let us see how the matter stands. By Clause 4 the Welsh Commissioners get possession of a large amount of property, and by Clause 8 that property is distributed. I wish to lay down a further proposition here that in Clause 10 and subsequent Clauses we are dealing with the basis of distribution; but taking Sub-section (6) of Clause 10 in conjunction with the Clauses already passed, the position of the Welsh Commissioners is this, that they can only pay their own salaries and incidental expenses out of property which is subject to the provisions of this Act. Now let us turn to Clause 29. There they are subject to the sanction of the Treasury. The Welsh Commissioners can only borrow on such terms as the Treasury may approve. If we had only to consider the mere carrying out of the provisions of the Bill in the way in which it was proposed and as the Bill was brought in, it really would not seem such an important matter. But it is quite different, because there comes in the question of asking the guarantee of the Treasury even for a very small sum. The hon. Member for Brentford should not have said that the country was being called upon to pay a single penny for Disestablishment and Disendowment. The hon. Member says you are paying out our money—that is, the Church money. But that is not so. It is not fair to make that proposition and to say that the expense of carrying out the Bill is to be paid out of Church money. The whole of the expense of the Bill, as matters stand, is to be borne by the Welsh nation. I do not think it was fair to give expression to the statement that the expenses of Disestablishment and Disendowment are being paid for by the
    334
    taxpayers of England. In all sincerity I wish hon. Gentlemen opposite to understand that while we acquiesce in the provisions of this Bill, that we propose Endowment with reluctance, and that we have from the first held that a Royal Commission should be appointed to settle the basis in which it should be carried out.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The speech to which we have just listened appears to entirely justify the attitude taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford, when he said it was possible and even probable that part, of the cost of carrying into effect this Bill, would fall on the State. I think it clearly follows that that will be so. The Welsh Commissioners are to be appointed at once. Disendowment cannot take place for at least six months and, possibly, twelve months. How are they going to be paid in the interval? The money will have to be borrowed, but there will be no property which can be offered as a guarantee, and therefore it seems to me that the burden will have to be borne by the State. As has been pointed out, the salaries and remuneration and all incidental expenses sanctioned by the Treasury of carrying this Act into effect, are to be paid by the Commissioners out of moneys in their hands, but not so as in any way to diminish the property to be transferred to the representative body or county councils under this Act. That shows that the money to be used for this purpose must come out of what I may call the capitular assets of the Commissioners; they are not to use parochial money or money in the nature of private benefaction. On the top of that we have to wait until every bishop, dean, or canon, or some member of the capitular body disappears from this Clause, and we may have to wait some time, for these gentlemen are long-lived, and they have existing interests and no immediate inducement to disappear. Therefore, you may have to borrow a considerable sum on the Treasury's guarantee. It is all very well for the Home Secretary to say that there will be no claim upon the State. There might have to be a payment, and in any case the State is rendering itself liable.
    Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he is under the impression that the Welsh Commissioners must be appointed immediately after the Bill comes into operation, and, if so, what they have got to do until the date of Disestablishment?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I imagine they will have an enormous amount of work to do. The Insurance Commissioners were appointed long before the Insurance Act came into operation, and I believe they have not had too long in which to get ready. I imagine the Welsh Commissioners will certainly have to be appointed at once in order to get ready. In the meantime, it is clear that they can have no money in their possession out of which to pay their salaries, and that they will have to pay them out of the money which comes from the bishops or deans or canons out of the capitular estates. The right hon. Gentleman tries to prove too much when he tries to prove that no charge can fall upon the State, for in any case there is that liability. As to the point whether the Commissioners are to be appointed immediately, I am not an authority on this Bill, and I do not know what is in the minds of the Government. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Duchy or the Under-Secretary will tell us. I should have thought that if the names were ready to be put into the Bill they would be appointed at once. I do not see how they can carry out their duties if their appointment is postponed until the date of Disestablishment. It is very awkward that we should not have yet any details of the proposed scheme of commutation. I have looked at the words of the Financial Re-solution, and I recognise that they will cover either a very big operation, which will be necessary if we have commutation, or a comparatively small one, which is all that will be necessary if there is no commutation. It is certainly awkward when the Government are asking powers for an almost unlimited period that we should not in the least know what is intended. I do not want to quarrel with the Home Secretary on this matter, because he made a very fair statement, and it is only fair that he should consult the actuaries of the Ecclesiastical Commission and Queen Anne's Bounty, but I think we have the ground of complaint urged by my Noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil) when he said that the Government, in preparing the Bill, ought to have considered commutation to start with. To expect us now to pass this particular Financial Resolution without knowing whether or not there is to be commutation, and, if there is to be commutation, to what extent it is to go, whether it is to be voluntary or compulsory, and what is the sum that will be involved, is putting the House into a very inconvenient position.
    336
    In one respect I rather differ from my hon. Friend (Mr. Joynson-Hicks). I should like to have extended the Financial Resolution in one respect, because I think it would be fair not only that the State should guarantee a loan raised by the Welsh Commissioners, but that they should also guarantee a loan raised by the representative body. I am afraid I am rather too late for that, and that I ought to have moved that Amendment to the Resolution earlier, but the matter can, no doubt, be considered later. I ask the Government whether they have any objection to such a proposition. They know that one of the proposals contained in the Bill is that the Church body should buy the glebe. Originally they had to buy all the glebe but that has been altered. For that purpose it seems to me it might be exceedingly useful that the new organisation of the Church or the representative body should have the right to borrow. If they had that right it would be of material assistance to them. At all events, that is a suggestion I wish to put forward. Whether it can be done under this Financial Resolution I do not know. I rather gather not but perhaps the Government will consider whether they can amend the Financial Resolution, or, at all events, bear the point in mind. I do not know I have any other points to raise, but I certainly do wish that the Government had told us what their plan of commutation was before we had to discuss this Resolution.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: The hon. and gallant Member who spoke last seemed to be under the impression that the Commissioners will be appointed immediately after the passing of this Bill, and before the date of Disestablishment. That is not my reading of the Bill, and as I understand the interruption of my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Brynmor Jones) that is not his interpretation of the Bill either. If reference is made to Clause 4 it will be seen that the property is to vest in the Commissioners only after the date of Disestablishment. The Commissioners will have nothing to do until the released funds are vested in them. That is only after the date of Disestablishment. Therefore there is no necessity why the Commissioners should be appointed before the date of Disestablishment. There is nothing in Clause 10 which fixes the date of the appointment of the Commissioners. The matter is left at large in that Clause. Therefore, reading Clause 10 and Clause 4 together, I fail to see why their appoint-

    337
    ment should date before the day of Disestablishment, and there will be no liability falling upon anybody, or upon the Government, or any Department to provide for the payment of their salaries until after the date of Disestablishment.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will the hon. and learned Member on that point refer to Clause 10, Sub-section (7)? It says:—
    "The powers of the Commissioners shall continue until the end of the year in which this Act is passed."
    It is perfectly clear from that that the Bill contemplates the immediate appointment of the Commissioners, and that they shall act as soon as the Bill is passed.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: It does not state when the powers of the Commissioners shall begin. The date must be fixed by reference to Clause 4, which says that the property shall vest in the Commissioners after the date of Disestablishment. What can the Commissioners have to do before the property is vested in them? That is my reading of the Bill, for what it is worth. I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), with his large experience in these matters, say that Disestablishment will cost the taxpayer a single penny. At the most, supposing there is commutation, and supposing that a sum of £2,000,000 will have to be borrowed on the guarantee of the British Treasury, that does not mean that the taxpayer will have to pay a penny. It is true that the credit of the Treasury will be at stake, but not the credit of the taxpayers. The hon. Member is very fair on financial matters as apart from his prejudice in favour of the Church, and so on, and I am sure he will agree that in reality not a penny piece is taken out of any taxpayer's pocket by any proposal contained in the Bill or any proposal which has been adumbrated in regard to commutation.
    But there is one matter upon which I should like to have further information. It is very relevant to the discussion of this Financial Resolution. I think we are entitled to have some idea as to the value of the private advowsons which are to be compensated for under the Bill. I suppose the compensation will have to be paid out of a fund which will have to be borrowed for the purpose. The Home Secretary said it would be a very few thousand pounds, indeed so small a sum that it was hardly worth while mentioning in
    338
    connection with this Resolution. I take it that really if commutation fails, the bulk of the money borrowed under the powers of the Financial Resolution will go to pay for the private advowsons. Therefore, if I am correct in that, I think the House is entitled to know now, or in the course of a few days, what the estimate of the Treasury may be as to the amount of money which will be paid as compensation for these private advowsons. There are practically 300 of these. If the average is only, say, £150 a year—I think, that is low enough for each one—that would mean that a sum of £45,000 would have to be borrowed under the powers of this Financial Resolution in order to compensate the owners of these 299 private advowsons. That is important not only from the point of view of this Financial Resolution, but it is important, too, for us Welsh Members and for the Welsh people whom we represent, that we should know exactly what the financial position will be when this Bill is through. We have never taken that into account at all in estimating what the financial position the Welsh Commissioners, as representing the Welsh people, will be after the date of Disestablishment. It is a thing that we can get actual figures for, because the compensation to be paid under the Bill is for not more than one year, so that we can give the outside figure. The figures are definite, and we ought to be able to ascertain very easily the yearly value of these advowsons, and therefore we should get some estimate at least as to the outside amount which would have to be paid in compensation.
    9.0 P.M.
    But there is another matter which is relevant to this Financial Resolution. I suppose that the lay officers of the Church who will have to be compensated under the Act, will be compensated out of a fund which will be borrowed under the terms of this Financial Resolution. Again, I think we are entitled on both sides of the House to know whether the Treasury can form any estimate at all as to the amount of money which will have to be paid in compensation for these offices. I have no doubt it will be very difficult for them to do so, and I do not think anyone will expect a very accurate or a very definite figure to be given. For my own part, I do not hold the Treasury responsible for anything except a very rough estimate as to the amount, but we ought to get an estimate with some degree of accuracy. With re-

    339
    gard to commutation, this is not the time to discuss that. I will only say that the Welsh Members have never been wedded to the partial Disendowment Clauses of the Bill as it was introduced, and, speaking for myself, I thought the Bill was introduced in that form because it was more acceptable to the Church. We are quite willing to assent to that if it is more acceptable to the Church people in Wales. If we are wrong in that assumption, we again are equally willing to accept some such proposal for commutation as has been suggested by the Home Secretary, but I wish to guard myself against acceptance of any terms in the dark. We must have time to consider them, and we hold ourselves quite as free as hon. Members opposite to discuss them on their merits. There should be no profit and no loss to anyone. Certainly, if a commutation proposal is going to be made which will result in a loss to the Welsh people, I for one would be no party to its acceptance.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Rather an interesting point has arisen out of this Debate on the Financial Resolution, in which there seems to be a very considerable difference of opinion. The Home Secretary told us the Financial Resolution was not required for Clause 10 for the payment of the Welsh Commissioners' salaries, but, as I read that Clause, I cannot understand how they are going to be paid at all without being paid out of some kind of public money—at any rate during the first year. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Brynmor Jones) and the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Llewelyn Williams) take the view that the Welsh Commissioners do not come into possession till the date of Disestablishment. That seems to me to be absolutely contrary to a considerable number of Clauses in the Bill. My hon. Friend has quoted Sub-section (7) of Clause 10, in which it is stated that "The powers of the Commissioners shall continue till the end of the year, in which this Act is passed and three years thereafter." Therefore, they must be appointed at the time when the Act is passed. If that is not sufficient proof, what about Clause 9?
    "The Welsh Commissioners shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, with respect to any ecclesiastical parish part only whereof is situate in Wales or Monmouthshire,"
    and so on. They have got to decide immediately after the passing of the Act
    340
    about these border parishes and all the 'difficulties connected with them. If that is not enough proof, the right hon. Gentleman has only to look at Clause 7, Subjection (2):—
    "The Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty as respects any property transferred from them respectively, and the Welsh Commissioners as respects any other property vested in them by this Act, shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act ascertain and by order declare what part of the property constitutes private benefactions within the meaning of this Act."
    Can the right hon. Gentleman still contend that the Commissioners are not to be appointed until the date of Disestablishment? It is perfectly clear from these three quotations that they are to be appointed at the date of the passing of this Act. Well then, if this Money Resolution is not required for them, how are they going to be paid? Are they going to work for nothing during the first year or, if not, how are they going to be paid? They can only be paid by the Government advancing money to pay them. They have no money in their hands, I am not sure that they would borrow for themselves. At any rate, there are two Gentlemen now on the Treasury Bench, and I think we are entitled to ask them to clear up the misconception raised by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen as to the date at which the Welsh Commissioners are to come into office, and also to tell the House how, without the use of public money, they are to be paid between the passing of the Act, if it docs pass, and the date of Disestablishment.
    Mr. MOUNT: I wish to ask one or two questions with regard to the Financial Resolution. I should like first of all to say that the speech of the hon. Member for the Swansea District (Sir D. Brynmor Jones) seemed to mc a very illuminating one. He started with the idea that he was going to show that this was not going to be a charge upon the National Exchequer. Then he realised as he went on, it seemed to me, that if he was going to show that it was not a charge upon the National Exchequer, he was bound to come to the conclusion that it was to come out of Church property. Then he began to realise that that would not be quite satisfactory to hon. Members on this side, and to some hon. Members on the other side. He once again shifted his ground

    341
    by stating that it would be a charge, not upon the Church, or the National Exchequer, but upon the people of Wales. I am not quite sure whether the people of Wales, who for some time looked upon themselves as a separate nation, would be inclined to admit that payment of these expenses, coming as they do out of property which has now been taken from the Church for the nation of Wales, is not national expenditure. I should like to ask one or two questions with regard to the expenses to be met out of this money which is to be borrowed. I am not quite clear how it is proposed to raise this money, whether it is to be raised by Exchequer bonds, or whether it is to be issued as a loan. I wish to know from the Home Secretary whether, when he enumerated the three main expenditures—salaries and commissions, compensation to lay officers, and compensation to the owners of advowsons—he thought he had exhausted the objects upon which this money should be spent.
    My hon. Friend the Member for the Oswestry Division (Mr. Bridgeman) referred to certain Clauses of the Bill and pointed out that the Welsh Commissioners were going to be appointed at the date of the passing of the Act. I wish to point out, further, that there are expenses which will have to be borne in bringing the Act into operation and which have not been enumerated by the Home Secretary. You have got under the Act to carry out certain operations in order to ascertain whether or not the border parishes are to come within the scope of the Bill. Are these expenses to be met out of the money raised on the guarantee of this Financial Resolution? I do not suppose they will be very heavy, but, at any rate, a certain sum will have to be found for this purpose. May I further bring to the notice of the Chancellor of the Duchy the question of the expenses which will have to be borne by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and to some extent by Queen Anne's Bounty, as a result of the Bill? The Ecclesiastical Commissioners will have to undertake a considerable number of inquiries in order to find out what is Church property and what is Welsh property as the result of this Bill. I do not know whether it is supposed that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners can carry out that work and make those inquiries with their present staff. I do not think it is likely that they will be able to do so with their present staff.
    342
    This is all extra work put upon them, and it has got to be done within a comparatively short time. It is perfectly clear to me that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty will have to undertake a great deal of extra work as a result of the Bill, and it is not, to my mind, fair that they should have to find out of their common funds the money necessary to carry out these inquiries. I think the expenses ought to be provided out of the money to be guaranteed under this Resolution. These points in regard to the expenses of this Act were not mentioned by the Home Secretary. I should like to get an answer from the Chancellor of the Duchy as to whether or not these expenses are to be found out of the money to be raised by the guarantee we are now giving. I do not think it would be fair to make the Ecclesiastical Commissioners find the extra money which will have to be spent as the result of the Bill we are now discussing.
    Sir J. D. REES: My hon. Friend (Mr. Mount), in his interesting speech, referred to the people of Wales as once a nation. If a nation may be properly described as a belligerent unit, we may believe that Wales is not only a potential but an actual belligerent unit at this moment, though I learned from the hon. Member for Carmarthen that harmony reigns between him and his Leader, for he addressed him by that name. I wish to ask the Home Secretary if the Government are prepared to say that the Welsh Commissioners will not be appointed until they have in their hands moneys which are to come to them in pursuance of the Act. Will either of the Gentlemen now on the Treasury Bench get up and make that statement? I gather that they cannot. On the other hand, if the Resolution before the House is to empower the Government to borrow money for the purpose of carrying on until there is money in the hands of the Welsh Commissioners in pursuance of the Act, then they seem to be on the horns of a dilemma. I confess that I do not see the answer to the question I have asked. No such statement has been made, and it is perfectly obvious that under Clause 10 the immediate appointment of the Welsh Commissioners was contemplated. Indeed, when the Clause was reached in Committee it was believed up to the last moment that the names of the Welsh Commissioners to be appointed would then be divulged. The Government were to have announced the names of the Commissioners, and there was no question

    343
    whatsoever until then but that they were to be appointed directly the Act was passed. Will the right hon. or the hon. Gentleman state plainly whether it is the intention not to appoint the Commissioners until there is money to work the Act, and, if not, why is it necessary to take power to borrow for the purpose? My hon. Friend pointed out that one of the first things they have to do is to deal with these difficult geographical questions of the Border, and other Clauses might be quoted to show that the intention of the Government was to appoint the Commissioners at once. Will the Front Bench vouchsafe any information upon this point?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have been asked several questions, which I shall be glad to answer. My right hon. Friend behind me, in the course of his reply to some statements made from the benches opposite, pointed out that there is no power taken in the Act to compel, the moment the Act passes, the appointment of the Welsh Commissioners—that was as far as my right hon. Friend went—because it is quite clear to anybody conversant with this measure that there is a great deal of work to do after the passing of the Act, before the date of Disestablishment, which will require the appointment of Commissioners. But the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Welsh Commissioners will have to be appointed at an early date is quite correct. The hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. Llewelyn Williams) said something about compensation to lay patrons and lay officers. He is approximately right in the figure which he gave as to lay patrons whose livings may be compensated, for there may be some who take the view that really they have no right to compensation at all. I very much doubt whether, from an equitable point of view, they have or not, but they have a legal right, and as regards the outside number of persons thus compensated, 290 or 300, the compensation due to them under the terms of the Bill would be strictly confined to one year's value of the emoluments. With regard to the question of lay officers, they are only compensated to the extent to which they are damnified by the Bill, and I do not think it will be necessary to raise any sum to meet the compensations due to them, because they may drop in ten in one year, five in another year, none the next, and so on; and therefore, we think it possible to compensate them out of revenue. The
    344
    sum involved may not be large, and it need not enter into a calculation for the purposes of a loan. The hon. Member for Shropshire (Mr. Bridgeman) asked as to the payment of the Welsh Commissioners. He seems to think there would be considerable difficulty. I do not think so. If he looks at Sub-section (2), Clause 29, he will see that the National Debt Commissioners, if they think fit, may out of any money in their hands advance to the Welsh Commissioners any money which by this Act they are authorised to borrow.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not see how it is going to be done without using public money. That is exactly what this Subsection does.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think that the hon. Gentleman implied that there would be a charge to the public in relation to that money.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: For the first year.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, because there would be interest payable on that money, and the whole thing would be repaid, without any loss to the taxpayer, to the National Debt Commissioners. If a private individual borrows money from a bank and that money is repaid with interest to that bank, there is no loss to anyone who advances it. The Welsh Commissioners may borrow money from the National Debt Commissioners, and when they pay interest and repay the money there is no charge on the public in reference to the transaction.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman did not read the words—
    "with such guarantee as is by this Act authorised (but not otherwise)."
    Our contention is that the guarantee of the Treasury is in effect a charge upon the taxpayers, a potential charge. That is the whole point.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The National Debt Commissioners are not bound to ask for the guarantee.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: They are bound to do so.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: And even if they were the sum in respect of it would be at the outside £3,000 or £4,000 for the salary of the Welsh Commissioners and their staff, and the effect on the credit of the country of borrowing £3,000 for one year at 4 per cent., would be so

    345
    infinitesimal that so eminent a mathematician as the hon. Gentleman would be quite unable to estimate the loss. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Mount) asked what what was to be done with regard to the expenses of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty. I do not see that any extra expense need be provided for either of those two bodies. They have already prepared a great deal of the information which they will have to give to the Welsh Commissioners for the purpose of the Royal Commission on the Church in Wales. I do not suppose they have prepared the whole of it, but they have prepared the greater part of it. They have already had a year's notice that this Bill was going to be brought in, and I imagine that some portion at all events of their time would be spent in preparation for the probable results of this Bill. There would be as far as one can gather some time elapsing between the passing of this Bill from this House until ultimately it
    emerges from the chrysalis stage to the full-blown stage of an Act of Parliament. During that time some portion of the time of the staff might be devoted to acquiring the rest of the information which is required, and I do not see any need under this Bill for all these bodies to incur extra expense of an appreciable kind. In the circumstances I do not think we need charge anything for such expenses.
    Mr. MOUNT: Is the election for border parishes a charge?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: So far as that would be an expense of the Welsh Commissioners it would be part and parcel of the expenses payable from the same funds as the other expenses, which would be the £26,700.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    The House divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 103.

    Division No. 537.]

    AYES.

    [9.25 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Hodge, John

    Adamson, William

    Dillon, John

    Hogge, James Myles

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Doris, William

    Hudson, Walter

    Alden, Percy

    Duffy, William J.

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Arnold, Sydney

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Barnes, George N.

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Jones, Leif Straiten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Barton, William

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Joyce, Michael

    Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Keating, Matthew

    Bentham, George Jackson

    Field, William

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Black, Arthur W.

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Boland, John Pius

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Kilbride, Denis

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Gilhooly, James

    King, J.

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Brace, William

    Glanville, H. J.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal. West)

    Brady, P. J.

    Goldstone, Frank

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Leach, Charles

    Brunner, John F, L.

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Bryce, John Annan

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Lundon, Thomas

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Gulland, John W.

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    McGhee, Richard

    Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Heywood)

    Hackett, J.

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hancock, John George

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Clough, William

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossenda'le)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Clynes, J. R,

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    M'Kean, John

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lines.,Spaldl.ig)

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Crooks, William

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Crumley, Patrick

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Martin, J.

    Cullinan, John

    Hazleton, Richard

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Meagher, Michael

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

    Henry, Sir Charles S.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Molloy, Michael

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Higham, John Sharp

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Delany, William

    Hinds, John

    Morgan, George Hay

    Morison, Hector

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Reddy, Michael

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Muldoon, John

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Thomas, James Henry

    Munro, Robert

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Nellson, Francis

    Hernall, Athelstan

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Nolan, Joseph

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Wadsworth, J.

    Norton, Captain Cecil William

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Wardle, George J.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Watt, Henry A.

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Roch, Walter F.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    O'Dowd, John

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    O'Grady, James

    Roche, John (Galway, E.)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Rowlands, James

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    O'Malley, William

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Wilkie, Alexander

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    O'Shee, James John

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Sheehy, David

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Winfrey, Richard

    Parker, James ((Halifax)

    Smith, Albert (Lanes, Clitheroe)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T, McKinnon (Glas.)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Snowden, Philip

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Sutton, John E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. William Jones and Mr. Webb.

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Goldman, C. S.

    Peel, Captain R. F.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Peto- Basil Edward

    Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Grant, James Augustus

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Pryce-Jones Col. E. (Montgom'y B'ghs)

    Barnston, H.

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc.)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Hickman, Col. T. E.

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Beresford, Lord C.

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Sandys, George John

    Bird, Alfred

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

    Hope. James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Boyton, J.

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Swift, Rigby

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Campion, W. R.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Carilie, Sir Edward Hildred

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Touche, George Alexander

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Valentia, Viscount

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Clyde, James Avon

    Macmaster, Donald

    Warde, Col. C. E, (Kent, Hid)'

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Malcolm, Ian

    White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)

    Cripps, Sir C. A.

    Mason, James F. Windsor)

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Doughty, Sir George

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Mount, William Arthur

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Fell, Arthur

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Younger, Sir George

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Nield, Herbert

    Forster, Henry William

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joynson-Hicks and Mr. Stanier.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Bill further considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    CLAUSE 29.—(Borrowing Powers.)
    (1) The Welsh Commissioners may, with the consent of the Treasury, and upon such terms as the Treasury may approve, borrow such sums of money as they may think expedient for carrying into effect
    348
    any provisions of this Act, and may, save as otherwise expressly provided by this Act, give as security for the repayment of any sums so borrowed and the interest thereon, any part of the property vested in them by this Act, but shall determine as between the several parts of property so-given as security the part or parts to be

    349
    primarily liable for the several sums so borrowed.
    (2) The National Debt Commissioners, if they think fit, may, out of any money in their hands, advance to the Welsh Commissioners, with such guarantee as is by this Act authorised (but not otherwise), any money which by this Act the Welsh Commissioners are authorised to borrow.
    (3) The Treasury may, if they think fit, guarantee the payment of the principal and interest of all or any part of any money borrowed by the Welsh Commissioners.
    (4) Any security given by the Welsh Commissioners in pursuance of this Act shall be in such form, and may contain such powers of sale or otherwise, as the Treasury approve, and there shall be certified thereon, in such form and manner as the Treasury direct, any guarantee given by the Treasury.
    (5) For giving effect to the guarantee aforesaid, the Treasury, in aid of any money applicable under this Act for payment of principal and interest for the time being accrued due in respect of any money borrowed by the Welsh Commissioners in pursuance of this Act, may cause to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, or the growing produce thereof, such sums as may be necessary for payment of the said principal and interest, or of any part thereof respectively.
    (6) If any money is at any time issued out of the Consolidated Fund in pursuance of the guarantee aforesaid, the Treasury shall cause the same to be repaid to the Consolidated Fund out of the funds in the hands of the Welsh Commissioners.
    Mr. HOARE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out from the word "Act" ["provisions of this Act"] to the end of the Sub-section.
    I think the Committee will see that this is a very simple point; at the same time it is a very important point which I am now raising. Under the words which I propose to leave out the Welsh Commissioners could impose mortgages or raise loans upon any property which comes into their hands. As the Committee is aware, all the property which is now vested in the Welsh Church will be transferred to them when the Bill comes into operation. They might charge property like the parsonage houses, or glebes which come from benefactions, with mortgages and with other charges, and then transfer those properties, as they have to do under the
    350
    provisions of the Bill, to the representative body, with those charges and obligations upon them. That would be a very serious-and unfair thing to happen, and I am not sure that it is altogether unlikely, for in the first place, I should like to know why this proviso is in the Clause at all. I think I am correct in saying, that in the Bill of 1895 there was no such proviso. I think we should therefore have some explanation as to why those lines are in the Clause at all. Secondly, my suspicions are the further increased, because we do not know who the Welsh Commissioners are going to be. If we knew who they were going to be, and if we were convinced that they were persons in whom we could place confidence then I should say that the suspicion which I feel would not be justified. As it is, since we do not know who those gentlemen will be, we have every right to feel considerable anxiety lest the Welsh Commissioners will transfer to the representative body, or may transfer to the representative body, property with charges and obligations which the representative body will have to meet. I hope, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Duchy will be able to reassure me and to convince the Committee that that is not the intention of this Clause, and, if it is so, that he will put words in the Clause which will have the effect of stating explicitly that when the Welsh Commissioners transfer property to the representative body they will not be able to-transfer it with obligations and charges upon it.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The object of the Clause is entirely in agreement with the object which has been stated by the hon. Gentleman. If he looks at the effect of his Amendment I think he will see that it goes a great deal further than the object he has in view. It would strike out the following words, which are very important words:—
    "May, save as otherwise expressly provided by this Act, give as security for the repayment of any sums so borrowed and the interest thereon any part of the property vested in them by this Act."
    If those words were struck out, while it is true that the Welsh Commissioners might by the opening words borrow, they would be prevented from charging on any property which they held for the repayment of the sum which they so borrowed. The real intention of the hon. Member is to prevent the property which is to be transferred to the representative body being

    351
    encumbered on its passage between the existing state of things through the Welsh Commissioners to the representative body. I think that intention is covered entirely by the words "save as otherwise expressly provided by this Act." That phrase refers, first of all, to Clause 10, Sub-section (6), which prevents the Commissioners in any way diminishing the property to be transferred to the representative body for any cost in respect of the salaries and so forth of the Welsh Commissioners themselves. Then in Clause 16, Sub-section (4), no compensation which is payable to lay patrons is to come out of the property which is to be transferred to the representative body, and in the same way under Clause 17, none of the compensation which is to be paid to holders of freeholds is in any way to be charged so that it will diminish the property to be handed over to the representative body. I think therefore we clear out of consideration all question of current expenses and of compensation, making it quite plain that none of those charges are to be paid on the property to be transferred to the representative Church body. I think that is agreed on both sides.
    On the other hand, during its passage through the Welsh Commission, some of the property belonging to the representative body might require money to be spent on it for its own advantage. I think it would not be unreasonable to permit the Welsh Commissioners to have that liberty, handing it on in its improved capacity. I do not say that will arise, but I say the possibility may arise, and I think if it does that it ought to be met. The Welsh Commissioners will be in existence for three years. During that time a case might conceivably arise in which it would be to the benefit of the representative body and the property concerned that a certain amount of money should be expended on it and raised on the security. If there is any doubt, though I do not think that there is, upon the freedom of the property so transferred to the representative body from being liable to a charge which is not strictly for its own benefit, and that will in any way diminish its value when it reaches the representative body, then I think we are all agreed words might be inserted. I do not see any necessity for it. I think the whole case is covered by the Clause as it stands, and, until a somewhat stronger case is made out for the insertion of any words, I see no necessity to
    352
    put them in, and I certainly could not accept the proposed deletion of these words.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: This is a business matter, and we are much obliged for the business way in which the Chancellor of the Duchy has met the point. His suggestions, however, are not satisfactory if he listens to what we have to say to the Clause. As regards Clause 10, Sub-section (6), and Clause 16, Sub-section (4), and Clause 17, those Sub-sections and the limitations upon them as regards salaries and compensation do not meet the point we raise here at all. We quite agree that that compensation and those salaries cannot be charged against the proceeds of the property which is to go to the representative body in any way, but what this Clause proposes to do is something quite different from that—it gives the Welsh Commissioners power to borrow money on the security of all classes of property, including the property which is to be handed over to the representative body. I do not think the Chancellor of the Duchy will deny that. That is the Clause as it stands.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Commissioners have power not only to borrow but to charge the property with the redemption of the sum so borrowed. I cannot imagine that anybody would be so unwise as to advance money upon a security which they knew would not be in the hands of the Welsh Commissioners for more than a few months.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: What I want to point out is that the Act as it stands allows that to be done. If it were done, the result would be that the property would go back to the representative body with this charge attaching to it. The right hon. Gentleman does not desire that. Neither party desires it. That could be secured perfectly by taking out of the class of property on which the security is to be charged that property which is to be handed back to the representative body. If the Chancellor of the Duchy will accept words to that effect, from a business point of view, that will be quite satisfactory. That is what is really intended by the Amendment which has been moved. Taking the Bill as it stands, we do not want in any way to interfere with the borrowing powers of the Welsh Commissioners. We do not want to make borrowing harder for them, and one of the elements of borrowing may be the giving of

    353
    a security over their property. If the right hon. Gentleman will admit the limitation that the property given as security is not to include that which is to be handed back to the representative body I think that that would be satisfactory.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I shall be perfectly willing to consider the insertion of certain words. There is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Goulding). I think that some such words as those might be accepted. I will agree, at all events, to words that will carry out the purpose which we have in view.
    Mr. POLLOCK: The whole purpose for which the right hon. Gentleman desires this power is really secured in the first four lines of the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman puts the case where a certain amount of money ought to be spent for the preservation of property, and where it would be a good business proposition to spend such money. Therefore, says the right hon. Gentleman, let us take facilities for spending or borrowing money upon property in order that that property may be preserved. The Clause states:—
    "The Welsh Commissioners may with the consent of the Treasury and upon such terms as the Treasury may approve borrow such sums of money …"
    If the Commissioners were able to make out to the Treasury that what they wanted was to borrow money for the purpose of improving a particular property in their hands, and that it would be a wise expenditure of money, the Treasury would probably grant the loan. If these conditions were not fulfilled, they probably would refuse it. Therefore you have in these words a limitation on the powers of the Welsh Commissioners, but also an enabling power; because they have to go to the Treasury, and the Treasury would consider the matter from the point of view of business. Therefore, it seems to me quite unnecessary to keep in the words which my hon. Friend desires to leave out. But if the Chancellor of the Duchy will accept the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Worcester, our view will be safeguarded, while the first four lines of the Clause will safeguard also the view which the Chancellor of the Duchy has put forward.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not quite agree either with my hon. Friend or with the Chancellor of the Duchy. The right
    354
    hon. Gentleman says that they may want to borrow money for the purpose of improving property which is to go back to the representative body. There is no power to do that at all. It does not come within the Bill. This borrowing power is simply to borrow such sums as may be necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this Act. The Bill gives no power to the Welsh Commissioners to put a new roof on the parsonage while it is in their hands, or anything of that sort. That being so, it really is not necessary to have this provision for that purpose at all.
    Mr. HOARE: Do I understand that the Chancellor of the Duchy will, on the Report stage, insert some such Amendment as that which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Worcester?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes.
    Mr. HOARE: In view of that pledge I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. CAMPION: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to add the words,
    "and to the representative body any sum they may desire to borrow for the purposes of the purchase of glebes from county councils under this Act, and shall accept for that purpose the security of the reversionary interest in the said glebes expectant on the determination of the existing interests under this Act."
    This is an addition to Sub-section (2), which authorises the Debt Commissioners to advance money to the Welsh Commissioners. As originally drawn, the Bill suggested that all the glebe should go to the representative body subject to a payment by the representative body for that portion of the glebe which was judged to be ancient glebe. In the discussion on Clause 8, the Government said that they were ready to accept an Amendment providing that nothing in the Clause should Tender it obligatory for the representative body to purchase any glebe. The Under-Secretary, speaking to that Amendment, said the position would be that the representative body would have power to keep the glebe and pay for it or to hand it over as it is. As the Bill now stands it is not obligatory for the representative body to purchase that part of the glebe which is ancient glebe; but I suggest that, although it is not obligatory, in practice it will very I often be found that the only reasonable

    355
    and businesslike way open to the representative body will be to purchase that portion of the glebe which happens to be ancient glebe. There are many instances where the glebe consists partly of modern and partly of ancient glebe. I have in mind the parish of Brecon, where three-fourths of the glebe is modern and one-fourth ancient. Obviously it would be very inconvenient for the representative body to hand over one-fourth of the glebe and retain possession of three-fourths. They would probably be driven, as an ordinary businesslike transaction, to purchase that portion of the glebe which is ancient glebe according to the conditions laid down in Clause 8. We have been frequently told, and I recognise the sincerity of the statement, by Members on the other side, that they do not wish in any way to hamper the Disestablished Church under the new conditions, but that they wish her to be able to fulfil her obligations and carry on her work as freely as possible. That being so, I think the Government might reasonably consider this Amendment, so as to make the work of the Church in the future as easy as possible. It is suggested that we should empower the representative body to borrow money for the purchase of this glebe on the reversionary value of the existing life interest. It should be recollected that the existing incumbent retains the glebe during the period of his life. The security, if I may say so, for borrowing money is, I think, a reasonably sound one, though it is not one which would be recognised in the ordinary way of business, and there there might be some difficulty for the representative body to borrow money. But we have often been told by Members opposite that the value of the life interest which is to be left to the Church is very considerable. I submit, therefore, that they may consider that the security which the representative body will be able to offer in the shape of this reversionary interest is one that may be considered a reasonably sound security. I suggest that this is an Amendment which will go far to assist the Church in its future work, that it is a businesslike, sound, and sensible Amendment, and one which can very easily be granted by the Government.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The substance of this Amendment is to put the representative body in the same position as the Welsh Commissioners in regard to
    356
    advances by the National Debt Commissioners for the purchase of glebe. It is entirely a matter of finance. In a word or two the position can be stated that the Government takes in this matter. First of all, it is contrary to precedent for the National Debt Commissioners to lend money to a non-public body such as this. It is also contrary to precedent for the National Debt Commissioners to lend money unless there is a Consolidated Fund Guarantee by way of security. As the proposition in this Amendment falls short in these two particulars we are not in a position to accept it. I may say this, however, in answer to the difficulties which the hon. Member has put before us, that there would be no difficulty, I presume, in the Welsh Commissioners setting aside part of the purchase money and looking upon it as a mortgage in respect to this glebe.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I have taken a great interest in this Amendment because it is a difficulty which has occurred to me, and I have put down an Amendment which, when we come to the Clause, the Government may accept and which will meet this very point. The Amendment which I have put down applies to this Act the same powers which are given annually by this House to the Irish Church. There is the Irish Church Act of 1870, which annually finds its place in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act—that is to say, only a very few weeks ago we continued the very power that my hon. Friend is asking for in respect of the Welsh Church to the Irish Church. I should make this distinction: In the case of the Irish Church Act of 1870 it is the Public Works Loan Commissioners who are enabled to lend the money to the Irish Church. I quite agree that is a distinction. Our purpose, however, is the same, namely, for facilities for the advance of money to the representative body for the purpose of carrying out the changes which must take place and for which money will be required when the new body is constituted as the Welsh Church. It seems quite clear both on the question of the possible purchase of glebe, the provision of burial grounds, the provision of new sites, and so on, that it will be necessary to give facilities to the new Church body to borrow money on easy terms. Let me recall the fact, also, that after the Irish Church Act was passed in 1860 these powers of borrowing money from the Public Works Loan Commissioners were given to the Irish Church

    357
    representative body by this Act of 1870, and that Act, as I say, has been continued every year until the present. We desire the facilities under which money can be secured on reasonable terms from sources that can lend it to enable the difficulties of purchasing glebe to be reduced to as small dimensions as possible. I feel the weight of what the Under-Secretary has said. I have no doubt, however, if he will indicate that he will do for the Welsh Church what we do every year for the Irish Church, that my hon. Friend will be satisfied, and there will be no need to take up any more of the time on this Amendment. We do want, however, to know where we stand on this matter, and therefore we raise this point.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am not familiar with the Act to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I am not quite sure whether that Act gives the guarantee of the Treasury to any loan made by the Public Works Lean Commissioners. I think not.
    Mr. POLLOCK: No.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: But I think a private person or a corporation can borrow.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I agree there is no guarantee given by the State. I do not desire to put it that way, and it is a perfectly fair point that the Chancellor of the Duchy makes. What we want here are the powers given to the Irish Church. The effect of these powers is that the Irish Church is able to borrow from the Public Works Loan Commissioners, like a great many large bodies—not necessarily public bodies—at a very reasonable price. We want the same facilities given to the Welsh Church. I am not asking for powers that have become obsolete because, as I pointed out, this Act is annually renewed and I think it was only a few weeks ago we had the Expiring Laws Continuance Act before this House and one of the Acts that was renewed was that giving facilities to the Irish Church. It is rather interesting that after something like forty years which have elapsed since the Irish Church Act was passed in 1869, these facilities are still given to the Irish Church by keeping that Act in force. The Government are taking into consideration the facilities that ought to be given to the Welsh Commissioners. The Under-Secretary used an expression, perhaps it was only a slip, when he said something about a private body borrowing money. I dare say what he meant to do was to differentiate between a private body and a public Department. Here you are
    358
    starting a representative body with a great many difficulties in front of it. Obviously there will be considerable and most pressing need to raise money and that body will require to raise money at as low a rate of interest as possible. We have a precedent adopted in the case of the Irish Church Act and if that precedent is followed, and if the Government will give us some assurance that they will consider the granting of these facilities to the Welsh Church, we will be satisfied; but until we are satisfied that that will be done, we must press this Amendment. My hon. Friend may not have taken the best course in his Amendment; perhaps I may have a sort of parental liking for my own Clause—I do not say that is any ground for accepting it—but, on the other hand, if that little bantling is to be slaughtered by the Government, I think we should press forward the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
    Colonel WILLIAMS: The Under-Secretary for the Home Office seemed to admit that the object of the Amendment of my hon. Friend was a worthy one, although the Amendment itself is impracticable. I think probably it is for the reasons the hon. Gentleman has given, but that is all the more reason why he should enlarge the scope of the words he promised to introduce on the first paragraph of this Section to enable the Welsh Commissioners to borrow money at the request of the representative body for these purposes. It is quite evident there will be a period of time, something like three years, in which they may require such powers. During that time the representative Church body will almost certainly want to borrow money for certain purposes. Provision will want to be made for which money shall be borrowed and for money which ought to be borrowed by the representative Church body for their own purposes, and which may well be charged upon the property which you give to the representative Church body. But there is no power to borrow any money by the Welsh Commissioners except for their own purposes; nor is there any power during these three years for the representative Church body to borrow any money for their own purposes. They are not one of those privileged bodies who can borrow from the National Debt Commissioners. If the hon. Gentleman will consider in the Amendment he promised the desirability of adopting the spirit if not the form of the Amendment of the hon. Member for

    359
    Worcester, he might stretch a point and have regard to the fact that the Church body will want to borrow money and will have no power to do so, and that the Welsh Commissioners will have no power to borrow money on their behalf, and he might consider whether words could not be inserted so that if necessary moneys are wanted by the Church body someone shall have power to borrow that money and to help them.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I think it would be very unsatisfactory if we were to pass from this Amendment without getting some further information from the Government as to what their position really is. I am one of those who think that the Amendment in its present form could hardly be put into an Act of Parliament, but there are two alternatives. I want to see that we are not left without cither of them. The first suggestion made by the Under-Secretary was that there might be some arrangement under which money for these glebes instead of being paid at once might be left over on mortgage so that the payment might be spread over a series of years. I think that is well worthy of consideration, but it is not in the Bill at the present time; nor am I satisfied that the Welsh Commissioners would be the right body. These glebes are going to be transferred to the county councils. The Welsh Commissioners themselves may cease to exist after a period of three years. They are a transitory body; they may be kept in power for a longer time, but so far as the Act is concerned they only come into power for a period of three years. Ultimately the persons from whom the glebes would be purchased would be the county councils. If the Government would insert some proviso either that mortgage may be allowed or that in the case of the glebes, which the representative body desire to purchase, that the payment should be spread over a series of years, as is often done in cases of this kind, that would be one way of meeting the difficulty. I want to ask the Under-Secretary whether he thinks, from the Government point of view, that an arrangement of that kind could be carried out, because if that is so, I think it would meet the difficulty so far as glebes are concerned.
    My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Pollock) has raised the point of great importance, but it goes rather wider because he suggested that although this body
    360
    could not go to the National Debt Com missioners, they could go to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in order to raise money. It might be necessary for the representative body, having regard to their duties and liabilities when their work comes into operation, to borrow money. The Chancellor of the Duchy said he had not in his mind the Act of 1870 continued in every year in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, by which the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland are authorised to lend money for the execution of any work and for the purchase of any glebe. Of course, the execution of any work goes wider than the matter we are dealing with at the present moment. The Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland—
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland are a distinct and an absolutely different body from the Public Works Loan Commissioners.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. Of course, they are a different body, but the powers of dealing with money possessed by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland is very similar to that of the Public Works Loan Commissioners in this country.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, no.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: There is very little distinction. There are, of course, points of difference; but in substance the two bodies hold the same position—the one in Ireland, the other in this country. Both have money to lend, and they are called the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, and the Public Works Loan Commissioners in this country. I do not think there is any substantial difference. The analogous body in this country is the Public Works Loan Commissioners. All I am pointing out is that in the case of Ireland as regards this matter of the purchase of glebe you give power to borrow money from a public body, and that is sufficient for my purpose. I do not know whether what the Under-Secretary has said can be put into a business form. He said that the money can be left on mortgage or the payments spread over a series of years, and I should like him to tell us again exactly what he means. What would be a sufficient security to the representative body to enable them to carry out their option without being put to a large expenditure at a time when their funds were very much required for

    361
    a variety of other purposes? I am sure the Government intend that this option of purchase should not be made an impossible one. I believe they desire to make it as easy as possible for the representative body, and that could not be done unless it is placed upon the proper business basis of mortgage which the Under-Secretary has pointed out.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: When we stated that we were willing to give the representative body an option in regard to these glebes we did not want it to remain a dead-letter. Three proposals have been put before the Committee for securing that end. First of all, it is suggested this can be done by way of mortgage or extending the payments over a series of years. Now there is nothing in the Bill to prohibit that, and I am not sure that anything further is required in the Bill to enable it to take place. At any rate, the Government are quite prepared to consider that proposal, but the Committee will not expect me to give a conclusive answer at this stage. The next proposal is that the National Debt Commissioners should be enabled to advance this money to the representative body. On that point also it is impossible for me to say anything definite without consulting the National Debt Commissioners, and, what is of equal importance, the Treasury as well. Then there is the third course suggested by the hon. Member for Leamington (Mr. Pollock), that the Public Works Loan Commissioners should advance this money. Again, it would be impossible for me to accept that suggestion without consulting the authority concerned. I am sure the Committee would not expect me to give any definite pledge or promise at this stage that we may reach this subject again. All I can tell the Committee is that we shall give these proposals our best consideration, and without giving any definite pledge I will undertake that the Government shall consider the three courses which have been indicated to us, and if we are advised that we can adopt any of those proposals we shall announce them on the Report stage.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: With regard to the proposal that the money should be borrowed from the National Debt Commissioners, the Under-Secretary said he could not answer that point because he would have to consult those Commissioners, and in reference to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, he said he would have to consult that body as well. I
    362
    wish to know why he has not consulted those bodies before, because these proposals have been before the Government for days past. The objection taken by the Government now is that they cannot consider our suggestions without consulting the National Debt Commissioners and the Treasury. We have only a very few days left to discuss these Amendments, and we shall only have, I believe, two days on Report. There are a vast number of points to be discussed on Report, and I think the Government really might have had these consultations a week ago. They knew this Amendment was going to be proposed. Why do they come now and say, "We are very sorry we cannot give a decision because we must consult these people. They are not treating the Committee fairly. I am not blaming the hon. Gentleman personally, but the Home Secretary and his Department might perfectly well have consulted these officials and have given us a definite answer.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: If the hon. Gentleman wants a definite answer now. I can tell him the Treasury does object. I was not aware of it when I spoke.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Who is the Treasury, to bully this House. With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, for an Under-Secretary to get up and say, "I am unable to accept this Amendment be cause I have seen somebody, some clerk under the Gallery, and he tells me the Treasury objects"—
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The hon. Gentleman is usually so moderate in his language that I am surprised to hear him use such a term as "bully" in connection with the Treasury. It appears now the Treasury announced some time ago they could not recommend the acceptance of either of these two courses. It is not a sudden decision arrived at by an arrangement with anybody under the Gallery.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no doubt the Committee will accept the statement of the hon. Gentleman, but the fact that so moderate a minded man as myself used such harsh language shows we were rather upset by the dictatorial terms of the Treasury. If the Treasury are the controlling factor in this case, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer or some representative of the Treasury ought to be here to explain the matter to the House, and not leave it to an Under-Secretary to say, "I cannot

    363
    discuss this Amendment because I have orders from the Treasury not to accept it." Although the hon. Gentleman may have treated the House with all courtesy, the Treasury have not done so.
    Mr. CAMPION: After the statement of the Under-Secretary, and the definite pledge ho has given that the Government will very carefully reconsider this question, I beg leave—
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: drawn.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I wish to ask on behalf of some of my hon. Friends, how we stand. I understood the Under-Secretary to say there were three courses open, and he has told us the Treasury object to something. Do they object to all the courses, or is he going, as I hope he is, to plead with the Treasury to become more reasonable, and to get some authoritative decision? I hope he will say he will take the matter into further consideration, and deal more specifically with those three courses. It would really be lamentable if a mere message from the Treasury prevented the Under-Secretary from giving careful consideration to all three courses. I hope he will tell us those three courses are still open in the sense that he will do his best, not only to reconsider them himself, but to get a reconsideration of them from this high Treasury official, who seems to be floating about somewhere to create difficulty in otherwise smooth proceedings.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The position of the Government is this: They cannot accept the proposal to go to the National Debt Commissioners. But then it was suddenly suggested by the hon. Member in the course of his speech we should have another set of officials—
    Mr. POLLOCK: The Clause has been on the Paper for a week.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: My hon. Friend has promised that the Government will take the subject into consideration. But that must not be taken as a pledge that they accept the proposal of the hon. Gentleman. In the case of the Irish Church, there was a perfectly independent body over whom the Treasury had no control. We are quite prepared to consider the proposal of the hon. Gentleman.
    Sir A. CRIPPS: I hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn. I understand that the difficulty may be met by payment by instalments spread over a period of years or by mortgage. I take it that that is a matter for consideration.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Certainly those considerations will be borne in mind.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 299; Noes, 182.

    Division No. 538.]

    AYES.

    [10.28 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Brunner, John F. L,

    Devlin, Joseph

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Dillon, John

    Adamson, William

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Doris, William

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Duffy, William J.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Alden, Percy

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Heywood)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Clough, William

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary)

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Clynes, John R.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Baring, Sir Godlrey (Barnstaple)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Barnes, G. N.

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Barton, W.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Beale, Sir William Phinson

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Crooks, William

    Field, William

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Bentham, G. J.

    Cullinan, J.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Black, Arthur W.

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Gilhooly, James

    Boland, John Plus

    Davies, E. William (Eifion)

    Gill, A. H.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Brace, William

    De Forest, Baron

    Goldstone, Frank

    Brady, P. J.

    Delany, William

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    M'Kean, John

    Roberts, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Robertson, John M, (Tyneside)

    Gulland, John William

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs, Spalding)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Hackett, J.

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Hancock, John George

    Martin, Joseph

    Rowlands, James

    Marcourt, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Rossendale)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Meagher, Michael

    Samuel, Rt. Hon, H. L. (Cleveland)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Molloy, M.

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Sheeny, David

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Morison, Hector

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Shortt, Edward

    Wayward, Evan

    Muldoon, John

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

    Munro, R.

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt, Hon. R. D.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

    Snowden, Philip

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Needham, Christopher T.

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nolan, Joseph

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Hinds, John

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Sutton, John E.

    Hodge, John

    Nuttall, Harry

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Hogge, James Myles

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Thomas, J. H.

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Dowd, John

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Hughes, S. L.

    O'Grady, James

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    John, Edward Thomas

    O'Malley, William

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Wadsworth, J,

    Jones, H, Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Shee, James John

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Wardle, George J.

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Waring, Walter

    Joyce, Michael

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Keating, Matthew

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Webb, H.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston).

    King, J.

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S.Molton)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Radford, G. H.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Leach, Charles

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Reddy, M.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Lundon, Thomas

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    McGhee, Richard

    Richards, Thomas

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. G. Howard and Captain Guest.

    HacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin M.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Butcher, J. G.

    Baird, J. L.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Beresford, Lord C.

    Campion, W, R.

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Bigland, Alfred

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Bird, A.

    Cassel, Felix

    Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

    Cator, John

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Cave, George

    Sarnston, Harry

    Boyton, James

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    366

    367

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Hunt, Rowland

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Royds, Edmund

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

    Kerry, Earl of

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Croft, H. P.

    Keswick, Henry

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Doughty, Sir George

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M,

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T.H'mts., Mile End)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Fell, Arthur

    Lee, Arthur H.

    Stanler, Beville

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Lloyd, G. A.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Locker Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Fleming, Valentine

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Swift, Rigby

    Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Forster, Henry William

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Thompson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Goldman, C. S.

    Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

    Touche, George Alexander

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Grant, J. A.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Valentia, Viscount

    Greene, W. R.

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Guinness, Hon.W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Nield, Herbert

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Hickman, Colonel T. E.

    Peel, Captain R. F.

    Yate, Col. Charles Edward

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Hills, John Waller

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Younger, Sir George

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Evelyn Cecil and Mr. Joynson-Hicks.

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 31—(Provisions as to Vesting of Stock and Copyhold Land.)
    Motion made, and Question, "That the

    CLAUSE 32—(Power to Settle Differences and make Adjustments)
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 296; Noes, 182.

    Division No. 530.]

    AYES.

    [10.40 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Barton, William

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Adamson, William

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Burns, Rt. Hon, John

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Alden, Percy

    Bentham, G. J.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Boland, John Plus

    Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Heywood)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Clough, William

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Brace, William

    Clynes, John R.

    Baltour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Brady, P. J.

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Jones, Henry Hayden (Merionth)

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Cotton, William Francis

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Radford, George Heynes

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Jones, w. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Joyce, Michael

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Crooks, William

    Keating, Matthew

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Reddy, Michael

    Cullinan, J.

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Davies. Ellis William (Eifion)

    King, J.

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S.Molton)

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Richards, Thomas

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    De Forest, Baron

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Delany, William

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Leach, Charles

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Dillon, John

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Doris, W.

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Robinson, Sidney

    Duffy, William J,

    Lundon, Thomas

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lynch, A, A.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    McGhee, Richard

    Rowlands, James

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Maclean, Donald

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

    Farrell, James Patrick

    M'Kean, John

    Scott, A. MacCalium (Bridgeton)

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J, E. B.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Sheehy, David

    Ffrench, Peter

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Field, William

    Manfield, Harry

    Shortt, Edward

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Smith, H, B. L. (Northampton)

    Gilhooly, James

    Martin, J.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Glanville, H. J.

    Meagher, Michael

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Median, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Goldstone, Frank

    Millar, James Duncan

    Sutton, John E.

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Molloy, M.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Mond, Sir Alfred M.

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pemberton)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Tennant, Harold John

    Gulland, John W.

    Morrell, Philip

    Thomas, J. H.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Morison, Hector

    Thome, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Hackett, J.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Thome, William (West Ham)

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Muldoon, John

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Hancock, J. G.

    Munro, R.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Rossendale)

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Neilson, Francis

    Wadsworth, J.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Wardle, George J.

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Waring, Walter

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Connor, T. p. (Liverpool)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Hayward. Evan

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Webb, H.

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Dowd, John

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    O'Grady, James

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Helme, Sir Nerval Watson

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    O'Malley, William

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Wiles, Thomas

    Hinds, John

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E.

    O'Shec. James John

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Hodge, John

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Hogge, James Myles

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Hudson, Walter

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Philipps, Col. Sir Ivor (Southampton)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. G. Howard and Captain Guest.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    370

    371

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Nield, Herbert

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Goldman, C. S.

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G A.

    Baird, J. L.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Baker, Sir Randoll (Dorset, N.)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Batcarres, Lord

    Grant, J. A.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

    Peto, Basil, Edward

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex. Eastbourne)

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Barnston, H.

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Bathurst, Hon. A. E. B. (Glouc, E.)

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Beresford, Lord C.

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Bird, A.

    Hills, John Waller

    Royds, Edmund

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Boyton, James

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Burdett-Coutts, William

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Bum, Colonel C. R.

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Sandys, G. J.

    Butcher, John George

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Campbell. Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Hunter, Sir C. R.

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Campion, W. R.

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Stanler, Beville

    Cassel, Felix

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Cator, John

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cave, George

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Keswick, Henry

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Kinloch-Cooke. Sir Clement

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Touche, George Alexander

    Clyde, James Avon

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

    Tuillbardinc, Marquess of

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Lloyd. G. A.

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Cripps, Sir C. A.

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Croft, H. P.

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Doughty, Sir George

    Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwlch)

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Falle, B. G.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Fell, Arthur

    Mailaby-Deely, Harry

    Wright, Henry Fitzhernert

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Yate, Col. C. E.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Younger, Sir George

    Fleming, Valentine

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Rigby Swift and Mr. Tobin.

    Forster, Henry William

    Mount, William Arthur

    Gardner, Ernest

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and j agreed to.

    CLAUSE 33.—(Adjustment of Debts and Liabilities.)
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The committee divided: Ayes, 290; Noes, 178.

    Division No. 540.]

    AYES.

    [10.50 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Baring- Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Brace, William

    Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

    Barnes, George N.

    Brady, P. J.

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Barton, William

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Alden, Percy

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

    Burns. Rt. Hon. John

    Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

    Bentham, G. J.

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Arnold, Sydney

    Black, Arthur W.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Boland, John Plus

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Baker, Joseph A (Finsbury, E.)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Balfour, Sir Robert

    Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Clough, William

    John, Edward Thomas

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Clynes, J. R.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)

    Price, Sir Robert J, (Norfolk, E.)

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford)

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Radford, George Heynes

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jones, Leil Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Cotton, William Francis

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Joyce, Michael

    Reddy, M.

    Crooks, William

    Keating, M.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

    Cullinan, John

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    King, Joseph

    Richards, Thomas

    Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S.Molton)

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    De Forest, Baron

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Delany, William

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Leach, Charles

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Dillon, John

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Robinson, Sidney

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Roch, Walter F.

    Doris, W.

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Duffy, William J.

    Lundon, T.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in Furness)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Rowlands, James

    Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    McGhee, Richard

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Edwards, Sir Francis Radnor)

    Maclean, Donald

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Esmonds. Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Sheehy, David

    Farrell, James Patrick

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

    Shortt, Edward

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lines., Spalding)

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Manfield, Harry

    Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

    Field, William

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Martin, Joseph

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Gilhooly, James

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Gill, A. H.

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Meagher, Michael

    Sutton, John E.

    Glanville, H. J.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Millar, James Duncan

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Molloy, M.

    Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Tennant, Harold John

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

    Thomas, J. H.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Morgan, George Hay

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    Marred, Philip

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Gulland, John William

    Morison, Hector

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Hackett, John

    Muldoon, John

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Munro, R.

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Hancock, J. G.

    Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.

    Wadsworth, J.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Nellson, Francis

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (DoncasterV

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Wardle, George J.

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Waring, Walter

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    O'Connor, John (Klldare, N.)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Webb, H.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Dowd, John

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Hayward, Evan

    O'Grady, James

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Hazleton, Richard

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    O'Malley, William

    Wiles, Thomas

    Henry, Sir Charles

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Men., S.)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Shee, James John

    Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

    Hinds, John

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

    Hodge, John

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Winfrey, Richard

    Hogge, James Myles

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Rotherham)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Hudson, Walter

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Hughes, S. L.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Geoffrey Howard and Captain Guest.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    374

    375

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gilmour, Captain J.

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Glazebrook, Capt. Philip K.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

    Goldman. C. S.

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Archer-Slice, Major Martin

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Baird, J. L.

    Goulding. Edward Alfred

    Peel, Capt. R. F.

    Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

    Grant, J. A.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Balcarres, Lord

    Greene, W. R.

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Guinness, Hon.W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Barlow, Montague (Sailord)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Barnston, H.

    Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

    Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc, E.)

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Randies, Sir John S.

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Beckett, Hon. Gervate

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

    Hickman, Colonel T. E.

    Royds, Edmund

    Beresford, Lord C.

    Hill, Sir Clement L.

    Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Hills, John Waller

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

    Hill-Wood, Samuel

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Sanders, Robert A

    Boyton, J.

    Hohler, G. F.

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Sandys, G. J.

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Butcher, John George

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Campion, W. R.

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Stanler, Seville

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Cassel, Felix

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Stewart, Gershom

    Cator, John

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.)

    Cave, George

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Swift, Rigby

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutslord)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Keswick, Henry

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Thynne, Lord A.

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Lloyd, G. A.

    Walrond, Hon. Lionel

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Cripps, Sir C. A.

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Croft, Henry Page

    Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

    White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

    Doughty, Sir George

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Macmaster, Donald

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Eyres-Monselt, B. M.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Falle, B. G.

    Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Fell, Arthur

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Wright. Henry Fitzherbert

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Younger, Sir George

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Forster, Henry William

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Bird and Mr. John Lyttelton.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Nield, Herbert

    Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    Clause 34.—(Arbitration.)
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Wednesday).

  MARKET GARDENERS' COMPENSATION (No. 2) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
  The Orders for the remaining Government business were read and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. Speaker, pursuant to I the Order of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

  SOMALILAND.
  Mr. BAIRD: I desire to call attention to a subject, of which I have given the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial I Secretary notice, namely, the condition of the interior of Somaliland. I asked the

  377
  right hon. Gentleman in October last a question on the subject, and his reply was that he regretted to state that there had been recently a considerable amount of inter-tribal fighting and looting among the friendly tribes, and that the formation of a native camel corps 150 strong had been approved with a view to taking the necessary police measures. I can understand that hon. Members opposite who, although they sit in the Imperial Parliament, take no interest whatever in Imperial affairs, should laugh at a matter which has no votes attaching to it and cannot possibly affect their electoral prospects. Having lived amongst these unfortunate Somalis, and realising to what a condition of affairs the policy of His Majesty's Government has reduced them, I venture to raise the question in the House in an endeavour to elicit more information from the right hon. Gentleman than he has seen fit to vouchsafe so far. On the 15th of this month I again asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could give any information with regard to the state of affairs in Somaliland. The reply was:—
  "So far as I am aware, there have been no recent developments of importance in the interior, with the exception of a dervish raid on the Dolbahanta Jama Siad, in which the latter lost about 400 camels and had two men killed."
  The phrase "so far as I am aware," is unfortunate, because, after all, we are responsible for the country, and if the Secretary for the Colonies is not aware of what is going on in the interior of Somaliland, who can be? You come to the Dolbahanta raid where they lost 400 camels—that is an exceedingly severe loss for these people. Camels are their sole wealth, and if they lose them it means ruin for a large number of people who are just as much entitled to the protection of this House as are the payers of Super-tax in this country. That apparently does not seem to move the Colonial Office very much.
  "With regard to the coast district, steps are being taken—"
  the right hon. Gentleman continued—
  "and with considerable success, to put a stop to intertribal raiding. An engagement recently took place in which the Government camel Corps heavily defeated a body of raider." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th January, col. 2051, Vol. XLVI.]
  I think the coastal district was precisely that portion of the Protectorate which we decided to retain when we gave up the remainder. I suppose it is admitted we have given up the remainder? At any rate, we did not enforce law and order in the interior, and it was to be supposed that on the coast we might have obtained
  378
  order! The House will welcome some additional information in regard to the operations in the coastal district.
  With regard to the whole question, I should like to remind the House of a portion of the speech made by the present Secretary of State for War when he was Under-Secretary for the Colonies. A certain number of us on this side bitterly opposed—and from knowledge, because we had been in the country, and served there—the proposals of the Government in regard to the evacuation of the interior. The right hon. Gentleman, with that genial and confident optimism that we so welcome, said:—
  "It is very likely in our view, and in this we are supported by our military advisers, that the fact that we are abandoning those ports wilt, in the long run, make the lot of the people in Somaliland far happier and far better."
  We criticised that. In the later portion of his speech the right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "I think I have disposed of the question of the friendly tribes by a reference to the Blue Hook, where it is plainly stated that the withdrawal was to be continued on their being able to protect themselves."
  That is a delightful way—settling the friendly tribes by a reference to a Blue Book, It looks like the paper safeguard in another sphere! It has the same effect, and is as efficient! So far as the friendly people are concerned, it matters little whether they are handed over to the Mullah of Warsawgel's country or any other Mullah! I raise this point because the Somalis are great travellers. They wander to the southern part of Africa, and to the Soudan, and the state of affairs in Somaliland is such that it is derogatory to the credit of the British Government, and cannot help having an unfortunate effect on the other tribes over which we hold sway at the present time, and on this country, where it is necessary that our name should be respected, as it has been in the past. In this connection I should like to quote an extract from a paper published in British East Africa. It says—dealing with the Annual Report on the Somaliland Protectorate:—
  "This document deals entirely with the coastal administration, and contains not a syllable relating to the anarchic condition of the interior, which is the dual outcome of the policy introduced two years ago."
  That is written in a country where a large number of the very best Somalis emigrate from the coast for business, or go there as hunters or settlers, or for some other purpose. They read this, and it cannot

  379
  enhance their feelings of respect or regard towards the British Government that has let them down so badly. The paper says:—
  "The Government have all along endeavoured to suppress this kind of information."
  I do not say they have suppressed it, but they are without information in any shape or form. They have scuttled out of the country and left the people there to shift for themselves as best they can. Having been supplied with a vast number of arms, and a great quantity of ammunition, the natives have every facility for carrying on tribal disputes which were more or less harmless when they were armed with spears, but which are now very serious when they are armed with Martini-Henry rifles and great quantities of ammunition. That cannot redound to the credit of this country. I turn to this Report, and it is true that there are a few references to Somaliland for which we are still responsible. Until we have given it over to somebody else we are responsible for that country, and for law and order there, because we have not done what the Secretary for War said we should do until we, namely, evacuate the country, after we had made certain provisions for the natives to protect themselves. If you look at the last Report on the Somalis the references to the state of the tribes in the interior are sufficiently sinister to warrant the statements made in the Paper from which I have quoted. Here is one phrase:—
  "Coincident with the stoppage of Grants owing to the evacuation of the interior there is an unprecedented demand for skins and hides."
  That is the case because they cannot get to the coast. There is no credit because we cleared out of the country. That does not seem to bear out the suggestion of the Secretary for War that the people would be happier and far better oft when these posts in the interior were abandoned. There is another passage in which reference is made to the unsettled condition of the hinterland of Berbera. That is not very satisfactory, and you have reference made to the departure of the European officers and Indian troops and to the suspension of building operations and the inability of the natives to purchase luxuries which cause a relative degree of suffering. They are not better off, and they cannot afford to purchase luxuries that they could get when they were governed by us. I am not going to elaborate these points. In the present condition of business in this House this is the only occasion on
  380
  which it is possible to raise a question of this sort, the importance of which I venture to think is far greater than some hon. Members opposite seem to think. It is not only Somaliland, it is a question of our relations with all the subject races with which we have to deal as masters. They have been led to trust us. In Somaliland treaties have been made by request of Governments of the party opposite as well as by the Governments of the party on this side of the House. On the strength of these treaties the Somalis yielded up in the past institutions they enjoyed and placed themselves under what they believe to be, and had reason to believe to be, was the protection of the Union Jack. If you withdraw that protection you produce the state of chaos that existed before, but ten times worse, because those people are no longer able to protect themselves as they were in the past. It is because of the information I received from Somaliland in private letters, which I am willing to show to the right hon. Gentleman, but which I am sure he would not wish me to read in the House, showing that the condition of affairs is chaotic and derogatory to the British flag, that I venture to ask for more information than it was possible for me to exact by a method of question and answer across the floor of the House.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I do not complain of the inquiries which the hon. Gentleman has made. I am happy to assure him that the whole of my information leads me to believe that there is nothing serious whatever in the situation in the interior of Somaliland. He knows that there has always been an inclination to tribal looting. That has gone on for some considerable time. The hon. Member, I think, is wrong in thinking that they have an unlimited amount of ammunition, although I know they have arms. Most of their ammunition has been expended, and they find much difficulty in getting fresh supplies suitable for the weapons they possess. In order to stop any tribal looting I thought it desirable that steps should be taken, and last summer I authorised the raising of a camel constabulary of roughly about 150 men and three officers. That constabulary was completed, and seemed to be a very promising and admirable force by the early days of December. One tribe caused us a good deal of trouble, or rather a combination of tribes, who

  381
  were looting caravans on the way to the coast. They were also raiding tribes which were our friends. It seemed necessary, therefore, to take some steps to stop these raids and looting. A small detachment of the 119th Infantry, which had been detailed from Aden to garrison Berbera, some time before, was moved inland from Berbera, and the Camelry moved at the same time to a place in the direction of Hargeisa. There they met and engaged the tribes, and the Camelry were completely successful. The tribes lost thirty-eight men. The constabulary had two of the Friendlies who were with them wounded, and captured 1,280 camels, 1,300 sheep, 170 cows, and six horses. They have now returned to Berbera. The whole conduct of the neighbourhood is much more satisfactory in consequence of the action we have taken. I have no disturbing reports of any kind, and in relation to these operations our thanks are due to those in charge of the Camelry, Mr. Corfield and Mr. Gibb, who so admirably manoeuvred the forces at their disposal, and more especially to the Commissioner, Mr. Byatt, for the way in which he has conducted the administration of Somaliland for the last twelve months.
  Mr. GLAZEBROOK: As one who has taken a very deep interest for several years in Somaliland, I should like to give a very short sketch of what has been going on in that country. Of course, there has always been inter-tribal fighting and feuds from time immemorial, 'but during the British occupation those feuds were in a state of suspension and there was comparative prosperity in the country. Now that we have evacuated the country and handed over a large number of rifles, I think 20,000, to the Friendlies to protect themselves against the Mullah the inter-tribal fighting 'has broken out again throughout a very large portion of that country. The Mullah, partly probably for purposes of revenge and partly to collect rifles, has been attacking those small bodies which have been supporting us and whom we have now left in the lurch. I travelled through the country before the evacuation. Then there was no sign of fighting anywhere. I have now just returned from it again since the evacuation, and though of course the country is closed and one may not penetrate into (he interior, I must confess that I did not keep strictly within the law, and I was very much struck with the extraordinary difference. The white men were
  382
  confined to the towns and the trade routes were impassable. The Habr Yunis were raiding over the Abyssinian border. I attended the Law Courts, and found that there were many cases nearly all connected with cattle or camels. When members of our tribes, British subjects, tried to bring a case of any kind for damage to camels or cattle looted by Abyssinian tribes, the response was invariably the same. They admitted that there might have been looting by their tribes, but said that our tribes were far worse, and that we did nothing to control them owing to the evacuation. The result was that nothing could be done by our Consuls or officials to help these tribes, who relied on their status as British subjects and claimed damages against the Abyssinians. I also heard strong rumours of fighting going on on the coast east of Berbera, and I was told by the natives there that a cruiser had even been sent out within a few days of my arrival for the purpose of taking up certain officials to investigate the result of that fighting amongst, I believe, the Toljaala tribe. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman could give us any information of what fighting there was on the coast among the Toljaala tribe. The fighting in the interior is not only on our side of the border, but all along the border line, and fighting has increased on the other side of the border in the Abyssinian territory. For instance, the Habr Awal and Abbasque were actually conducting a raid in my presence, and they successfully looted about 1,100 cattle within two miles of my camp. They killed several men, and apparently there was not the least sign of any attempt on the part of any of the authorities to inquire into the raid or to check the raiders in any way. Perhaps I might be allowed to suggest a remedy. I admit the camel corps was extraordinarily popular. The mere news that the camel corps was coming was looked upon as a practical promise that British occupation was to begin again. Every chief of any importance on the border line used to come into our camp and ask us if we could do anything to bring the English back. They were pretty keen to get rid of the English, but as soon as they had gone they realised they had been pretty useful, because they found that they could not organise themselves and combine against the Mullah, or suppress the turbulent elements in their own midst; and they now demanded that

  383
  we should go back and protect them practically against themselves. If we could possibly occupy Hargeisa, which is practically the capital of the western half of Somaliland, I believe the effect would be that the whole western portion would again be under control, and that raiding would practically cease. The caravan routes which are now closed could easily be opened if Hargeisa was again the centre of English occupation. If the right hon. Gentleman could only see his way to reoccupy Hargeisa by keeping up the camel corps, which I presume he will be doing, we should be able again to give that protection to the tribes we have taken away from them, and justify the title of "Protectorate."
  Sir RANDOLF BAKER: In the few moments which are left to me, I should like to comment on the extraordinary difference between the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and the account he gave us of British Somaliland, and the speech of my hon. Friend who really knows the country. On the one hand, we had the rosy optimistic view taken by the Colonial Oflice of a few slight raids, and, on the other hand, we hear of tribes fighting one another continually, and of a state of raiding all over the country. I noticed the way in which hon. Members opposite received those statements, apparently paying no attention whatever. Does anyone feel surprised that so many people on the Continent look upon us as arrant hypocrites. We cry out about the Armenian atrocities, about the Congo troubles, and about the affairs of Putu-mayo, and here we have a country which we have evacuated, and which, I believe, we shall be forced to occupy again. We are allowing the friendly natives to be raided by the Mullah. I have heard stories of what is going on in Berbera—a place full of half-starved people—and many of the weaker Friendlies are being driven into a state of absolute destitution. Surely we are responsible for the state of affairs described by the hon. Gentleman. If the right hon. Gentleman will only go into the matter more fully and get more accurate reports of what is happening, and of what the Mullah is doing in the southern part of the country, I think he will realise what is essential for British prestige throughout the whole of South Africa. I, for one, think it is absolutely essential we should reoccupy that portion of the country.
  Mr. BOOTH: I do not think the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has been quite fair to this side of the House. I listened to every word of the Debate, and I think the general view is that the subject brought before the House is a very suitable matter to be brought forward. I should be sorry to think that the Government I support could not stand half an hour's criticism on its foreign and Colonial policy from hon. Members who have special knowledge of the topic. The conversations to which the hon. Member referred did not indicate a failure to realise the seriousness of the situation. But the hon. Member in his speech introduced the subject of the Super-tax and the Irish question, and was it not quite natural that hon. Members should indulge in some quiet comments among themselves. I am sure hon. Members welcomed the interposition of the hon. Member for South Manchester and of other hon. Members who speak with such knowledge. So far as I am concerned, I would join a little issue with them. I did not intervene earlier in the Debate because I feel it is the natural province of an Opposition to criticise, but I think that in the circumstances I might utter a word of caution. I fail to realise that it is our duty to look over the whole of the globe and be prepared to be moral policemen to interfere in every little tribal conflict. You might just as well say that because there is a conflict in the Balkans, it is our duty to interfere and do something because some people are being killed there. It is purely a question of degree. Hon. Members opposite apparently think that they cannot only run the Empire, but the whole of Africa and some other places, and that we have only to send them out in charge of a few camels and a few obsolete rifles, and the whole thing will be over, and the blacks and coloured men will be smoking the pipe of peace, superintended only by the Members of the Opposition. I am quite willing that they should go. I should have no objection whatever to that. If they perform any useful service of that kind, Members on this side of the House will offer up prayers that they should have a safe journey.
  It being half an hour after the conclusion of Government business, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at Twenty-eight minutes before Twelve o'clock.