§ (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 CHAIRMANThe first Amendment is not in order, as it would negative what the Committee has already decided in Subsection (1) of Clause 8.
§ Sir A. CRIPPSOn 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 CHAIRMANIf 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. CRIPPSWhat 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 CHAIRMANSo 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. CRIPPSIt 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 CHAIRMANThe 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. CRIPPSI 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 CHAIRMANIt 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. HOAREMay 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 CHAIRMANI have examined the point very carefully, and the Amendment would, in effect, undo what was done by Clause 8.
§ Sir A. CRIPPSI 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-BOSCAWENI wish to ask the Home Secretary what those rights are.
§ Mr. McKENNARights of burial, only rights of burial.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI 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. McKENNAThere 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-BOSCAWENIt 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. McKENNAThis 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 CECILThere 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. McKENNAThose rights are rights of burial.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILIt is not so said.
§ Mr. McKENNAYes.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILThat 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. HOARELet 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 CECILIt is just as important to Churchmen as to Nonconformists.
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHI 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. BALFOURI 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 GRIFFITHNot always.
Mr. BALFOURThere 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 tantokeeping 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. McKENNAThe 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 CECILAnybody who is entitled to Christian burial.
§ Mr. McKENNAAnd 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 CECILI think the right hon. Gentleman somewhat understates the right. It extends to everyone who has the right of Christian burial.
§ Mr. McKENNAI am dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's question. Under the Act of 1880—
§ Lord ROBERT CECILNo, the common law.
§ Mr. McKENNAAs 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-BOSCAWENIs the right hon. Gentleman referring to civil parishes or to ecclesiastical parishes?
§ Mr. McKENNAEcclesiastical 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 CECILSo he is.
§ Mr. McKENNANo, he is not.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILWhat 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. McKENNAA 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 CRIPPSI 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. BOOTHI 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 CECILOne 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. McKENNAI will inquire into that point.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ The CHAIRMANThe 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-BOSCAWENI 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. McKENNAI 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-BOSCAWENAnd to ascertain what concession you are prepared to make.
§ Mr. McKENNAThe 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-BOSCAWENThat 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. McKENNALet 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-BOSCAWENThat was his promise.
§ Mr. McKENNANo, he said he would consider it.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENHe said that something should be done.
§ Mr. McKENNAAnd 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. BALFOURThe 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. BOOTHI 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. CRIPPSThey will have no such right.
§ Mr. BOOTHThen 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. POLLOCKThe 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 GRIFFITHI 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. POLLOCKThere is a doubt.
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHWith 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. POLLOCKIt is differently interpreted on different sides of the House.
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHI 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. POLLOCKI read it so.
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHIf 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. CRIPPSI 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 CECILBefore 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 WILLIAMSI 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. HOAREI 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 GRIFFITHWith 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 WOLMEROn 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. CAWLEYThe 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 HELMSLEYI 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. CAWLEYMy claim was a claim to a right to the property based on Lord Selborne's statement that the ground belonged to the parishioners.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYI 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 CHAIRMANBefore 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. NEWTONI 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 GRIFFITHIt 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-BOSCAWENI suggest that these specific points will be better raised by separate Amendments. Therefore I ask leave to withdraw.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
292§ Sir A. CRIPPSI 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 GRIFFITHAlthough 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. CRIPPSI think they do not.
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHThe 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. POLLOCKI 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-BOSCAWENI 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-BOSCAWENThe 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. HOBHOUSEYes. 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-BOSCAWENIf they adjoin.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe 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. POLLOCKThere is no good in telling us that.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe 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. POLLOCKHow 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. HOBHOUSEI 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. POLLOCKDisused burial grounds.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI 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 CECILI 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.
301| 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.) |
| 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.
307| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |