§ Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be necessary for payment of principal and interest of any money borrowed by the Welsh Commissioners in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to terminate the establishment of the Church of England in Wales and Monmouthshire, and to make provision in respect of the Temporalities thereof, and for other purposes in connection with the matters aforesaid."
§ Resolution read a second time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
320§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSLast night there was no opportunity of discussing this matter, and this is now the only opportunity we will have of endeavouring to ascertain from the Government what the real meaning of this Financial Resolution is, how much money they think they will need, what borrowing powers will be required, and what, in effect, is the ultimate liability to the taxpayer of this country. So far as my limited experience goes almost every Bill which this Government brings in needs a Finance Resolution. Certainly this Session the Bills have been so distinguished. The Home Rule Bill, now this Bill, a week or two ago the Pilotage Bill, and, in fact, every single Bill the Government brings in involves the adding of a number of new officials of various kinds, and I think we shall find before the Committee stage of this Bill is finished that the country will be saddled with the payment of more officials under the provisions of this Bill. I quite agree that a 321 Finance Resolution is needed actually and verbally, though it merely authorises the Treasury to guarantee the loans made by the Welsh Commissioners. I understand that the Welsh Commissioners when they have got any property, which cannot possibly be until some of the advowsements fall in, will be entitled to deal with them and to sell or otherwise to deal with them. In the meantime it is possible they will have to borrow money in order to carry out the methods adopted by the Government of spoiling the Church in Wales. The Treasury will be asked, are asked, under the provisions of this Resolution to guarantee any loan whatever which the Welsh Commissioners choose to make or the Treasury chooses to sanction.
In the first place, I am one of those who strongly object to giving the Government of the day, or the Treasury, the unlimited power of borrowing that this Resolution gives. There is no limit whatever in this Resolution, although in the last Money Resolution passed by this House in connection with the Pilotage Bill the House did very rightly impose a limit. It was a small Bill. The amount that the Government desired to take from the pocket of the taxpayers was not large. But I think very rightly a maximum was inserted in that Money Resolution. That maximum, of course, guides the Treasury for all time unless they can get a further Resolution passed by this House. I certainly thought of moving an Amendment to this Resolution limiting the borrowing powers of the Welsh Commission. Of course the Welsh Commission can borrow without any leave from this House. I quite agree to that; but we want to limit the borrowing power of the Welsh Commissioners so far as pledging the credit of this country is concerned. I am in this predicament: I take it that a large portion of the borrowing of the Welsh Commissioners will be needed for commutation schemes. We understood a few days ago that the Government were prepared very shortly to place their scheme before this House in regard to the provision made for valuing the life interests. That, I take it, is the principal item which will necessitate borrowing powers on the part of the Welsh Commissioners. There are small items, such as salaries and so forth, which I will deal with in a moment, but the large item is the item of commutation. It is exceedingly difficult to those of us who desire to control Treasury expenditure, and keep some check upon the public purse, to know what limit to impose without knowing the 322 Government provision with regard to commutation. I think I am entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who has had control of this Bill for many weeks past, for information upon the point. I suppose he considered, in view of bringing in his Bill, the various proposals that might, would, or could be made from this side of the House—he must have had some idea in his mind what commutation schemes would be put before the House. Under ordinary circumstances I think we should have been quite entitled to move the Adjournment of the Debate on this Resolution until the right hon. Gentleman had put before the House his commutation scheme. That is impossible now. Under the Guillotine Resolution it is impossible for us to do what might be construed as a dilatory Motion for the Adjournment of this Debate. I do suggest, however, that it is exceedingly difficult under the scheme which the Government has adopted for a very long time in this House for us to debate this Money Resolution giving the Welsh Commissioners power, with the assent of the Treasury, to borrow what money they like, the bulk of which will be needed for this commutation scheme if it comes off.
I do not hesitate to say if the commutation scheme that is to be proposed by the right hon. Gentleman is one which the Church can accept, is one which would be beneficial to the Church, that I should take one view of this Resolution and one view of the Amendment which I would desire to limit the Treasury in guaranteeing the loan of. On the other hand, if the commutation scheme is one which would not commend itself to the Church, is one at which we cannot look, and which the Church say they have no use for, then, I take it, that we would then be entitled to move an Amendment limiting the amount of the Treasury guarantee to such moderate amounts as may be needed for the purposes of carrying out the ordinary purposes of this Bill. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will immediately after I have spoken, and before other hon. Members on this side speak, give the House sufficient details of his commutation scheme, whatever it may be, in order that on this Resolution we may decide whether we think it right that the credit of the country should be pledged to provide the sum necessary—one, two, or three millions sterling—for carrying out that commutation scheme. Another point arises in my mind. I doubt very much if the taxpayers of this country had any idea six months 323 ago, when this Welsh Bill was debated outside, that they were going to be called upon to pay for the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church. I am quite sure, much as Church people throughout England dislike the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church—I am not, of course, going into the main question—much as we dislike this Bill, our dislike, and the dislike of the Welsh Nonconformists would have increased, if they had known that they would have to pay to provide money out of the public purse in order that this scheme of spoliation could be carried out! Whether the money is lent directly by the country or guaranteed by the country, it is exactly the same thing. The credit of the country is pledged for it.
8.0 P.M.
Before I leave this matter I would just like to call to the right hon. Gentleman's memory the Debate which took place here sonic few weeks ago—when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair—a Debate on the allocation of time for the guillotine in regard to this Bill, and particularly in regard to the time for taking this Finance Resolution. It was pointed out that it would be impossible to take it in Committee. The hon. Member for Dudley raised a question with regard to the salary for the Welsh Commissioners. I spoke on the matter. The right hon. Gentleman opposite also took part in the Debate. It was generally understood that we should be able to turn to Clause 10 when the Finance Resolution came on. The point then taken, and which I want some definite answer on, was that under Clause 10 certain Welsh Commissioners are going to be appointed. The House wiil remember that by Clause 10, Sub-section (4), certain salaries are to be paid to these Welsh Com-Commissioners, in one case not exceeding £1,500 a year, and in the other case £1,000, as the Treasury might direct. We suggested very strongly then that a Money Resolution was wanted for that Clause, because there was the possibility that those salaries might have to be paid out of the taxpayer's pocket, and out of the provisions of the Money Resolution which we are now discussing. The right hon. Gentleman was rather angry on the two matters. He said that no Money Resolution was required to deal with Clause 10, because the Commissioners' salaries would be paid out of the funds of the Welsh Church which are taken over. We objected strongly to these Commissioners being paid salaries out of our own money. 324 It is money taken from our Church, and I think it would be distinctly fairer to the Welsh Commissioners to pay them out of public money and not to take that money out of the Church funds. On considering that fact I think the Finance Resolution is required. I was almost inclined to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I suppose it is too late now as Clause 10 has been passed. Supposing you get your Disestablishment Bill carried through, and you appoint your Commissioners and the officials, unfortunately for you, happen to live for a few years, how are you going to pay the salaries of those Commissioners? Where is the money to come from? The right hon. Gentleman told us it was going to come out of the Church Property Fund, but there will be no fund at the beginning, and the way you will have to pay these Commissioners' salaries I imagine will be by loan. Is that part of the loan which is coming from the Exchequer under the provisions of the Resolution we are discussing? Is that part of the loan that is to be guaranteed by the Treasury for which the people of this country are to be responsible? These are the questions I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman. What is the total liability which the taxpayers of this country can by any possibility under the provisions of this Resolution be called upon to pay? In order to get at that sum the right hon. Gentleman must give some estimation of the commutation scheme and an estimate of the total amount that would be required. Secondly, I want to ask, having regard to his speech in November, whether that estimate was not a mistake, and whether in certain circumstances such as those I have described, the salaries of the Welsh Commissioners may not fall upon the Consolidated Fund by reason of their having been paid by a loan guaranteed by the Treasury of this country? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will answer these questions, and will also say whether or not it is possible to limit the amount.
§ Mr. McKENNAIf the House desires that I should answer at once, I shall do so, but it must be remembered that I can only speak once. However, if it is so desired, I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman's questions without delay. The hon. Gentleman usually speaks with such accuracy and knowledge on financial affairs that I cannot help feeling great surprise at the speech he has just made. He has put to me a series of questions. I am sure had he read this Clause 29, in respect to 325 which this Financial Resolution is needed, through even once, he would have found the answer for himself with the greatest ease. He talked about the country being saddled with the cost of new officials for which this Resolution was required, and about the taxpayers being called upon to pay for Disestablishment, although there is not one word in this Clause or in the Financial Resolution which would justify in the smallest degree any of these questions. I shall substantiate what I am saying. What is the Financial Resolution required for? It is not required, as the hon. Member suggested, in order to enable the Treasury to borrow money; it is required to enable the Treasury to guarantee a loan if such loan is made to the Welsh Commissioners, and it is further required to enable the Treasury for the purposes of that guarantee to pay out of the Consolidated Fund, if necessary, any sum due upon the Welsh Commissioners' loan which the Welsh Commissioners may not, in fact, be able to meet. This provision as to guarantee is only required by way of extra security, for it is quite manifest to anyone who followed these Debates that the security in the hands of the Welsh Commissioners will be far greater than any possible liability that can fall upon them. The House must remember that under Clause 4, as from the date of Disestablishment, there is vested in the Welsh Commissioners a very large amount of property indeed.
In a certain respect that property is held subject to particular charges. The largest charge is a charge that is to be met in respect of life interests. The life interests obviously cannot absorb the whole of the freehold, and cannot be as great as the freehold. The other charges except the life interest are all comparatively small. There will be charges upon the properly for the salaries of the Welsh Commissioners. Quite true, they will have to bear that; the Commissioners will have to pay the expenses of management; the Commissioners will have to pay compensation to the lay officials of the Church; they will also have to pay compensation to the holders of advowsements. That is quite true, but those charges are not comparable in relation to the amount of property which will become vested in the Commissioners. They will have vested in them all the tithe rent-charges of the Church which produce an income of upwards of £120,000 a year. It is quite true they will hold that, subject to life 326 interests, but with that exception all the charges are really insignificant. It must be remembered that the life interests the Commissioners will have to pay, will be subject to commutation, and will only have to be paid year by year out of the funds which are paid to them. Therefore the liability of the Commissioners in respect to which they would have to borrow, can only be for such trivial amounts as the salaries of the Commissioners, the expenses of their office, the payment of one year's value to the owners of advowsements, and compensation to the lay officials. The whole of that amount could not come to more than a few thousand pounds, while they will hold, subject to life interests, a property which is bringing in £120,000 a year.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILMore than that.
§ Mr. McKENNANot now. Certain property remains in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and is not transferred. The property of which the Commissioners will have charge is worth £120,000 a year.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILIt is worth £158,000, subject, to the effect of the life interests which is in dispute.
§ Mr. McKENNAI could not at the common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners remains as a charge and is not transferred, but the point is immaterial. I accept the figure of the Noble Lord, which if he is right, would be £158,000 a year.
Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMSCan the right hon. Gentleman give us an estimate of the value of the advowsements and of the lay offices?
§ Mr. McKENNAI could not at the moment, but the matter is trivial in value; it is limited to one year. The compensation for the owners of the advowsements is limited to one year's value of the emoluments; they are not a large number, and it is quite an insignificant sum. I have not looked into the details, but it is too trivial, too small, to be worth spending much time upon, although it is important to the individual. When you are dealing with such a sum as we are dealing with here, bringing in annually between £120,000 and £160,000 a year, it is idle to talk of the charge upon the Treasury which guarantees a loan, apart from the commutation, of a few thousand pounds. Apart from commutation I do not think I need trouble about the Treasury guarantee at all. I 327 think the Commissioners will have enough money and could themselves borrow. It might make a difference of a quarter or a half per cent, in the rate at which they could borrow, and if the commutation were not large I really need not have troubled much about it. I have to have this Clause in because I have to consider that possibly proposals of commutation will be made, and I could not consider them unless I got this Clause, because if the Commissioners had to raise a sum of money of £20,000 or £30,000 or £40,000 upon a security of £3,000,000, I do not want to guarantee it; but if I have to raise perhaps £2,000,000 upon the security of property valued at £3,000,000, the Treasury guarantee may be of much value, and may enable me to offer much better terms for commutation than otherwise.
This Clause is introduced with a view to having our hands free to meet all the possibilities of the Bill. If commutation was dropped out this Clause is considered to be justified in itself, but not as a charge that we propose that the taxpayers should be called upon to pay for Disestablishment. I would far rather leave the Clause out. It really is not worth while considering a quarter or perhaps a half per cent, interest, if that is to be made the occasion for charges of this kind. When we come to the question of commutation the matter is different. The hon. Member says, I think quite fairly, that this Clause cannot be considered without some indication of the amount of the liability for guarantee which is thrown upon the Treasury under the commutation system. I do not in the least complain of his raising objection that the Commutation Clause is not actually before the House at this moment. I can only say in answer to that that I would have had the Commutation Clause ready before now except for my anxiety, before introducing it to the House, to know something of the views of the actuarial advisers of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as to the circumstances of the case in order that we might not take a wrong basis, a basis which would be found wholly unacceptable to the Chuch in estimating the life-interests; and it is really with a view of having an opportunity of consulting the other side that I have been compelled to delay this White Paper until now. I hope the House will be in possession of the White Paper before the end of this week. With regard to the estimate of commutation, I do not think I can add anything to 328 what I said before. It is impossible to give the exact figures, but we know from the Irish experience that it works out somewhere in the neighbourhood of twelve years' purchase. Whether it is a year more or a year less would only affect the total amount to the extent of £158,000. I take twelve years' purchase as the figure, based on a certain amount of authority, judging from our experience that a much longer number of years' purchase than was the case in the Irish Bill will be required, because I recognise that people do live longer to-day than they did forty years ago. I have not the material upon which to make an exact calculation, but I will put it at the largest amount, and the capital sum required I do not think will exceed £2,000,000. Whether it is £1,800,000, £1,900,000, or £2,000,000, does not really matter. If we are to have the Treasury guarantee at all it cannot make much difference which of those is the right amount. The House is asked, by accepting this Resolution, to authorise the Treasury to guarantee a loan which the Welsh Commissioners will have to make in order to provide the capital sum for commutation. I think I have now answered all the points.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSThe right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with my point about Clause 10.
§ Mr. McKENNAI did not think the hon. Member would raise that point again, for he knows as much about finance as I do. May I point out that a Financial Resolution is not required in respect of Clause 10, the sole purpose of which is to provide for the payments by the Welsh Commissioners out of money which is not public money. A Financial Resolution is only required for any charge that can be laid upon the public, but Clause 10 lays no charge upon the public. The fact that hereafter in another Clause the Treasury is authorised to guarantee a loan which may be raised by the Welsh Commissioners for the purpose of meeting a charge under Clause 10 does not mean that the Financial Resolution must be introduced before Clause 10 is reached, but it means that a Financial Resolution must be introduced before Clause 29 is reached, which might create a technical charge upon the public. This Resolution is required under Clause 29, but clearly it is not required for the purpose of Clause 10. The Welsh Commissioners will have overwhelming funds, and more than are required to meet any of the purposes except commutation. In respect 329 of that the liability can only fall upon the Treasury at all if the amount we pay as representing the life interest is grossly-excessive. From what I have gathered in the course of these discussions that is a contingency which hon. Members opposite would not in the least complain of. In these circumstances, I hope the House will consent to pass this Resolution.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILThe right hon. Gentleman has given us a very clear statement of why he wants this Resolution, but there is one phrase he used which I think it is worth while to emphasise because it throws a little light upon what was said in a previous discussion. He said that the compensation for lay officers was too small for consideration, indeed it was so small that it really was not worth while making an estimate of the amount because it was such a negligible quantity when dealing with £157,000 a year. That throws a very bright light upon the refusal of the Government to extend that compensation to such people as charwomen and curates, who might otherwise have been sharers in this generosity which has now been so restricted. The right hon. Gentleman reproached my hon. Friend for suggesting that the cost of the new officials created by the Welsh Commissioners could possibly fall upon this fund. The right hon. Gentleman said it was clear that the Welsh Commissioners were to be paid out of the national property hitherto devoted to religious purposes, but which is now to be devoted to the payment of the nominees of the Government. On the wording of the Bill, it is quite plain that that is so. I think the Government have made a grave mistake and committed a grave injustice in throwing the cost of the Welsh Commissioners upon the funds of the Welsh Church. I have said so before in these discussions, but perhaps it is proper to repeat that I should have felt more disposed to welcome this Resolution with something like favour if it had provided for the payment of the Welsh Commissioners as well as for the guaranteeing of the loan. As for the guaranteeing of the loan, I agree that, apart from commutation, the matter is not an alarming one. In the interests of financial purity. I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's view that the guaranteeing of a loan of this kind does not throw anything but a technical charge upon the public.
§ Mr. McKENNAI said that as regards commutation up to £2,000,000. Of course, 330 the security of £3,000,000 would throw much more than a technical charge upon the public. I said without commutation when dealing with a possible loan of £20,000, £30,000, £40,000, or £50,000 as the security for £3,000,000, the liability in regard to the guarantee is a mere technical charge.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILIn regard to small loans of that amount I agree that it is a small matter when you have the revenues of the country behind it, but there is an impression abroad to the effect that you are not paying anything if you use the credit of the country to borrow money. In this respect the right hon. Gentleman used some phrases which I am afraid were rather misleading. As to the commutation I agree with the right hen. Gentleman that it is by far the most important matter that arises on this Resolution. I do not complain of the right hon. Gentleman having taken some days to formulate his scheme, but apparently he never proposed commutation before, and he made no preparation for proposing it. At any rate he has now made a very small preparation. By the end of the week it would be about a fortnight since the Debate took place. If he had made proper preparation, all he had to ascertain was whether his calculations of what was right from a financial point of view were accepted by those who had special experience in ecclesiastical transactions of this character so as to avoid injustice of any description. I must say I do not think that ought to have taken a fortnight. Government Departments constantly make confidential inquiries in financial matters. It is well known the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to make confidential inquiries before he introduces the Budget. There would have been no difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman could have made confidential inquiries at the outset.
I believe the real truth is he never intended commutation at all, and it was only when he found his supporters were beginning to dislike the Bill very much, and he had to do something to meet their indignation, that he ultimately made this proposal in order to appease the party which the hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. Llewelyn Williams) has described as "the party of private secretaries." I do not know how many private secretaries there are on the other side of the House, but they seem to be sufficiently numerous to terrify the Home Secretary. If this commutation is really honest and 331 straightforward, as I hope it will be, it will obviously, I will not say be a great boon to the Church, because it will certainly not give them anything they have not got, but it will make the business aspect of the thing and the transaction easier and less harmful to the Church. It is in that sense an advantage to Church people. I do think the Government before introducing a Bill of this kind ought to have had the scheme perfectly ready. The right hon. Gentleman says he could not put it into the Bill until he knew whether the Church was prepared to accept it, but he ought to have had it cut and dried. He would then have been able to have told us what the liability was, instead of asking us to accept a Resolution, the liability under which is purely a matter of guess work, depending upon the acceptance or rejection of a scheme we have not yet seen. Having made that criticism, I must say the right hon. Gentleman has, at any rate, treated us with every courtesy and consideration, and he has told us he hopes to produce it within the next few days. I therefore admit my grievance is not very serious under the circumstances.
§ Sir D. BRYNMOR JONESI was glad to hear the concluding observation of the Noble Lord, because I do think it is really unfair to complain of any delay on the part of the Government in regard to financial questions depending upon the acceptance of the commutation scheme. The Noble Lord must know we on this side of the House thought the provisions of the Bill as introduced were designed in the interests of the Church, to make the transition period from an Established Church to a Disestablished Church as easy as possible for the organisation in which he is interested, and I should like him to remember that we on this side of the House said not one word against the acceptance of the commutation scheme. We are not responsible for the provisions in the Bill for gradual Disendowment. The moment the Government signified they were willing to entertain proposals for a commutation scheme coming from this side of the House, and approved on that side of the House, we Welsh Members raised no objection at all to that basis of settlement. It is a little ungracious now, I think, on the part of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House to complain of any delay in regard to a full and complete statement of the financial proposals of the Bill, and, 332 as I have said, I am glad the Noble Lord has seen that point already.
I did not get up to deal with the commutation scheme. It is perfectly obvious the House at the present moment is not in a position to criticise any details, or really to consider the validity or worth of any argument founded upon the amount of money it may be necessary to raise in order to carry out Disendowment upon the commutation basis, if it should be the ultimate verdict of the House. I should like to say a word or two in reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks). I should certainly not complain of his making criticisms in regard to this Financial Resolution. I notice, experienced though he is in these matters, he appears to have fallen into a not uncommon error in his criticism upon Clause 10. He evidently thought because certain words in Clause 10 were italicised it therefore became necessary to have a Financial Resolution in Committee and upon Report in order that the Bill might pass. It must not be supposed, simply because there are words such as "£1,500 a year" italicised in Clause 10 in accordance with the practice of this House in printing its Bills, that a charge is necessarily imposed which requires a Financial Resolution.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI do not think I did say that by reason of the fact that the words were italicised any Resolution was requisite. I said that as the Welsh Commissioners will have no money in their hands at the beginning, their salaries will have to be paid to some extent out of the proceeds of a loan; that loan requires the Treasury guarantee, and that guarantee requires a Financial Resolution. Therefore pro tanto,so far as the salaries of the Commissioners are paid out of a loan, we ought really to have a Financial Resolution.
§ Sir D. BRYNMOR JONESI said the hon. Member was very experienced in these matters. He was not, then, misled by the italics in Clause 10. It makes it the more surprising he should have committed himself to the proposition that the real meaning of the Resolution was the country was to pay for Disestablishment and Disendowment. After explaining, I think with accuracy, the provisions of Clause 10, he suddenly jumped to the strange conclusion that the country is to pay for Disestablishment and Disendowment. That, with great deference to the 333 hon. Member, is not a true conclusion to draw either from Clause 10 or from Clause 29. The important Sub-section is Subsection (6):—
"The said salaries and remuneration and all incidental expenses sanctioned by the Treasury"—
the Treasury keep control; that does not affect the ultimate financial liability—
"of carrying this Act into effect shall be paid by the Commissioners out of moneys in their hands in pursuance of this Act, but not so as in any way to diminish the property to be transferred to the representative body or county councils under this Act."
We will drop for a moment the question of borrowing. Let us see how the matter stands. By Clause 4 the Welsh Commissioners get possession of a large amount of property, and by Clause 8 that property is distributed. I wish to lay down a further proposition here that in Clause 10 and subsequent Clauses we are dealing with the basis of distribution; but taking Sub-section (6) of Clause 10 in conjunction with the Clauses already passed, the position of the Welsh Commissioners is this, that they can only pay their own salaries and incidental expenses out of property which is subject to the provisions of this Act. Now let us turn to Clause 29. There they are subject to the sanction of the Treasury. The Welsh Commissioners can only borrow on such terms as the Treasury may approve. If we had only to consider the mere carrying out of the provisions of the Bill in the way in which it was proposed and as the Bill was brought in, it really would not seem such an important matter. But it is quite different, because there comes in the question of asking the guarantee of the Treasury even for a very small sum. The hon. Member for Brentford should not have said that the country was being called upon to pay a single penny for Disestablishment and Disendowment. The hon. Member says you are paying out our money—that is, the Church money. But that is not so. It is not fair to make that proposition and to say that the expense of carrying out the Bill is to be paid out of Church money. The whole of the expense of the Bill, as matters stand, is to be borne by the Welsh nation. I do not think it was fair to give expression to the statement that the expenses of Disestablishment and Disendowment are being paid for by the 334 taxpayers of England. In all sincerity I wish hon. Gentlemen opposite to understand that while we acquiesce in the provisions of this Bill, that we propose Endowment with reluctance, and that we have from the first held that a Royal Commission should be appointed to settle the basis in which it should be carried out.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENThe speech to which we have just listened appears to entirely justify the attitude taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford, when he said it was possible and even probable that part, of the cost of carrying into effect this Bill, would fall on the State. I think it clearly follows that that will be so. The Welsh Commissioners are to be appointed at once. Disendowment cannot take place for at least six months and, possibly, twelve months. How are they going to be paid in the interval? The money will have to be borrowed, but there will be no property which can be offered as a guarantee, and therefore it seems to me that the burden will have to be borne by the State. As has been pointed out, the salaries and remuneration and all incidental expenses sanctioned by the Treasury of carrying this Act into effect, are to be paid by the Commissioners out of moneys in their hands, but not so as in any way to diminish the property to be transferred to the representative body or county councils under this Act. That shows that the money to be used for this purpose must come out of what I may call the capitular assets of the Commissioners; they are not to use parochial money or money in the nature of private benefaction. On the top of that we have to wait until every bishop, dean, or canon, or some member of the capitular body disappears from this Clause, and we may have to wait some time, for these gentlemen are long-lived, and they have existing interests and no immediate inducement to disappear. Therefore, you may have to borrow a considerable sum on the Treasury's guarantee. It is all very well for the Home Secretary to say that there will be no claim upon the State. There might have to be a payment, and in any case the State is rendering itself liable.
§ Sir D. BRYNMOR JONESMay I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he is under the impression that the Welsh Commissioners must be appointed immediately after the Bill comes into operation, and, if so, what they have got to do until the date of Disestablishment?
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENI imagine they will have an enormous amount of work to do. The Insurance Commissioners were appointed long before the Insurance Act came into operation, and I believe they have not had too long in which to get ready. I imagine the Welsh Commissioners will certainly have to be appointed at once in order to get ready. In the meantime, it is clear that they can have no money in their possession out of which to pay their salaries, and that they will have to pay them out of the money which comes from the bishops or deans or canons out of the capitular estates. The right hon. Gentleman tries to prove too much when he tries to prove that no charge can fall upon the State, for in any case there is that liability. As to the point whether the Commissioners are to be appointed immediately, I am not an authority on this Bill, and I do not know what is in the minds of the Government. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Duchy or the Under-Secretary will tell us. I should have thought that if the names were ready to be put into the Bill they would be appointed at once. I do not see how they can carry out their duties if their appointment is postponed until the date of Disestablishment. It is very awkward that we should not have yet any details of the proposed scheme of commutation. I have looked at the words of the Financial Re-solution, and I recognise that they will cover either a very big operation, which will be necessary if we have commutation, or a comparatively small one, which is all that will be necessary if there is no commutation. It is certainly awkward when the Government are asking powers for an almost unlimited period that we should not in the least know what is intended. I do not want to quarrel with the Home Secretary on this matter, because he made a very fair statement, and it is only fair that he should consult the actuaries of the Ecclesiastical Commission and Queen Anne's Bounty, but I think we have the ground of complaint urged by my Noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil) when he said that the Government, in preparing the Bill, ought to have considered commutation to start with. To expect us now to pass this particular Financial Resolution without knowing whether or not there is to be commutation, and, if there is to be commutation, to what extent it is to go, whether it is to be voluntary or compulsory, and what is the sum that will be involved, is putting the House into a very inconvenient position.
336 In one respect I rather differ from my hon. Friend (Mr. Joynson-Hicks). I should like to have extended the Financial Resolution in one respect, because I think it would be fair not only that the State should guarantee a loan raised by the Welsh Commissioners, but that they should also guarantee a loan raised by the representative body. I am afraid I am rather too late for that, and that I ought to have moved that Amendment to the Resolution earlier, but the matter can, no doubt, be considered later. I ask the Government whether they have any objection to such a proposition. They know that one of the proposals contained in the Bill is that the Church body should buy the glebe. Originally they had to buy all the glebe but that has been altered. For that purpose it seems to me it might be exceedingly useful that the new organisation of the Church or the representative body should have the right to borrow. If they had that right it would be of material assistance to them. At all events, that is a suggestion I wish to put forward. Whether it can be done under this Financial Resolution I do not know. I rather gather not but perhaps the Government will consider whether they can amend the Financial Resolution, or, at all events, bear the point in mind. I do not know I have any other points to raise, but I certainly do wish that the Government had told us what their plan of commutation was before we had to discuss this Resolution.
Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMSThe hon. and gallant Member who spoke last seemed to be under the impression that the Commissioners will be appointed immediately after the passing of this Bill, and before the date of Disestablishment. That is not my reading of the Bill, and as I understand the interruption of my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Brynmor Jones) that is not his interpretation of the Bill either. If reference is made to Clause 4 it will be seen that the property is to vest in the Commissioners only after the date of Disestablishment. The Commissioners will have nothing to do until the released funds are vested in them. That is only after the date of Disestablishment. Therefore there is no necessity why the Commissioners should be appointed before the date of Disestablishment. There is nothing in Clause 10 which fixes the date of the appointment of the Commissioners. The matter is left at large in that Clause. Therefore, reading Clause 10 and Clause 4 together, I fail to see why their appoint- 337 ment should date before the day of Disestablishment, and there will be no liability falling upon anybody, or upon the Government, or any Department to provide for the payment of their salaries until after the date of Disestablishment.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSWill the hon. and learned Member on that point refer to Clause 10, Sub-section (7)? It says:—
"The powers of the Commissioners shall continue until the end of the year in which this Act is passed."
It is perfectly clear from that that the Bill contemplates the immediate appointment of the Commissioners, and that they shall act as soon as the Bill is passed.
Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMSIt does not state when the powers of the Commissioners shall begin. The date must be fixed by reference to Clause 4, which says that the property shall vest in the Commissioners after the date of Disestablishment. What can the Commissioners have to do before the property is vested in them? That is my reading of the Bill, for what it is worth. I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), with his large experience in these matters, say that Disestablishment will cost the taxpayer a single penny. At the most, supposing there is commutation, and supposing that a sum of £2,000,000 will have to be borrowed on the guarantee of the British Treasury, that does not mean that the taxpayer will have to pay a penny. It is true that the credit of the Treasury will be at stake, but not the credit of the taxpayers. The hon. Member is very fair on financial matters as apart from his prejudice in favour of the Church, and so on, and I am sure he will agree that in reality not a penny piece is taken out of any taxpayer's pocket by any proposal contained in the Bill or any proposal which has been adumbrated in regard to commutation.
But there is one matter upon which I should like to have further information. It is very relevant to the discussion of this Financial Resolution. I think we are entitled to have some idea as to the value of the private advowsons which are to be compensated for under the Bill. I suppose the compensation will have to be paid out of a fund which will have to be borrowed for the purpose. The Home Secretary said it would be a very few thousand pounds, indeed so small a sum that it was hardly worth while mentioning in 338 connection with this Resolution. I take it that really if commutation fails, the bulk of the money borrowed under the powers of the Financial Resolution will go to pay for the private advowsons. Therefore, if I am correct in that, I think the House is entitled to know now, or in the course of a few days, what the estimate of the Treasury may be as to the amount of money which will be paid as compensation for these private advowsons. There are practically 300 of these. If the average is only, say, £150 a year—I think, that is low enough for each one—that would mean that a sum of £45,000 would have to be borrowed under the powers of this Financial Resolution in order to compensate the owners of these 299 private advowsons. That is important not only from the point of view of this Financial Resolution, but it is important, too, for us Welsh Members and for the Welsh people whom we represent, that we should know exactly what the financial position will be when this Bill is through. We have never taken that into account at all in estimating what the financial position the Welsh Commissioners, as representing the Welsh people, will be after the date of Disestablishment. It is a thing that we can get actual figures for, because the compensation to be paid under the Bill is for not more than one year, so that we can give the outside figure. The figures are definite, and we ought to be able to ascertain very easily the yearly value of these advowsons, and therefore we should get some estimate at least as to the outside amount which would have to be paid in compensation.
9.0 P.M.
But there is another matter which is relevant to this Financial Resolution. I suppose that the lay officers of the Church who will have to be compensated under the Act, will be compensated out of a fund which will be borrowed under the terms of this Financial Resolution. Again, I think we are entitled on both sides of the House to know whether the Treasury can form any estimate at all as to the amount of money which will have to be paid in compensation for these offices. I have no doubt it will be very difficult for them to do so, and I do not think anyone will expect a very accurate or a very definite figure to be given. For my own part, I do not hold the Treasury responsible for anything except a very rough estimate as to the amount, but we ought to get an estimate with some degree of accuracy. With re- 339 gard to commutation, this is not the time to discuss that. I will only say that the Welsh Members have never been wedded to the partial Disendowment Clauses of the Bill as it was introduced, and, speaking for myself, I thought the Bill was introduced in that form because it was more acceptable to the Church. We are quite willing to assent to that if it is more acceptable to the Church people in Wales. If we are wrong in that assumption, we again are equally willing to accept some such proposal for commutation as has been suggested by the Home Secretary, but I wish to guard myself against acceptance of any terms in the dark. We must have time to consider them, and we hold ourselves quite as free as hon. Members opposite to discuss them on their merits. There should be no profit and no loss to anyone. Certainly, if a commutation proposal is going to be made which will result in a loss to the Welsh people, I for one would be no party to its acceptance.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANRather an interesting point has arisen out of this Debate on the Financial Resolution, in which there seems to be a very considerable difference of opinion. The Home Secretary told us the Financial Resolution was not required for Clause 10 for the payment of the Welsh Commissioners' salaries, but, as I read that Clause, I cannot understand how they are going to be paid at all without being paid out of some kind of public money—at any rate during the first year. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Brynmor Jones) and the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Llewelyn Williams) take the view that the Welsh Commissioners do not come into possession till the date of Disestablishment. That seems to me to be absolutely contrary to a considerable number of Clauses in the Bill. My hon. Friend has quoted Sub-section (7) of Clause 10, in which it is stated that "The powers of the Commissioners shall continue till the end of the year, in which this Act is passed and three years thereafter." Therefore, they must be appointed at the time when the Act is passed. If that is not sufficient proof, what about Clause 9?
"The Welsh Commissioners shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, with respect to any ecclesiastical parish part only whereof is situate in Wales or Monmouthshire,"
and so on. They have got to decide immediately after the passing of the Act 340 about these border parishes and all the 'difficulties connected with them. If that is not enough proof, the right hon. Gentleman has only to look at Clause 7, Subjection (2):—
"The Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty as respects any property transferred from them respectively, and the Welsh Commissioners as respects any other property vested in them by this Act, shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act ascertain and by order declare what part of the property constitutes private benefactions within the meaning of this Act."
Can the right hon. Gentleman still contend that the Commissioners are not to be appointed until the date of Disestablishment? It is perfectly clear from these three quotations that they are to be appointed at the date of the passing of this Act. Well then, if this Money Resolution is not required for them, how are they going to be paid? Are they going to work for nothing during the first year or, if not, how are they going to be paid? They can only be paid by the Government advancing money to pay them. They have no money in their hands, I am not sure that they would borrow for themselves. At any rate, there are two Gentlemen now on the Treasury Bench, and I think we are entitled to ask them to clear up the misconception raised by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen as to the date at which the Welsh Commissioners are to come into office, and also to tell the House how, without the use of public money, they are to be paid between the passing of the Act, if it docs pass, and the date of Disestablishment.
§ Mr. MOUNTI wish to ask one or two questions with regard to the Financial Resolution. I should like first of all to say that the speech of the hon. Member for the Swansea District (Sir D. Brynmor Jones) seemed to mc a very illuminating one. He started with the idea that he was going to show that this was not going to be a charge upon the National Exchequer. Then he realised as he went on, it seemed to me, that if he was going to show that it was not a charge upon the National Exchequer, he was bound to come to the conclusion that it was to come out of Church property. Then he began to realise that that would not be quite satisfactory to hon. Members on this side, and to some hon. Members on the other side. He once again shifted his ground 341 by stating that it would be a charge, not upon the Church, or the National Exchequer, but upon the people of Wales. I am not quite sure whether the people of Wales, who for some time looked upon themselves as a separate nation, would be inclined to admit that payment of these expenses, coming as they do out of property which has now been taken from the Church for the nation of Wales, is not national expenditure. I should like to ask one or two questions with regard to the expenses to be met out of this money which is to be borrowed. I am not quite clear how it is proposed to raise this money, whether it is to be raised by Exchequer bonds, or whether it is to be issued as a loan. I wish to know from the Home Secretary whether, when he enumerated the three main expenditures—salaries and commissions, compensation to lay officers, and compensation to the owners of advowsons—he thought he had exhausted the objects upon which this money should be spent.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Oswestry Division (Mr. Bridgeman) referred to certain Clauses of the Bill and pointed out that the Welsh Commissioners were going to be appointed at the date of the passing of the Act. I wish to point out, further, that there are expenses which will have to be borne in bringing the Act into operation and which have not been enumerated by the Home Secretary. You have got under the Act to carry out certain operations in order to ascertain whether or not the border parishes are to come within the scope of the Bill. Are these expenses to be met out of the money raised on the guarantee of this Financial Resolution? I do not suppose they will be very heavy, but, at any rate, a certain sum will have to be found for this purpose. May I further bring to the notice of the Chancellor of the Duchy the question of the expenses which will have to be borne by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and to some extent by Queen Anne's Bounty, as a result of the Bill? The Ecclesiastical Commissioners will have to undertake a considerable number of inquiries in order to find out what is Church property and what is Welsh property as the result of this Bill. I do not know whether it is supposed that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners can carry out that work and make those inquiries with their present staff. I do not think it is likely that they will be able to do so with their present staff. 342 This is all extra work put upon them, and it has got to be done within a comparatively short time. It is perfectly clear to me that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty will have to undertake a great deal of extra work as a result of the Bill, and it is not, to my mind, fair that they should have to find out of their common funds the money necessary to carry out these inquiries. I think the expenses ought to be provided out of the money to be guaranteed under this Resolution. These points in regard to the expenses of this Act were not mentioned by the Home Secretary. I should like to get an answer from the Chancellor of the Duchy as to whether or not these expenses are to be found out of the money to be raised by the guarantee we are now giving. I do not think it would be fair to make the Ecclesiastical Commissioners find the extra money which will have to be spent as the result of the Bill we are now discussing.
§ Sir J. D. REESMy hon. Friend (Mr. Mount), in his interesting speech, referred to the people of Wales as once a nation. If a nation may be properly described as a belligerent unit, we may believe that Wales is not only a potential but an actual belligerent unit at this moment, though I learned from the hon. Member for Carmarthen that harmony reigns between him and his Leader, for he addressed him by that name. I wish to ask the Home Secretary if the Government are prepared to say that the Welsh Commissioners will not be appointed until they have in their hands moneys which are to come to them in pursuance of the Act. Will either of the Gentlemen now on the Treasury Bench get up and make that statement? I gather that they cannot. On the other hand, if the Resolution before the House is to empower the Government to borrow money for the purpose of carrying on until there is money in the hands of the Welsh Commissioners in pursuance of the Act, then they seem to be on the horns of a dilemma. I confess that I do not see the answer to the question I have asked. No such statement has been made, and it is perfectly obvious that under Clause 10 the immediate appointment of the Welsh Commissioners was contemplated. Indeed, when the Clause was reached in Committee it was believed up to the last moment that the names of the Welsh Commissioners to be appointed would then be divulged. The Government were to have announced the names of the Commissioners, and there was no question 343 whatsoever until then but that they were to be appointed directly the Act was passed. Will the right hon. or the hon. Gentleman state plainly whether it is the intention not to appoint the Commissioners until there is money to work the Act, and, if not, why is it necessary to take power to borrow for the purpose? My hon. Friend pointed out that one of the first things they have to do is to deal with these difficult geographical questions of the Border, and other Clauses might be quoted to show that the intention of the Government was to appoint the Commissioners at once. Will the Front Bench vouchsafe any information upon this point?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI have been asked several questions, which I shall be glad to answer. My right hon. Friend behind me, in the course of his reply to some statements made from the benches opposite, pointed out that there is no power taken in the Act to compel, the moment the Act passes, the appointment of the Welsh Commissioners—that was as far as my right hon. Friend went—because it is quite clear to anybody conversant with this measure that there is a great deal of work to do after the passing of the Act, before the date of Disestablishment, which will require the appointment of Commissioners. But the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Welsh Commissioners will have to be appointed at an early date is quite correct. The hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. Llewelyn Williams) said something about compensation to lay patrons and lay officers. He is approximately right in the figure which he gave as to lay patrons whose livings may be compensated, for there may be some who take the view that really they have no right to compensation at all. I very much doubt whether, from an equitable point of view, they have or not, but they have a legal right, and as regards the outside number of persons thus compensated, 290 or 300, the compensation due to them under the terms of the Bill would be strictly confined to one year's value of the emoluments. With regard to the question of lay officers, they are only compensated to the extent to which they are damnified by the Bill, and I do not think it will be necessary to raise any sum to meet the compensations due to them, because they may drop in ten in one year, five in another year, none the next, and so on; and therefore, we think it possible to compensate them out of revenue. The 344 sum involved may not be large, and it need not enter into a calculation for the purposes of a loan. The hon. Member for Shropshire (Mr. Bridgeman) asked as to the payment of the Welsh Commissioners. He seems to think there would be considerable difficulty. I do not think so. If he looks at Sub-section (2), Clause 29, he will see that the National Debt Commissioners, if they think fit, may out of any money in their hands advance to the Welsh Commissioners any money which by this Act they are authorised to borrow.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANI do not see how it is going to be done without using public money. That is exactly what this Subsection does.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI think that the hon. Gentleman implied that there would be a charge to the public in relation to that money.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANFor the first year.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSENo, because there would be interest payable on that money, and the whole thing would be repaid, without any loss to the taxpayer, to the National Debt Commissioners. If a private individual borrows money from a bank and that money is repaid with interest to that bank, there is no loss to anyone who advances it. The Welsh Commissioners may borrow money from the National Debt Commissioners, and when they pay interest and repay the money there is no charge on the public in reference to the transaction.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSThe right hon. Gentleman did not read the words—
"with such guarantee as is by this Act authorised (but not otherwise)."
Our contention is that the guarantee of the Treasury is in effect a charge upon the taxpayers, a potential charge. That is the whole point.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe National Debt Commissioners are not bound to ask for the guarantee.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSThey are bound to do so.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEAnd even if they were the sum in respect of it would be at the outside £3,000 or £4,000 for the salary of the Welsh Commissioners and their staff, and the effect on the credit of the country of borrowing £3,000 for one year at 4 per cent., would be so 345 infinitesimal that so eminent a mathematician as the hon. Gentleman would be quite unable to estimate the loss. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Mount) asked what what was to be done with regard to the expenses of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty. I do not see that any extra expense need be provided for either of those two bodies. They have already prepared a great deal of the information which they will have to give to the Welsh Commissioners for the purpose of the Royal Commission on the Church in Wales. I do not suppose they have prepared the whole of it, but they have prepared the greater part of it. They have already had a year's notice that this Bill was going to be brought in, and I imagine that some portion at all events of their time would be spent in preparation for the probable results of this Bill. There would be as far as one can gather some time elapsing between the passing of this Bill from this House until ultimately it
§ emerges from the chrysalis stage to the full-blown stage of an Act of Parliament. During that time some portion of the time of the staff might be devoted to acquiring the rest of the information which is required, and I do not see any need under this Bill for all these bodies to incur extra expense of an appreciable kind. In the circumstances I do not think we need charge anything for such expenses.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSESo far as that would be an expense of the Welsh Commissioners it would be part and parcel of the expenses payable from the same funds as the other expenses, which would be the £26,700.
§ Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 103.
347| Division No. 537.] | AYES. | [9.25 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. |
| Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) | Devlin, Joseph | Hodge, John |
| Adamson, William | Dillon, John | Hogge, James Myles |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Donelan, Captain A. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Doris, William | Hudson, Walter |
| Alden, Percy | Duffy, William J. | Hughes, Spencer Leigh |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus |
| Arnold, Sydney | Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) | John, Edward Thomas |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea) |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) |
| Barnes, George N. | Essex, Sir Richard Walter | Jones, Leif Straiten (Notts, Rushcliffe) |
| Barton, William | Farrell, James Patrick | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney) |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Joyce, Michael |
| Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George) | Ffrench, Peter | Keating, Matthew |
| Bentham, George Jackson | Field, William | Kellaway, Frederick George |
| Black, Arthur W. | Fitzgibbon, John | Kennedy, Vincent Paul |
| Boland, John Pius | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Kilbride, Denis |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Gilhooly, James | King, J. |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Gill, Alfred Henry | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Gladstone, W. G. C. | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe |
| Brace, William | Glanville, H. J. | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal. West) |
| Brady, P. J. | Goldstone, Frank | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) | Leach, Charles |
| Brunner, John F, L. | Greig, Colonel J. W. | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Bryce, John Annan | Griffith, Ellis Jones | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Lundon, Thomas |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Gulland, John W. | Lynch, Arthur Alfred |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | McGhee, Richard |
| Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Heywood) | Hackett, J. | MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Hall, Frederick (Normanton) | Macpherson, James Ian |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Hancock, John George | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Clough, William | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossenda'le) | M'Callum, Sir John M. |
| Clynes, J. R, | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | M'Kean, John |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) |
| Cotton, William Francis | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lines.,Spaldl.ig) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil |
| Crooks, William | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Marks, Sir George Croydon |
| Crumley, Patrick | Hayden, John Patrick | Martin, J. |
| Cullinan, John | Hazleton, Richard | Mason, David M. (Coventry) |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Helme, Sir Norval Watson | Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. |
| Davies, E. William (Eifion) | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Meagher, Michael |
| Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth) | Henry, Sir Charles S. | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Molloy, Michael |
| Dawes, James Arthur | Higham, John Sharp | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Delany, William | Hinds, John | Morgan, George Hay |
| Morison, Hector | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Reddy, Michael | Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) |
| Muldoon, John | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Thomas, James Henry |
| Munro, Robert | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Nellson, Francis | Hernall, Athelstan | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Nolan, Joseph | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Norman, Sir Henry | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | Wadsworth, J. |
| Norton, Captain Cecil William | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince) |
| Nuttall, Harry | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Walton, Sir Joseph |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) | Wardle, George J. |
| O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Robinson, Sidney | Watt, Henry A. |
| O'Donnell, Thomas | Roch, Walter F. | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| O'Dowd, John | Roche, Augustine (Louth) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| O'Grady, James | Roche, John (Galway, E.) | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Roe, Sir Thomas | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) | Rowlands, James | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| O'Malley, William | Rowntree, Arnold | Wilkie, Alexander |
| O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Scanlan, Thomas | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| O'Shee, James John | Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| O'Sullivan, Timothy | Sheehy, David | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Outhwaite, R. L. | Sherwell, Arthur James | Winfrey, Richard |
| Parker, James ((Halifax) | Smith, Albert (Lanes, Clitheroe) | Wood, Rt. Hon. T, McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.) |
| Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Snowden, Philip | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) | |
| Pringle, William M. R. | Sutton, John E. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. William Jones and Mr. Webb. |
| Raffan, Peter Wilson | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | |
| Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Goldman, C. S. | Peel, Captain R. F. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Perkins, Walter F. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Peto- Basil Edward |
| Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) | Grant, James Augustus | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) | Pryce-Jones Col. E. (Montgom'y B'ghs) |
| Barnston, H. | Helmsley, Viscount | Rees, Sir J. D. |
| Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc.) | Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Hewins, William Albert Samuel | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hickman, Col. T. E. | Sanders, Robert A. |
| Beresford, Lord C. | Hill, Sir Clement | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Bigland, Alfred | Hoare, Samuel John Gurney | Sandys, George John |
| Bird, Alfred | Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith | Hope. James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) | Houston, Robert Paterson | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Boyton, J. | Hume-Williams, William Ellis | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Ingleby, Holcombe | Swift, Rigby |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East) | Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford) |
| Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) | Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. | Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central) |
| Campion, W. R. | Kimber, Sir Henry | Talbot, Lord E. |
| Carilie, Sir Edward Hildred | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Larmor, Sir J. | Thynne, Lord Alexander |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Touche, George Alexander |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin) | Lewisham, Viscount | Valentia, Viscount |
| Clive, Captain Percy Archer | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Clyde, James Avon | Macmaster, Donald | Warde, Col. C. E, (Kent, Hid)' |
| Courthope, George Loyd | Magnus, Sir Philip | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | Malcolm, Ian | White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport) |
| Cripps, Sir C. A. | Mason, James F. Windsor) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Doughty, Sir George | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas | Wills, Sir Gilbert |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Mount, William Arthur | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Eyres-Monsell, B. M. | Newton, Harry Kottingham | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Fell, Arthur | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | Younger, Sir George |
| Fletcher, John Samuel | Nield, Herbert | |
| Forster, Henry William | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joynson-Hicks and Mr. Stanier. |
| Gardner, Ernest | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | |
| Gilmour, Captain John |
§ Bill further considered in Committee.
§ [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]