§ (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
§ The expression "existing" means existing at the passing of this Act:
§ The expression "ecclesiastical office" means any bishopric, ecclesiastical dignity, or preferment within the meaning of the Church Discipline Act, 1840, and includes any lay office in connection therewith, or in connection with any cathedral corporation:
§ The expression "cathedral corporation" means any dean and chapter, and also any corporation of minor canons, or vicars choral, or any 449 other subordinate corporation of or belonging to or connected with any cathedral or collegiate church in Wales:
§ The expression "ecclesiastical person" means a bishop and the holder of any ecclesiastical office who is in holy orders:
§ The expression "right of patronage" includes any advowson, right of presentation, or right of nomination to an ecclesiastical office:
§ The expression "synod" includes any assembly or convention:
§ The expression "property" includes all property, real and personal, including things in action and rights of action; and where any property is held in trust for or for the benefit of the holder of any ecclesiastical office as such, or for any cathedral or ecclesiastical corporation, that property shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to belong to that office or corporation; and the burial ground of any ecclesiastical parish shall, unless provided under the Burial Acts, 1852 to 1906, or the Public Health (Interments) Act, 1S79, or otherwise vested in any local or other public authority, be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be property belonging to an ecclesiastical office in the Church in Wales:
§ The expression "church" includes cathedral and other churches, chapels of ease, and other public chapels of the Church in Wales and in the case of a cathedral church includes the chapter house and cloisters and other precincts of the cathedral church:
§ The expression "ecclesiastical residence" means any parsonage house and any house of residence of any bishop or member or officer of a cathedral corporation and any offices belonging thereto:
§ The expression "house" includes any curtilage or garden appurtenant to the house:
§ The expression "burial authority" means any burial board and any council, committee, or other local authority having the powers and duties of a burial board under the Burial Acts, 1852 to 1906, and any local authority maintaining a ceme- 450 tery under the Public Health (Interments) Act, 1879, or under any local Act:
§ The expression "tithe rent-charge" includes all payments in lieu of or in the nature of tithes or tithe rent-charge:
§ The expressions "first fruits" and "tenths" include any sums payable in lieu of first fruits and tenths:
§ The expression "county" includes a county borough, and the expression "county council" includes the council of a county borough, and "county fund" in relation to a county borough means the borough fund or borough rate.
§ (2) Property shall not for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be situate in Wales or Monmouthshire by reason only of being invested in the stocks, funds, or securities of any company owning property so situate.
§ (3) In all enactments, deeds, and other documents in which mention is made of the Church of England, the enactments and provisions relating thereto shall be construed as including the Church in Wales, but as to that Church subject to the provisions of this Act.
§ Sir ARTHUR GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the words "passing of this Act" ["existing at the passing of this Act"], to insert the words "The expression 'cease to be Established by law' means cease to possess or enjoy any status, rights, or privileges which have been conferred upon the Church by Statute and which are not possessed or enjoyed in like manner and degree by any other religious body in Wales and Monmouthshire."
The object of this Amendment is to endeavour to get some definition of Disestablishment or, as the Bill expresses it, "cease to be Established by law. "This Bill deals with three distinct things as regards the Church, it Disendows it and it dismembers it, and it Disestablishes it. We all know what Disendow means—there is no question about that. We all can understand what dismember means, there is no question about that. When we come to Disestablishment we really never had any explanation from the Government as to what is meant by Disestablishment, and we say before you proceed further with this Bill it is necessary to put some definition of Disestablishment into it. In the case of the 451 Church of Ireland, and this has been mentioned before, the same difficulty did not arise. The Church of Ireland was a Church definitely established by Statute. The Act of Union which united the Church of Ireland with the Church of England was the Act which established by law the Church of Ireland, and it was perfectly easy when Disestablishment took place to say precisely what was meant and to specify the Statutes which were repealed. As a matter of fact, those Statutes were read out in the House of Commons when the Bill was first brought in. In the case of Wales nothing of the kind has taken place, and we are at this moment absolutely in the dark as to what precisely is meant by Disestablishment. May I remind the Home Secretary that by implication he suggested in a previous Debate that the time might come when it would be right and proper to define what is meant by Disestablishment. Speaking on 5th December, on the first Clause on an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Campion), he said:—The hon. Member really asks us to give an elucidation of the views of the Government on Establishment. I answer by staying it would be hardly relevant to this part of the Debate.I think it was hardly relevant to that part of the Bill, but it certainly seems to be relevant to some later stage of the Bill, and I submit it is quite relevant that we should have a definition of Disestablishment now that we have reached the Interpretation Clause. There are many difficulties connected with it. One difficulty is this that I think the word is used in a totally different sense by Members on the two sides of the House. Let me explain what I mean. By Establishment we mean on this side really what I believe is the correct interpretation and translation of the Latin expression. We mean the Church as recognised by the State, or, if I may put it so, confirmed in its position and status by the State. I believe that is the correct definition. But on the other side the word is used in a totally different sense, if not in this House, at all events in the country, and the common thing that is said in the country is that the State at some time or other Established the Church, that it set up the Church, and that the Establishment of the Church was the creation of the State. I venture to say that that is a most untrue and unhistorical way of putting it, and that it cannot be maintained for a single instant. It would 452 be really far truer to say that the Church Established the State than that the State Established the Church. I need only remind the Home Secretary that the union of the separate bishoprics of the Anglo-Saxons took place under Archbishop Theodore at the end of the seventh century, or 150 years before the union of the heptarchy became the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom. Therefore the union of the Churches preceded the union of the State and pointed the way.
I think we may thus more truly say that the State was Established by the Church rather than that the Church was Established by the State. So is it true as regards the particular union that is implied in the Establishment of union between the Church in Wales and the Church in England. Here, again, the union of the two Churches precedes the political union of the Kingdom, and therefore I submit that the common view of the expression that at. Some period or another the Church was Established by the State is quite untrue and unhistorical. Now that we are dealing with Disestablishment, it is reasonable we should have a correct definition put in the Bill so that we should really know what we are doing. There is another difficulty which is a real, practical difficulty of a very considerable kind. It is held by many jurists and others, and though I do not pretend to be an authority I think there is a great deal to be said for the opinion, that the Church is not at all the only religious body which is Established in this country. At all events, since the Toleration Act dissenters have been Established. I need only remind the Committee of the well-known saying of Lord Mansfield that "the dissenting way of worship is Established." There are many instances of Establishment of Nonconformity that are well-known to all of us. There is the well-known law that Nonconformist chapels, like the churches, are exempted from the payment of rates, so long as they are used exclusively for religious purposes. I am bound to say that particular limitation is much more honoured in many cases in the breach than in the observance. I have got here a list of lectures held at Whitefield's Tabernacle, which is exempt from rates, an incident of Establishment, on the theory that it is only used for religious purposes. I find, among other lectures, one by Mr. J. A. Baker, M.P., "How I won East Fins-bury," and another by the Rev. John Clifford, "A Christian Budget," and 453 another by the Rev. C. S. Home on "Land Values," and another by Mr. E. G. Hemmerde on "The Lords and the People."
I say therefore that it seems to me that this particular limitation that is put upon the freedom from liability to pay rates, which is an incident of the Establishment of Nonconformity, is certainly in this particular case anyhow more honoured in the breach than in the observance. It only proves my point that unless we define what we mean by Disestablishment we must realise that the Church is not the only Established body and Nonconformists are in a sense also Established. We have also got the case of the United Methodist Church Act of 1907. Three separate religious bodies came to Parliament to obtain an Act of Union. That Act, which united them and subject to which they now hold their property, was undoubtedly an Act of Establishment by this House. If, therefore, you are going to Disestablish the Church in Wales I want to know what you mean. Are you going to Disestablish it in the sense in which other bodies are now Established, or are you only going to differentiate between the Church and other bodies? If you are only going to differentiate, then I think you must say so. If you say so, you must have some definition of what you mean by Disestablishment. That is why I have put down the Amendment stating that the expression "ceases to be Established by law" would mean—
"Cease to possess or enjoy any status, rights, or privileges which have been conferred upon the Church by Statute, and which are not possessed or enjoyed in like manner and degree by any other religious body in Wales and Monmouthshire,"
to show that the Government do not mean to take away from the Church all those incidents of Establishment that now belong to other bodies. If so, you put the Church in an inferior position, and you put her practically outside the law altogether. I suppose you still intend to protect the Church in her rights and privileges by the law, but if so you must say so, as otherwise it seems to me you put her outside the law. What is this differentiation to be? One of the great difficulties we have always had outside of the House is to find out, at all events as regards Establishment, what are the grievances felt by the other side. What are the particular 454 privileges, if you like to call them so, or what is the status enjoyed by the Church which is felt to be a grievance because it is not equally enjoyed by other bodies? The Under-Secretary some time ago mentioned four points: first, that the Church is the only body whose ministers can be called legally clerks in Holy Orders; secondly, that it is the only body which has its Ecclesiastical Courts recognised by the State and whose decisions are enforceable by the State; thirdly, that the bishops sit in the House of Lords; and fourthly, that only the Archbishop of Canterbury can crown His Majesty the King. It is rather remarkable that of those four grievances, the only four that he mentioned, two are not touched by this Bill at all. The bishops will still sit in the House of Lords. It is true that the four Welsh bishops will not, but the English bishops will. Therefore the Bill does not touch that grievance. As to crowning His Majesty the King, I do not see how that could possibly be affected by the Established Church (Wales) Bill. The Home Secretary on a previous occasion mentioned a further point. He said that one of the marks of Establishment of which we ought to get rid is the fact that the Prayer Book of the Church is settled by Parliament. I demur entirely to that view. It is quite true that the Prayer Book is in a sense a Schedule to an Act of Parliament, but it was settled originally in Convocation and then confirmed by Act of Parliament. After all, Nonconformists are in precisely the same position in respect to their trust deeds. Their trust deeds as a rule specify what their religious services shall be, and if they break their trust deeds they have to come to Parliament; otherwise they lose their properly. Although not exactly in the same way, the ultimate sanction is the same. They have equally to come to Parliament if they wish to vary their doctrines, otherwise they lost their property.
I say, therefore, that we want some definition of the attributes of Establishment in regard to which the Church differs from other bodies, and of which you wish to get rid by this Bill. By Disestablishment do you mean to get rid of something which exists merely by Statute law, or of something much older, belonging to the Church by civil, canon, or common law? It is a very important point whether the attributes which you call Establishment by law belong to a remote period, and 455 have come down, so to speak, by tradition, or whether they have been definitely conferred upon the Church by Act of Parliament. I have not the least idea of what is in the mind of the Government. But I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when speaking on the Second Beading of this Bill, relying on a passage by Professor Maitland, said that the first thing that happened at the Reformation was that the Church was Established as a State Church for the first time. If that is so, if the Church was not a State Church before the Reformation, it follows of necessity that the status of the State Church is conferred by the Reformation Statutes and by Statutes which may have been passed subsequently. If that is so, we are perfectly justified in asking that those Statutes should be put down in black and white as a Schedule of the Bill, so that we may know precisely what Statutes are repealed. That was the course followed in the Irish Church case, and we are entitled to ask, if it is really a case of repealing Statutes, that the Statutes to be repealed should be stated, or, if they are to be repealed only in part, we should be told how much of those Statutes is to be repealed. There is a further consideration which perhaps is not so much a legal point as a matter that may concern the whole future of religion in this country. Is it intended by Disestablishment to get rid altogether of what I may call the national recognition of religion in Wales? Is that the idea at which the Government are aiming? Is the State in Wales to be entirely divorced from religion? Is there to be no recognition, or, it may be, a recognition of more than one specific form of religion? Is there to be a complete barrier between the State and religion, or is there to be a recognition of religious life? I was reading the other day a very interesting book by the Rev. Montague Bradley, a Nonconformist minister, who is strongly opposed to this Bill. Mr. Bradley says:—The ideal of the Church is apparently the old ideal of the State recognition of the Church and nothing else. The ideal of Nonconformists is apparently full equality and no recognition. Is there not something between? Cannot the State, in some way or another, instead of merely recognising one religion or recognising none, extend the recognition to every form of Christian religion in Wales, and in the country generally?In other words, can we not arrive at something in the nature of what may be called concurrent Establishment? This matter is of great importance, having regard to the future of the whole nation. The late 456 Lord Selborne, writing some years ago on this very question, said:—A nation into whose organic life the public recognition of Christianity has entered during all the ages of its existence could not divest all its institutions of the outward and visible signs of that recognition without practically, to a great extent, exalting secularism to the disparagement of religion.Is that the ideal of hon. Members opposite in pressing this Bill? Is it an attempt to exalt secularism to the disparagement of religion? If not, you must clearly define what you mean by Disestablishment. We on this side have not the least idea what is meant by Disestablishment, and before we pass the Bill we are entitled to an explanation.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna)
Nobody can deny that the words "Established by law" are exceedingly difficult to define in any form or phrase. The definition which the hon. Member proposes is in a negative form. If any definition were to be accepted and inserted in the Bill, which, for my part, I should certainly deprecate, it could not in any circumstances be of the kind here proposed. We could not say "cease to be Established by law" means certain things. We should have to say that "Establishment by law" means certain things. We should have to put it in a positive form. If the hon. Member would convert his definition into a positive form he would see at once that it was one that he would be most unwilling to accept. The hon. Gentleman has put various questions to me in order, as he says, to elucidate what is in the mind of the Government when we speak of the Disestablishment of the Church of England in Wales. Various attempts have been made at different times to give a definition of the word "Establishment." In a recent case in the Law Courts, I think in 1907, a learned judge attempted to do so in these terms:—Establishment means that the State has accepted the Church as the religious body which, in its opinion, truly teaches the Christian faith.I think myself that that view of Establishment is one which would ordinarily be accepted as right. Establishment by law, at any rate, connotes the idea that the State in its corporate capacity has accepted the Church which is Established as that Church which is truly teaching the Christian faith. I would suggest to Churchmen that the acceptance of that view of Establishment is the acceptance 457 of an idea which cannot fail to be wounding to the susceptibilities of Nonconformists, who think that their Churches are at least equally to be judged as teaching the true form of Christian faith. If Establishment is to be accepted as conveying a meaning of that kind, then, in my judgment, we ought to insert in the Bill words declaring that the State in its corporate form no longer distinguishes between different forms of teaching of the Christian faith by preferring one to the others as being the nearest to the truth. I put it in a negative rather than in a positive form when I say "if" we are to interpret the meaning of Establishment. I suggest that it would be most undesirable to attempt anything of the sort. The words "Established by law" have been used again and again in Acts of Parliament. They have actually been used in canons of the Church. As far back as the time of Elizabeth the words are used. In 23 Elizabeth, cap. I, we have the words "religion now by Her Highness's authority Established." In 12 and 13 William III, cap. 2, the Act of Settlement, the Church of England is described as "the Church of England as by law Established. "In 13 William III., cap. 6, the same words are used. In 2 and 3 Anne, cap. 11, the Church of England is described as "the Church by law Established." In 5 Anne, cap. 2, and in several other cases, even as late as 33 and 31 Victoria, cap. 91—that is 1870—the same formula is used. In not one of those Acts is the formula "the Church of England as by law Established" defined. Parliament has meant something, and Parliament has used the phrase as meaning something. But no definition has ever been inserted in the Acts, nor has Parliament ever pretended to be capable of defining its precise meaning. I am sure that, Parliament would never have inserted the words in a solemn Act unless it had meant something. Let me give an illustration of the unwisdom of attempting to define "Establishment" in this Bill. I would only refer to the speech of the hon. Member himself. He says, in his judgment, Nonconformity is Established. If Nonconformity is Established then the definition which we are to insert in the Bill must include that attribute which he described as Establishment in the case of the Nonconformists. To define Establishment we must introduce into the meaning of Establishment those attributes which belong to Nonconformity.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
May I explain I What I said was this: if it is 458 held, as it may be held, that Nonconformity is Established, then, if you are Disestablishing the Church, it should mean in those respects in which the other bodies are not Established.
§ Mr. McKENNA
I do not think the hon. Gentleman's explanation helps us, as he puts the matter in a hypothetical form now. He says, "if Nonconformity is Established," we shall have to clear up that doubt—if it be a doubt.
§ Mr. McKENNA
Of course I do not. In the earlier Acts "Established" meant "permitted." Nonconformity is Established, because in the hon. Gentleman's view chapels are exempted from rates. Then exemption from rates is a mark of Establishment?
§ Mr. McKENNA
It might be argued that Endowment would be a mark of Establishment. The hon. Member says, in regard to the Free Scottish Churches, who were only allowed to hold property in common, that the condition of holding property in common constitutes Establishment. Is that not really an answer to his point t The moment we endeavour to define, to put words into this Act, defining Establishment, we shall get ourselves into difficulties. How can we suffer if we do not define t I have given instances of the use of the term "Established by law" in Acts of Parliament. If we do not define, I say that practically the meaning that the phrase "Established by law" has in those Acts of Parliament which I have quoted holds. When we say in this Bill that the Church shall "cease to be Established by law," all we say is whatever meaning attaches to these words in the earlier Acts, that meaning, those attributes of the Church shall cease to exist in the future. We do not pretend to define Establishment. If we do not pretend to put on paper the whole scope and meaning of the words "legally Established"—which, of course, have got no relation whatever to the spiritual origin of the Church and nothing whatever to do with it—whatever those words include, they certainly embrace the principle features of the Church, all of which are dealt with in this Bill. The most important principle of them all is that which 459 was described by Lord Selborne in his book on the "Defence of the English Church." He says:—The Established Church by law consists essentially in the incorporation of the law of the Church into that of the realm as a branch of the general law of the realm, though limited to the Ecclesiastical Courts and persons to whom it applies—I would like to stop there, and say that the incorporation is not merely the incorporation by Statute; consequently the definition named would not Disestablish the Church in its most essential feature as defined by Lord Selborne, who goes on to say—in the public recognition of these Courts and judges as having proper legal jurisdiction, and in the enforcement of the sentences of those Courts, when duly pronounced according to law by the civil power.All those attributes of Establishment which Lord Selborne described as most essential are all by this Bill specifically taken away from the Church of England in Wales. I think it will be found that each particular attribute of a specific kind is specifically dealt with by special Clauses in the Bill. The Bill could not specifically take away such an attribute as Establishment as was given in the judgment of the learned Judge in the case of Marshall versus Graham, which I have just quoted. It is for reasons of that kind, implying a preference for, and an attribution to the Church, that it has a prior claim upon allegiance, that its doctrines ought to be believed more readily than the doctrines of another Church, that the Church as by law Established shall cease to exist, and it is the more essential that these words should not be omitted.
There is one other point—the answer to which I put forward tentatively in view of the several legal Gentlemen opposite who are versed in ecclesiastical law—and that is that at the present time a person who has been baptised—I am not sure whether it is not every person who is a Christian—but at least every person who has been baptised according to the rites of the Church of England is, as to his legal status, a member of the Church of England. No matter what his religious belief may hereafter become he remains legally a member of the Church of England. In Wales, after Disestablishment, I do not think that legal status will continue. But it is a difficult point. I think it is so that in England any person who has been baptised in the Church, no matter what he becomes subsequently, whether he fails to be confirmed or whether he openly joins one of the Non- 460 conformist Churches, still has the legal status of a member of the Church of England. In Wales he will not have this. That will certainly be one of the most marked effects of the Disestablishment of the Church. Whether it be so or otherwise, it is certainly, in my judgment, most desirable that we should retain, as we have done in Clause 1 of the Bill, the words "shall cease to be Established by law." It would be very undesirable to do what no Act of Parliament has hitherto done—attempt to define the meaning of the words "Established by law."
§ Sir ALFRED CRIPPS
I think that the speech made by the Home Secretary shows the extreme importance—though I think differently to him—of having a proper definition of the words "shall cease to be Established by law." I would point out to the Home Secretary that as regards those preceding Acts to which he has called attention, it was not necessary that you should have a definition, because you included under the term a vast collection of rights and privileges, partly from the civil law, partly from the canon law, partly from the common law, and partly from the Statute law. It was quite unnecessary therefore—in fact I think it would have been difficult at that stage— to have had any exact definition. What are we doing now? We are considering a Disestablishment Bill. One essential point which everyone should know—I am not now speaking from a religious standpoint, but from the ordinary standpoint of those who have to live under Statute law—is, What is the meaning, or what is brought about by those terms which are brought into operation as terms of effective definition for the first time in a Bill of this kind? Just let me, before I come to give the difference in my view between "Establishment" and "Established by law," give one or two instances in which a difficulty will arise without we have got a definition. The Home Secretary himself, towards the end of his speech, referred to one of those points about which we have asked questions many times in this House, namely, What is the difference in the status and position of the parishioner after this Bill has passed to what it is at the present time? That is a question of first importance.
Just the same when we were talking about churchyards and churches, the right hon. Gentleman used again and again the terms that the rights that now exist were 461 to be preserved, as regards special interests, in the future. What does the Home Secretary mean by those rights which are to be preserved? We know what he means by "ceasing to be Established by law." I should have thought there would have been no great, no real, difficulty as regards a definition, because I imagine what the Home Secretary means in this Bill is not that the Church is to be Disestablished in the sense that there is to be no Established Church in the future at all. I will point out why I think that in a moment. But so far as the Church at the present time has certain statutory rights and statutory disabilities, they are to cease to exist, and the legal recognition of the Church by Statute, either to impose disabilities or to grant privileges—and the disabilities are quite as much as the privileges— are not to operate in the future. Is that really what the Home Secretary means? Directly we get outside that and deal with the question of Establishment, as apart from "Established by law," we get into a difficult topic, and one about which there should really not be dispute as between the two sides of the House. I do not at all agree with Lord Selborne's view that an Establishment, or even a legal Establishment depends upon such matters as Ecclesiastical Courts, or, as I think, was put by the Under-Secretary, upon such matters as to whether the bishops shall have a seat in the House of Lords or not. You may reconstitute your second chamber to-morrow without a single bishop in it. That would not affect Church Establishment any way, either as a religious body or as a body recognised by law for certain purposes. It would not affect us at all. Many Churchmen—perhaps I might say I am one—wyould be glad to see the bishops dissociated from political life altogether. It does not matter one way or the other in relation to the points that we are dealing with now. So, too, with regard to the Ecclesiastical Courts. It only means this: whether you have a Church constitution or a voluntary association.
The ultimate sanction is to be found, not in Courts—I might prefer an Ecclesiastical Court, I may have a tendency, as some people say, in that direction from one's experience of those Courts—but that really is not the crucial point at all. You might have a Church without any of those mere incidents, as I call them, such as bishops and Ecclesiastical Courts, yet you 462 might have the real essence of Establishment. The real essence of Establishment is the alliance in some form or other between the Church and the State, so that, so far as the State is concerned, it may have in various ways acknowledged recognition of religious rights and of religious duties in a great variety of directions. One has not exactly read these matters up for this purpose, and I am dealing with what the Home Secretary said. Suppose you take Hooker's definition, or suppose you take that of Warburton, or that of Tait, The Courts, as we know, rely upon the co-existence of the Church and State, and Warburton's position is alliance between the two in his view, to the advantage of both. I have my own strong views that it is to the advantage of the State that Establishment in that sense should be maintained. You want, in my mind, a Christian State and not a secular State, and I know no way of creating that except by using the term "Establishment" or "Established by law." Of course, the Church by itself is much more free merely as a religious body without its connection with the State. We all admit that. I think the best form of connection is the Scotch form, because in religious and spiritual matters the Scotch are really independent, and no one is more strongly in favour of reform in that direction than I am. You may have this alliance constituted and existing. I think it is essential it should exist. If you want to change it by all means reform it, but do not destroy it. That is a very important matter when we come to the question of Establishment. I entirely agree with what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dudley, and Lord Mansfield. It is quite clear that the term "Establishment" per se as part of the words "Established by law" is equally applicable to the great Nonconformist communities as to the Church. I do not think anyone will doubt that. Taking the word Establishment merely by itself, it means constituted in accordance with legal authority which did not exist as regards the great Nonconformist communities before the Toleration Act. But it is quite right that ever since that Act of 1669 you cannot draw a distinction between the two except by using the words "Established by law," and that means that in order to preserve the alliance between Church and State the Church has certain responsibilities or what some people would call privileges, but which I hardly regard from that point of view.
463 Let me say a word upon the religious side—not strictly religious. If you want a definition of what Churchmen mean by Church, if you look at the XlXth Article you will find that in terms you get that definition. I do not: know whether the Home Secretary would think these Articles are abrogated and that when the Church is Disestablished it would no longer be bound by them, but when dealing with this Clause we have to consider the words "Established by law." What do we say? We say—the physical Church is the creation of faithful men—that, of course, might equally apply to Nonconformist communities—amongst whom the pure Word of God is preached.We may have some theological discussions as to what the "pure Word of God" consists of, but I give the same sincerity to my opponents as I claim for myself, and I am prepared to say that that is the spirit of any Church to which they belong, and the only other definition is that—the congregation of faithful men must observe the sacraments according to the doctrines of Christ.There, again, we may have a difference as to what "the doctrines of Christ" are; but all Churches, according to their own view, would come within that definition. I have always said I would much prefer to have persons who sincerely differ in opinion in these things than to have those who give mere lip-service. If I am right as to what I call "Established," as distinct from "Established by law," there ought to be no difficulty in dealing with the definite point and trying to find something which, when it becomes operative, may have a meaning which people will understand, and if the definition of my hon. and gallant Friend is accepted, we shall know where we are, because that definition says this: The difference will be that anything earlier conferred by Statute which affect what I will call the Old Church as it exists now shall be eliminated from the future possession of the Church when it ceases to be Established by law. That, really, to a lawyer who has to interpret Acts of Parliament of this kind, makes the position perfectly clear—the difference is this: Those statutory rights or those statutory obligations are no longer to affect the Church in the future, and if you start from that, according to my view, a great many of those conundrums which have arisen in the course of these discussions upon this Bill in Committee would cease 464 to be conundrums at all. We should know that both those rights and disabilities or obligations would cease to exist. I admit that from one point of view we are dealing with a different matter, but legally we are not. A definition can be easily introduced; it ought to be introduced, because it runs through, as the Home Secretary said, a very large number of Sections in the Bill, and until it is introduced you will have elements either of contradiction or difficulty that will only lead to dispute, friction, and trouble in the future. It is on these grounds that I sincerely hope the Committee will accept our principle of definition, if not the actual words, which ought to be introduced into an Act of this character.
§ Sir DAVID BRYNMOR JONES
The hon. and learned Member began his speech by saying there ought to be no dispute between the two sides of the House as to what Establishment means. I do not think there is any dispute amongst those who take pains to know, and amongst those I include the hon. and learned Member, what the existing law is. I have been at pains to try and find some legal authority that we might accept as expressing what the existing law in regard to the relations, shall I say of the State, or ought I, speaking more properly, to say the King, and the various religious societies that exist amongst us in the United Kingdom, or, more particularly, in Eng land and Wales. I am going to suggest to the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down and to the hon. and gallant Member who moved this Amendment the authority of a proposition which is contained in a Compendium of the Laws of England published under the name and with the authority of Lord Halsbury. In that, which is accepted as a correct statement of the relations of the Sovereign or of the law towards the various religious societies which exist in this country, I find this proposal:—All religions bodies enjoy the panic general recognition by law strengthened in the single case of the Church of England by the circumstances of its connection with the State.There we come to what my hon. and learned Friend correctly said is the essence of Establishment. A certain alliance between the State and particular religious bodies, and then Lord Halsbury goes on to say—and modified in the case of other religious bodies by such special enactments as survive to mark in each case the history of its evolution,465 I conceive that is a legal proposition which will be accepted as true in the spiritual and the temporal sense of the word, and might be taken for the purposes of this discussion as a starting point. Conceding that proposition, what is the effect of this Bill as it stands? You must look, first of all, on this question of Disestablishment at Clause 1, and more especially after that at Clauses 2 and 3. What are the general effects of these Clauses? As I construe them, and taking this proposition as the true state of the law, it would make it necessary to eliminate from that proposition the words—strengthened in the single case of the Church of England by the circumstances of its connection with the Stateand when this Bill passes and a new edition of this work is called for, the proposition will have to be—all religions bodies enjoy the same general recognition by law, modified in the case of all religious bodies by such special enactment as survive to mark in each case the history of its evolution.That, I beg leave to submit, is the effect of the Bill as it stands.
§ Sir DAVID BRYNMOR JONES
Yes. In order to make one's meaning plain, one must take some proposition by way of illustration. I submit that proposition is a true exposition of the law, and, taking that, I ask myself if, and when, this Bill becomes law, what modification ought to be made in that proposition, and that is, as I have said, the general effect of the Bill would make it necessary to take out the words—strengthened in the single case of the Church of England by the circumstances of its connection with the State.So the law, if this Bill passes in regard to religious bodies, would be summed up in the words—all religious bodies enjoy the same general recognition by law, modified in the case of all religious bodies by such special enactments as survive to mark in each case the history of its evolution,5.0 P.M.
That is my general proposition, and if that is so is it necessary to go further? Is it in the interests of the Disestablished Church that they should go further? I quite agree that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment has enabled him to make a most interesting speech in regard to the meaning of the word "Establishment." I quite agree with him that a great many people on both sides of this controversy differ on that point, but we 466 are engaged in legislation, and I am sure he will agree with me that we ought to be as precise as we possibly can. That being so, let us see how the Bill will read if the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment were accepted. Clause 1 is the only Clause, so far as I can find out, in which the expression "cease to be Established by law" occurs. I do not find it in any other Clause in the Bill. Clause 1, as it stands, reads:—
"On the first day of July next, after the passing of this Act, the Church of England, so far as it extends to and exists in Wales and Monmouthshire (in this Act referred to as the Church in Wales) shall cease to be Established by law."
If the definition proposed by the hon. and gallant Member be accepted the Bill will read:—
"Shall cease to possess or enjoy any status, rights, or privileges which have been conferred upon the Church by Statute, and which are not possessed or enjoyed in like manner and degree by any other religious body in Wales and Monmouthshire."
Is that an advantage to the Established Church? Is the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley quite confident on that point? I should like to remind him that in the observations I have made on this and several other Clauses which have been under consideration during the last few days I have pointed out that they raise matters in which the Liberal Members are not greatly concerned, because they are rather matters for the consideration of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and we have affirmed over and over again with the full assent of the great majority of the Welsh people that these are matters for the Church herself to deal with, and we have refrained from putting into this Bill any restriction which would embarrass or hamper the Disestablished Church as a Free Church or a Free Society. I put it to the hon. and gallant Member whether this Amendment will be of any real advantage. If it is I think he ought to point out wherein the advantage lies. We believe that it will be detrimental to the people in Wales who may not become adherents of this new Church. I think the hon. and gallant Member ought to say candidly what is in his mind when he claims that there is going to be any advantage to the Disestablished Church from this elaborate definition of the meaning of the words 467 cease to be Established by law." If there is no real advantage to be derived from the insertion of these words in the Clause, then they will be merely verbiage.
§ Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES
I have told the hon. and gallant Member where he stands, and I have told him on the authority of a die-hard, Lord Halsbury.
§ Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES
The hon. and gallant Member must know that that is not a request which ought to be made in an Assembly which is anxious to proceed according to sound principles of legislation. There is no need, when bringing in a Bill, to remedy certain grievances, to put into that measure what is the law of the land in general. Reference was made by the Home Secretary to the fact that this raises questions of law. I have honestly endeavoured to state what my view about this matter is. After all, we are agreed that the words "cease to be Established by law" are general words, and I have given what I conceive to be the correct effect in the light of the existing law, and it is that, taking them as general words, the answer which I make to what I consider is not an unreasonable request in some respects, made by the hon. and gallant Member opposite is, that the words are defined partly by reference to the general proposition which I have laid down, and partly by the fact that they are made perfectly specific by the Clauses of the Bill. If you want to know what Disestablishment means, read the Bill. The Bill itself, by its apportionment of rights and duties and by its careful regard for every interest, is in itself an answer to the question: "What does Disestablishment mean?" May I again point out that the words preserve, if they preserve anything, the rights, not of the individuals, but the rights of the Church. The Amendment deals with the rights of the Church. The only part of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for South Bucks (Sir A. Cripps), the logic of which I could not follow, was that part in which he brought in the word "parishioner" which seemed to me a reflection of something relevant to the Amendments we discussed yester- 468 day and the day before, because, by no possibility would the addition of those words in any way affect the rights of the parishioners, and it could not affect the right of a single clergyman or bishop. The whole thing turns upon the general position of the Church considered as a society. The Church undoubtedly is the whole society of Christians within the realm considered from an ecclesiastical or a religious standpoint. I suppose that the hon. and learned Member for South Bucks and the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley when they talk of the Church mean the Church recognised by legal authority. If that is so the whole effect of this Amendment, if we accept it, would be as I conceive it to make the position of this new Free Church in Wales more dubious, whereas if the words are left exactly as they are it is perfectly clear that the effect of the Statute would be to put the Church in Wales in exactly the same position as far as historic and every other kind of circumstance will permit as the ordinary voluntary religious society. That is what we wish the position to be, and I assure the Committee, as I have done several times before, that as far as Welsh Liberal Members are concerned we wish to place no restriction upon the perfectly free action of the Church in Wales after this Bill comes into operation, and we are quite adverse to doing anything which would tend to hamper the Disestablished Church.
§ Lord HUGH CECIL
This is a discussion of some importance. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Bucks and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir D. Brynmor Jones) agree that we are criticising a Bill. Now I do not agree with either of (hem on that point, because I think we are criticising intermittently and in a fragmentary fashion a Ministerial decree. I cannot call this a Bill in view of the way it has been treated and the manner in which it is being carried through Parliament. It is nevertheless important that we should avail ourselves of such opportunities of criticism as are allowed to us to make it clear, in the first place, to the House what the Bill means; and, secondly, make it clear to the country. The hon. and gallant Member for Dudley has moved an Amendment raising the question of what is meant by the words "cease to be Established by law," and the right hon. Gentleman opposite meets that Amendment by asking, "How can the 469 Church of England be better off after this Amendment has been inserted?" The effect of this Amendment is not that it will make the Clause better or worse, but it will, at any rate, make its meaning clearer. It is agreed that an Act of Parliament should mean something instead of meaning nothing, and that is the effect of this Amendment. That is the effect of the contentious Clauses which have been piled upon the top of this proposal, and they have produced many questions for discussion. We say, at any rate, that you should know what you are doing, and that you should have an exact meaning attached to these words. The Home Secretary says that these particular words have often been used before, and he quoted instances to show that that was so, and he asserted that Parliament must have meant something by them. If that is so, then we ought to be able to ascertain what this Parliament means by these words. I am not a lawyer, but, as far as I can gather, after listening to the speeches of my hon. and learned Friend and the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the words "cease to be Established by law" may have some important moral significance, but have no legal significance whatever. Supposing you pass merely the provision:—
"On the first day of July next the Church of England, so far as it extends to and exists in Wales and Monmouthshire, shall cease to be Established by law."
No one would know how such an Act of Parliament would apply. This question has been considered by lawyers better able to judge than I am, and I put it forward that no one can find out the difference which this proposal makes, because there would be no difference. If that is so, I think it is rather important that we should recognise that fact. What do we mean when we say that we are against Disestablishment? Do we mean something that has much more of a moral than a legal significance? The Home Secretary said that Disestablishment in his view meant the recognition of some particular form of religion as true. He then went on to say that we could not be surprised if Nonconformists resented the State recognising as true a religion to which they did not belong. I think we can very reasonably express such a surprise, because we are exactly in that position in Scotland, and there you do not resent it at all. The State, so far as Scotland goes, recognises a Church to which we do not 470 belong as true if that be the nature of Establishment, and we feel no grievance whatever. We are very glad it should be so, and we should resist as strongly as any Scotch Churchman the Disestablishment of the Church in Scotland. We find also that there are a great many English Roman Catholics who, though not belonging to the Church of England, decidedly oppose any proposal for its Disestablishment. Therefore, it is quite untrue to say it necessarily and universally gives a sense of grievance that the State should recognise some religious body to which one does not himself belong. There is, of course, a very great difficulty in accepting the Home Secretary's view of Establishment. You cannot really say the State recognises as exclusively true any particular religion if it recognises more than one Church, which happens to be the case. It is evident the recognition must be of a broader character; it cannot have that exclusive character which the Home Secretary seemed to imply. It is possible for the State in different circumstances to recognise more religions than one. What then do we conceive to be the value of maintaining Establishment, and why do we wish to have it maintained? I think simply for the reason that the State should as a corporation accept religion in some form. It should conform to Christianity in some form. That is expressed wherever the State performs a great public act with religious sanction. Earlier in these Debates other speakers have pointed out the extreme difficulty of discussing Disestablishment when you are dealing, not with a whole State or a whole Church, but with part of the State and part of the Church. There is a certain absurdity in Welsh Disestablishment, because, whether Wales is a nation or not, it is indisputably not a State. There is only one State in the United Kingdom, and there is a certain difficulty in arguing that the State in Wales recognises something different from what it recognises in England. You will find some difficulty in ascertaining what is the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury after this Bill passes. Supposing the King went to Wales, and the Archbishop of Canterbury was in attendance upon him, would he be the first subject of the King, not of Royal blood, as he is in England, or would he not? I do not think anybody knows. I believe all over the Kingdom, and in Ireland, too, he would remain the first subject of the King. It is the State that 471 recognises him as such, and the State's recognition holds in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. If that is so, it diminishes very much the force of the effect of Disestablishment so far as it extends to Wales. I am not, of course, speaking of Disendowment. We are concerned to bring out that there is not the grievance attached to Establishment which is often supposed. Establishment is constantly treated as though it were to the Church a system of fetters and to Nonconformity an insult. It is not necessarily either one or the other. It is certainly not an insult to Nonconformity. The Church of England feels no insult from the fact that another religious body is the Established Church in Scotland, nor do English Roman Catholics feel any insult in the matter. On the other side, it is not necessarily a system of fetters, because it may correspond almost to any set of conditions. You may give freedom to a Church and yet make it the religious exponent of the corporate life of the State, or you may fetter it in the most extreme degree. The extent of the freedom of the Church does not in the least depend upon whether it is Established or Disestablished, and, as a matter of fact, the law that governs trustees is often found to fetter the spiritual freedom of religious bodies that are not Established.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I am afraid the Noble Lord's remarks will invite some reply. We shall be getting a long way from the Definition Clause and be going into results.
§ Lord HUGH CECIL
I will bear that caution in mind and restrict my observations. The definition that is proposed runs in these terms:—
"The expression 'cease to be Established by law' means ceases to possess or enjoy any status, rights, or privileges which have been conferred upon the Church by Statute, and which are not possessed or enjoyed in like manner or degree by any other religious body* in Wales and Monmouthshire."
That would make it an act of assimilation between the Church of England and Nonconformist bodies. On the face of it, the words mean that the status, privileges, and rights of the Church would be assimilated to those of the Nonconformist bodies in so far as that status and those rights and privileges were the gift of the State, or re- 472 suited from the acts of the State. No one supposes whatever status the Church has in its religious character that it could be regulated by Act of Parliament. My hon. Friend proposes that the status, rights, and privileges of the Church, so far as they are the creation of the State, should be terminated by Disestablishment, and that should be the definition of Disestablishment. That, at any rate, is a very clear proposition. You have only to look at the Statute to see what is done. The right hon. Gentleman says a much better way would be to take Lord Halsbury's definition, which is implied in the Bill, as it stands. I do not think, with great respect to so distinguished a lawyer, his definition is a very good one. The crucial difficulty in Lord Halsbury's definition is that it leaves the connection with the State quite vague. It speaks of recognition strengthened in this particular case by connection with the State. That hardly carries us very far. You ask what is the strengthening by connection with the State, and you are precisely where you started. It is like the definition that a Chancery suit is a suit in Chancery; you do not illuminate the subject any more. You want to be able to say for the purposes of this Bill you know what Disestablishment means. This Bill does not regulate the general meaning of the word, but we ought to have some meaning quite definite and expressed after Clause 1 of this Bill. My hon. Friend has put down an Amendment, and I dare say it may be improved; but, if we are to legislate in a workmanlike fashion, we ought to define precisely what we mean, so that those who have to interpret the Bill will be under no doubt about it.
Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS
I venture to say no one who has taken part in the discussion will agree with the Noble Lord. I question whether any Bill has ever been discussed as thoroughly as this Bill. Every important aspect of Disestablishment and Disondowment, with one exception, has really been discussed in the course of the Committee stage. The Amendment itself shows the difficulty and the danger of attempting to define what is meant by Establishment. Just let me remind the Committee what the Amendment is. It says:—
"The expression 'cease to be Established by law' means cease to possess or enjoy any status, rights, or privileges which have been conferred upon the Church by Statute and which are not 473 possessed or enjoyed in like manner and degree by any other religious body in Wales and Monmouthshire."
The hon. and gallant Member (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) agreed that Establishment in Wales dates from a time anterior to the date of the political union. We all know there was no complete union between England and Wales before the time of Henry VIII., and everybody knows the Church of England was Established in Wales as early as the twelfth century. Therefore, in its origin, it is not Established by Statute at all, and, if we accepted the Amendment to confine Establishment to the Statute law, then the Church of England in Wales would remain Established in the same sense as it was Established in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. We should simply be stultifying ourselves. Of course, the words "Established by law" have been incorporated not in one, but in many Statutes. The Statute of twenty-third Elizabeth expressly states "religion now Established by Her Majesty." Therefore, whatever meaning may have been attached to those words at that time, that is the meaning which must be attached to the words "Established by law" in this Bill. It would, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, be absurd to define "Establishment" or "Disestablishment" in an Interpretation Clause. The Bill itself interprets what is meant by Disestablishment. If you want to know what we mean by Disestablishment, read the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to imply that because the Church of England was Established in Wales before the political union of the two countries, it was therefore a voluntary association of the two Churches. That is really unsound. The Church of England was Established in Wales in the twelfth century against the wishes of the Welsh people, the Welsh clergy and the Welsh bishops. There is one instance of that. In 1172, when the Chapter of St. David's met and appointed Giraldus Cambrensis Bishop of St. David's, the King, Henry II., intervened and forced the Church to appoint Peter de Leia as the bishop. That was against the wishes of the Welsh Chapter of St. David's, it was against the wishes of the Welsh prelates, and it was against the wishes of the Welsh people. Therefore the appointment of the Welsh bishops by the English King is one of the badges of Establishment. It was one of the first things that happened in Wales after the Church of 474 England had been Established. I should not have ventured to say on my own authority that was done against the wishes of the Welsh people. I will cite an authority which, so far as I know, has never been cited before, and which I think even the Noble Lord will accept. In Stubbs's "Constitutional History," Volume I., page 544, I find these words:—The fact that the Welsh bishops received their consecration at Canterbury and were, from the reign of Henry I. elected and admitted under the authority of the Kings of England, is sufficient to prove that anything like real sovereignty was lost to the so-called Kings of Wales.
Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS
It was done, as I say, against the wishes of the Welsh clergy, and therefore it has an ecclesiastical significance. We all know the great fight Giraldus fought was on ecclesiastical ground. He wanted to maintain the independence of the Welsh Church from the domination of Canterbury. That was not done by Statute at all. There is no Statute which gave the King power to appoint the Welsh bishops; that is really the root of the whole matter. The worst part of the Establishment always has been the power of the King to appoint the heads of the Welsh Church. If this Amendment is accepted it would leave that position untouched. I do not know if the definition suggested by my hon. Friend would or would not benefit the Church. I should have thought the Church would have been very glad to be rid of that great hindrance to her progress, proved by seven centuries of comparative failure, namely, the power of the King, acting on the advice of English politicians, to appoint the heads of the Welsh Church. One of the necessary results of this Bill will be to restore to the Welsh Church herself that power which existed before the invasion of Wales of putting at the head of her Church the men who she herself trusts.
§ Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS
I venture to think that one thing that has emerged from this Debate, beyond all question, is that we do require some definition of this Clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman has taken us to Lord Halsbury and to other legal authorities, and I think it is not perhaps altogether surprising that the authorities do not entirely agree. Personally, I look forward with the keenest satisfaction to the trouble that is sure to arise on the interpretation of these words, "shall cease to be Established by law." I 475 see in them a very pretty case. I can imagine the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Welsh party, perhaps, arguing the case on behalf of the Established Church. I can see the hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs struggling with his inclination and his conscience as to whether or not he should accept a brief on behalf of the Government, and being ultimately induced to do so with reluctance. The right hon. Gentleman advocating Establishment would probably call as his witness the Home Secretary, not to give his own opinion, but that of Geraldus Cambrensis. Of course, he would examine the Home Secretary with mutual satisfaction. I should think the hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs would call as his witness the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whose close attention to the details of the Bill, and whose accurate information upon all it contains has been one of the joys and marvels of this Debate. I could conceive the case would give satisfaction to everybody concerned except possibly those whose interests were involved, and who would have the privilege of paying the costs. Speaking as a lawyer, therefore, I say it is eminently desirable that no Clause defining these words should be introduced.
But speaking as a Member of the House desirous to do all he can to minimise the inconvenience and injustice of this Bill, surely it is obvious, from the speeches we have heard from hon. Members on both sides, that we ought to make up our minds before this Bill leaves the House of Commons what we mean by this phrase. The Home Secretary criticised this Amendment because he said the definition suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend did not define the words "cease to be Established." I think the right hon. Gentleman was right when he said that those words only occurred in the first Section. But that first Section works all the harm it can, and, therefore, his criticism that the Definition Clause only deals with the words "cease to be Established by law" has really no cogency, because they are words which require definition. The definition suggested is that the words "cease to be Established" shall mean "cease to possess or enjoy any privileges conferred on the Church by Statute." Apparently the Home Secretary thought they were conferred by Statute, for he read to an enraptured House of Commons a quotation to prove that. But my 476 hon. and learned Friend who last spoke evidently thinks that the Church has not been Established at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom we are delighted to see on one of his meteoric appearances in this House during the progress of this Debate, is always clear and precise in his statements, and in his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill he quoted, in regard to what happened at the Reformation, some words by Professor Maitland, to the effect that the Church was then Established as a State Church for the first time. Therefore, under the aegis of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we have Professor Maitland putting forward the proposition that the Church was Established by Statute at the time of the Reformation.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)
I simply quoted Professor Maitland.
§ Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS
The right hon. Gentleman said that at the Reformation the Church was Established as a State Church for the first time.
§ Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS
I suppose the right hon. Gentleman quoted the statement in support of his own argument? I take it he quoted it because he thought it would bear out what he was saying, and, consequently, we may take it he agrees that the Church was Established by Statute at the time of the Reformation. If that is so, then this Definition Clause is correct, because it says that "cease to be Established by law" shall mean "cease to have the privileges conferred on the Church by Statute." Therefore I can see no objection to it at all. But should there be any difficulty as to that I would suggest that we add the words "or common law" after the words "conferred on the Church by Statute." I do not know whether that will recommend itself to the hon. and gallant Member, but I do think it would meet the objections raised by the legal luminaries on both sides of the House. The only part of the definition which remains is that part that says that they shall "cease to enjoy privileges conferred by Statute which are not possessed in like manner by other religious bodies in Wales." The whole argument of hon. Members opposite is that other religious bodies in Wales are not Established by Statute at all. If that is so it would do 477 no harm. It can do no harm to compare the Establishment by law of the Church with the position of Nonconformist bodies which are not Established. But if, on the other hand, the contention held by some is correct that, indirectly, if not directly, the effect of the Statute law has been to establish these Nonconformist bodies and to give statutory sanction to their privileges, surely we can accept the argument still more strongly urged on the other side that you do not require in this Bill to put Nonconformists in Wales in a better position than the Established Church. If, in fact, other religious bodies are not Established, this is perfectly harmless. If they are, then it meets the justice of the case and carries out the desire of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I beg to support this Amendment, and I suggest to the Home Secretary he would meet all objections by adding the words "or common law," and I urge the House to accept a proposal which will prevent much litigation that otherwise may be anticipated.
§ Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIES
The hon. Member appears to infer that the Church of England will be placed in an inferior position after Disestablishment unless this definition is accepted. This same point arose in regard to the United Methodist Churches, which had to come to Parliament in 1907 in order to re-establish their position. They had to get a special Act—the United Methodist Church Act, 1907—and a local private Act as well for the purpose of vesting their property in trust. There is no reference whatever in that Act to the practices or even the doctrines of that Church, but there is a provision in this Bill whereby the Disestablished Church in Wales can place itself in the same position as the Free Churches. Clause 13, Sub-section (2), gives the new Church power to be incorporated in order that it may hold property exactly as the United Methodist Church, which was the Free Church to which the hon. and gallant Member referred. Therefore the Church in Wales, even without the Amendment, will, under the provisions of the Bill, be in exactly the same position as the other Free Churches.
§ Mr. HOARE
The hon. Member who has just sat down will excuse me if I do not go into the point to which he has referred. Let me say, in passing, that there are many Acts of Parliament in which the doctrines and discipline of various Nonconformist bodies are ex- 478 plicitly set out. I have risen chiefly to-deal with an observation which was first made by the Home Secretary and afterwards repeated by the hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. Llewelyn Williams). When my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) challenged the Home Secretary as to what was meant by "Disestablished" or "Established," the Home Secretary referred my hon. Friend to a number of Acts which stand upon the Statute Book in which the phrase "Established by law" is used. He began by referring my hon. Friend to an Act passed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and went on to refer him to other Acts passed in the reigns of William and Mary, and Queen Anne; and he used the words:—Whatever meaning 'Establishment' had in those Acts of Parliament it has in this Bill.The hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs repeated that proposition and said:—Whatever meaning was attached to those words at that time must be attached to them in this Bill.It is to controvert that proposition that I have risen, for I believe that the Committee will find, if they consider this question with any care, that the term "Establishment" has entirely changed its meaning during the last 300 years. If you take the time at which the Home Secretary started, the period of the Reformation settlement, then "Establishment" meant an exclusive ecclesiastical system, directed chiefly in opposition to Rome and Papalism, and it was typified in a number of rigid and Protestant Statutes. I need not mention more than such Acts as the Act of Uniformity, the Act of Supremacy, or the Act for the Submission of the Clergy. I believe hon. Members can add other instances to those I have given. If you go a step further, and come to the Stuart and Hanoverian periods, you will find that "Establishment" meant something quite different. It meant then a system, exclusive again, directed chiefly at maintaining the Church of England in the face of the inroads of dissent. It was broken up, in my opinion rightly, by such Acts as the Toleration Act at the end of the seventeenth century, and, within our own time, at the beginning of the nineteenth century by the Catholic Emancipation Act. There again "Establishment" meant something quite different from what it meant at the time of the Reformation Settlement. If you take the period after Catholic Emancipation, you will find it meant something quite different again. It 479 meant then, not a system under which the Sovereign was personally supreme over the Church, but a system under which Parliament had come to occupy the position which had previously been occupied by a personal Sovereign, and which was typified in such Parliamentary Acts as the Clergy Discipline Act and the Public Worship Regulation Act, and a number of exclusive and restrictive Acts of Parliament which this House, together with the House of Lords, passed in order to show its control over a particular system of ecclesiastical government. There again "Establishment" meant something quite different from what it meant either in the seventeenth or the sixteenth century.
In view of these historical facts, which I do not think anyone can controvert, we are justified in claiming that with these changes in the meaning of the term "Establishment" we should have a definition in this Bill. I believe that if a definition were inserted it might very well express a change that has come over the minds of Churchmen with reference to the question of Establishment altogether. Many of us no longer regard it from the exclusive point of view of the early nineteenth century or the seventeenth century or the sixteenth century, and we say that this exclusive system should be modified. Many of us see no objection, by extending the definition, to bringing other religious denominations within the field of what we now know as the Establishment. There are many instances I could quote where several denominations are brought into the term "Establishment." There are cases on the Continent where two and sometimes three denominations are all Established by the State. If the State thinks that it can no longer use one denomination as its instrument, let it not destroy its instrument altogether, but let it take in other denominations, and continue what many of us regard as much the most important part of the whole question that we have been discussing during the last weeks, the State's formal connection with Christianity in some shape or form. An hon. Member previously in the Debate quoted the case of Scotland. That has a bearing on what I have attempted to say, for there we have a case of concurrent Establishment. If you take the United Kingdom as a whole, the Church of England is Established here, and the Church of Scotland is Established in Scotland. If Disestablishment must come 480 in Wales, and I sincerely hope it will not, let it not come in the form of destroying all connection of every kind between the Church and the State, but let it come in the form of concurrent Establishment, bringing in the various other Nonconformist denominations which are doing such excellent work in Wales at the present time. It is with that object that I support my hon. Friend's Amendment to have some definition of the term "Establishment" so wide as to bring in other denominations and not destroy altogether the connection between Christianity and the State.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith)
We are here concerned with a particular definition, and, if I may say so, the discussion has gone rather wide of that particular point during the last two hours, although it has been an interesting one. The hon. and gallant Member (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen), in recommending the Amendment to the Committee, pointed out that the word Establishment was used in different senses, that it might mean "existence," and it might mean "legalised and authorised by the State." In those senses Nonconformity is as equally Established as the Church. Therefore, unless Establishment means something more than that, the phrase in the Bill has no very precise significance. It seems to me that there are two points on which the hon. and gallant Gentleman should satisfy the Committee. First, he must satisfy the Committee that a definition is necessary, and, secondly, he must satisfy the Committee that his definition is a right one. With regard to the necessity for a definition, I think the answer has already been given that what we mean by the term "cease to be Established by law" is really the substance of the Bill so far as it has been passed by this Committee. With regard to this particular Amendment, I would submit to him that on reflection and consideration he really cannot support it. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Professor Maitland are in agreement or not. In my own view I agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken. As I understand it the Establishment is not an Act of Establishment, but it is a status; it is merely the relationship between the Church and the State from generation to generation.
481 Before the Reformation there was the Church, which had a certain status and a certain power. That was the then Established Church. That status was consolidated by the Reformation, and has been altered very much since, so much so that there are many people who think, and I believe there is something to be said for it, that every Statute passed for the relief of Nonconformity was in a certain sense an alteration in the status of the Church. It did not alter the status of the Church, but in relation to Nonconformity it certainly did in some respects alter the status of the Church considered as a religious body, because it shared its privileges with other denominations. If that be an improper view of the question, the hon. Member will see at once that the word "Statute" is an undue limitation. I should like in this connection to quote from the book on "Conservatism," by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil). On page 101, he says:—The Establishment of the Church of England does not rest on any formal Statute …I quite agree with that.Wherever a. nation formally and by law accepts a Church as the true exponent of religion, Establishment exists. In our country, in the long history of 1,400 years, the relation between Church and State has been gradually developed and adjusted, sometimes by the informal operation of custom and opinion, sometimes by the direct Act of the State in legislation, until it has come to bear the character we see to-day.6.0 P.M.
That is to say, partly by custom, partly by common law and Statute. If that is the case, the words in the definition would not answer the purpose the hon. Member has in mind. Under these circumstances it is impossible for us to accept the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman in his definition seems once for all to admit that the Church has an Establishment in a very peculiar sense, because he says that "ceases to be Established by law" means "ceases to possess or enjoy any status, rights, or privileges which have been conferred upon the Church by Statute." Therefore, I take it he admits that the Church has certain rights and privileges conferred upon it by Statute, and under those circumstances we say that gives it a status which answers the description of Establishment. There is one point the Noble Lord has made more than once in the Committee stage, and I agree with him from the Church point of view. When I have mentioned privileges the Noble Lord has always said, "You talk about the privileges, but there are disabilities," and I quite appreciate the point he 482 has made. I am not sure that this Amendment meets that. I think "possess or enjoy the status, rights, or privileges" rather excludes disabilities as such.
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH
It seems to me that what we call the temporal advantages of the Church really are not comparable to the spiritual disabilities of the Church, if I may look at it from what we call a Free Church point of view. We think there can be no doubt about the Bill as it stands, and it is not necessary to define these words, and if you want to know what "ceases to be Established by law" means, you must read the rest of the Bill.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
The hon. Gentleman has made a very interesting speech, and I have no quarrel with its tone or its substance. I agree very much with him that this definition is not complete as it stands, and to make it complete there ought to be a reference to the obligations of the Church as well as to its rights and privileges. That, of course, if there was any chance of its being accepted by the Government, could be very easily arranged between us. With regard to his contention that no such definition is required, I do not think he has met our arguments, particularly that of the hon. Member (Mr. Hoare). I think anyone who looks at the history of the matter will see that the word "Establishment" has been used in very different senses, not only in common parlance, but in Statutes. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Llewelyn Williams), said, with great truth, that "Established by law" has been used in a number of Statutes beginning with Elizabeth. I think he said, "Established by the Sovereign" there. I am not quite sure whether that is the same thing, but certainly "Established by law" came to be used very early in the seventeenth century. It was certainly used in a Stuart Statute, and of course it was used in the Statutes of William and Mary and Anne. I do not think there is any real dispute between us that what was intended by these Statutes was to indicate the form of Christianity which the State recognised as being legitimately exercised in accordance with the law in this country. It was to distinguish those forms of Christianity like the forms of Nonconformity, and more particularly at that date Roman Catholicism, which were not recognised 483 and which were therefore illegal and were made very much illegal by a succession of Statutes at that time. That was the real distinction which was intended to be drawn by the Legislature at that time, and "Established" in those days meant no more, or very little more, than recognised. Undoubtedly its meaning has come to be changed a great deal, and Establishment is now taken to mean that bundle of rights and duties which defines the relations between the State and the Church. I quite agree that it is not satisfactory to single out the presence of the bishops in the House of Lords or the existence of Church Courts as essential parts of Establishment. They are merely incidents of the Establishment, which might be taken away leaving the Establishment, for all purposes that we value, exactly as strong, perhaps even stronger, than it is now. The example has been quoted very often of the relation between Church and State in Scotland, where none of these incidents exist in anything like the same form, and many of them do not exist at all.
I cannot help feeling that too much has been said about the earlier part of this Amendment and not quite enough, at any rate from my point of view, about the later part of it. I attach much more value to the words at the end of the Amendment, "and which are not possessed or enjoyed in like manner and degree by any other religious body in Wales and Monmouthshire." These are words to which I cling with something like the energy of despair. I have always hated the Disestablishment part of this Bill, because of its purely negative character. That is what I always thought is the real vice of it. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Llewelyn Williams), made a speech earlier in the evening in which he discussed the position of the Church in Wales at the time of the twelfth century, and he said the Church was Established in Wales in the twelfth century at the time Wales was conquered by England. I entirely disagree. I have read the passage in Stubbs which he quoted, and it seems to me it does not in the least bear out what he said. What Stubbs says is that Wales was progressively conquered. William Rufus, and so on, exercised a nominal suzerainty over it. That was not a real thing. It grew more real under Henry II., still more real to some extent under Richard, and so on, until by the time, of Henry III., and finally 484 Edward I., it was a real conquest, and as a mark of the conquest he says that the English King began to effectively exercise his right to appoint the Welsh bishops. It is quite true, therefore, that the English State may be said to have been brought into relation with the Welsh Church at that time. I think that is quite arguable, but to say there was no Established Church is entirely to misapprehend the matter. The Church was Established in Wales. That there was a close connection between the Welsh State and the Welsh Church from the very outset, I have no doubt whatever. Indeed at that time of day it would have been absolutely unthinkable, and no one could have conceived a Church not in connection with the State. State and Church were regarded as different aspects of the same thing. There was, of course, the Roman Church which exercised a varying degree of supremacy, or suzerainty, or superiority over the other Churches, but apart from that, State and Church were always intimately allied, and at every State function in the nature of a Parliament or a Great Council the Church was always represented as a matter of course. Certainly no one would have thought of doing any State act without the blessing of the Church being assured. Therefore I do not agree at all with the hon. and learned Gentleman when he suggests that Stubbs ever had any doubt about it. My attention has been directed to a passage in one of Stubbs' visitation charges, which seems to show that he took a view—which no doubt is right—much more definite and extreme than the one I have been trying to put tentatively before the Committee. He says:—The Bishoprics of Bangor and St. Asaph revived under Norman rule; the eventful struggles of Giraldus Cambrensis took place in the Court of England and under English auspices at Rome; Welsh Bishops attended Court and Council; were consecrated and made their profession at Canterbury, bringing with them into the one system of Established hurchman-ship possession of lands, tithes, canons, customs and traditions which they had from an antiquity to which our oldest foundations cannot pretend. From the very beginning of Parliament, the Welsh Bishops were Barons as well as Bishops in the House of Lords, and the Welsh Chapters and clergy sent Proctors to the Convocation of Canterbury two centuries and a-half before the Welsh counties sent representatives to the English House of Commons. And all this was done not by forcible attempts of English Kings and Prelates to force on the Welsh an English or Anglo-Roman system: although the Metropolitan visit of Archbishop Baldwin in the twelfth century and the great visitation of Archbishop Peckham in the thirteenth, had the effect of consolidating the hold of England in both Church and State on the Princes and people of Wales.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
I do not think Bishop Stubbs would have been required to cite authority for a statement of that kind.
§ Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES
I admit Stubbs is a very great authority about English constitutional history, but I never accept any proposition of his about Wales unless I see what authority he has.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
In the book there is no authority cited. I am citing him as my authority. I quite recognise that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to disagree with him, as we are entitled to disagree with any authority. I did not wish to be led aside into a historical controversy which, after all, is a little remote from any actual purpose I have in view. I only mentioned it because I wanted to insist on the fact that there has always been a connection between Church and State in Wales from the earliest time, and I am myself convinced that that is of vast importance to the State. People say, "What harm is going to be done in saying, the Church in Wales shall cease to be Established?" I agree. It is not easy, but you can indicate the enormous value that it has been to our whole policy to have a connection between religion and the State. Is meets you at every turn. Many of the signs are so common to our knowledge that we do not recognise that they had an origin in the connection between Church and State. The Union Jack, of course, is merely a symbol of the connection. The triple cross shows that from the very outset of our history we have always had that connection, and though "God Save the King" itself is probably a relatively modern National Anthem, yet it merely crystallised the general idea which existed of the importance of the connection between religion and the State.
§ The CHAIRMAN
We seem to be discussing the Bill as a whole. I must remind the Committee once more that we are now discussing Clause 35, the Definition Clause. We have passed the words in the first Clause, "shall cease to be Established by law." The only question that arises here is one of definition.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
The question is what you mean by it. I think I had begun my argument before you, Sir, reoccupied 486 the Chair, and probably therefore it seems very irrelevant to you. The point is this. The nature of the definition keeps open the door to concurrent Establishment. I want a definition which will leave it open to some future and more constructive Parliament to erect a system which shall recognise, if necessary, all forms of Christianity as the Established religion of Wales. It is because there are these words that I am going to support this definition. I have been very reluctant to mention what is going on in Scotland at present, and I do not wish to do more than refer to it in a single sentence, for I think no rash hand should interfere with that movement, which, at any rate, may have immense results for the Christian community. The whole question in Scotland is whether it is possible to discover some formula which, while recognising religion and giving to religion State recognition, will be free from all the objections of subordination and superiority—subordination of religion to the State, and superiority of one denomination over another, which Nonconformists, I know, very genuinely and very plausibly object to in the present form of the Establishment. That is what I am anxious to do. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom we are all glad to welcome to our Debates every now and then, has always defended this Bill very largely because of the national feeling of Wales. I want to impress upon him and the Committee that if you are going to have real nationality, if you are going to have something more than mere civil union, and a kind of enlarged municipality, you will have to provide for its soul as well as its body. I do not want to go into that at too great length. I recognise the great difficulty of providing for that by the Established Church of England alone, and I quite agree there is great difficulty in the matter. I should have welcomed—I do not say that I would have accepted it until I saw it—a proposal by the Government for joint Establishment.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
I am afraid I should be out of order if I were to go into that now. Bnt I have suggested on the platform expedients which might tend towards that, and I would be very glad to discuss the matter on a proper occasion with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What I am asking now is that the Government should keep the door open. It is possible that you might find some such 487 formula. The Scottish Churches are discussing whether such a formula might be found. Do not shut the door by this Bill to the possibility of defining Establishment in such a way as would keep open the possibility of finding such a formula. I do not quote Mr. Bradley as an authority who will be very much respected by hon. Gentlemen opposite. He is a man of great earnestness, and he has taken a very great part against this Bill. He says:—The ideal of Nonconformists is religious equality; that of the Church of England is the preserved and perpetuated identity of the State with the nation's religion. The Inquiry now is, Are these idea* mutually destructive, or can both he accepted as constructive principles for the erection of the new edifice to meet our modern religious conditions—an edifice in which the nation's Churches and the State shall find a place, each contributing what the function and power of each can to the security, enlargement, and national usefulness of the building?That is the exact proposition I desire to submit to the Committee as the reason why they should define "Established by law" in such a way as not to shut the door against the definite erection of an edifice of a large character which will recognise all forms of Christianity as the religion recognised and believed in by the State as the State.
§ Colonel GREIG
I should not have intervened in the Debate but for some of the observations that have fallen from the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) and the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare). Before dealing with their observations, may I say, with reference to the advisability of not putting in any definition of the words "Established by law," that I think the course of the Debate has made it perfectly evident that the definition suggested in the Amendment has been riddled? The proposers themselves have admitted that the words "conferred upon the Church by Statute" do not cover the case, but to add at the end a reference to "any status, rights, or privileges not enjoyed by any other religious body in Wales" would be to give a definition which, when it came to be construed in the Law Courts, would lead to interminable discussion and litigation. I think both of the hon. Members who have spoken when they dragged in the suggestion of concurrent Endowment, tried to give point to their observations by referring to Scotland.
§ Colonel GREIG
They really quite misapprehend the position in Scotland. In Scotland there is an Established Church which happens to be Presbyterian in religion, and there never has been any suggestion up to the present time for concurrent establishment. It is well-known that two large bodies, the Established Church and the United Free Church, are having conferences, but there never has been any suggestion that there should be any other religion established—Catholicism, Episcopalianism, or anything of that sort—and to suggest that there is a movement for concurrent establishment is to misapprehend the position entirely. The misapprehension is peculiar. The hon. Member for Chelsea spoke of the fact that there docs exist an Established Church in Scotland holding religious views different from those held by the Established Church in England as an example of concurrent Establishment. When you cross the border into Scotland, you find that the Established Church is a Presbyterian Church, and everyone who does not belong to that Church becomes a Nonconformist. In the eye of the law those who do not belong to the Established Church are Nonconformists. There is no concurrent establishment alongside of the English Church, because the English Church is not recognised there, and to talk of concurrent Establishment in Scotland is to misapprehend the whole position. Why do we need to define the words "Established by law"?
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
That was not at all what I was suggesting. It was not the fact that there was one form of Christianity established by law on one side of the Tweed and another form on the other side, but the fact that negotiations and discussions are proceeding as to whether the Established Church and the Free Church can come to some agreement as to some State recognition for both.
§ Colonel GREIG
I am not going into that question, because at the present moment it is a very delicate one. I wish to make it clear that many of us here hold firmly the position and it is just as well that it should be recognised—that it is not right for the State to choose any particular religion as the State religion. That is a fundamental proposition which some of us hold on this side of the House. Mr. Gladstone suggested it himself in his 489 great book on Disestablishment. He said:—What claim have I personally to have any religion supported whilst another is disavowed by the State? The only ground on which a Church establishment can equitably be maintained is that it contains and exhibits truth in its purest and most effective form.If there is any necessity for defining the words "Established by law," I ask why the question was not raised when we were discussing the Coronation Oath a few years ago? In that Oath there are the words Established by law, but no one ever suggested that they should be defined. I go farther, and say that to put a definition into this Bill would lead to great inconvenience, and I think the Committee ought to reject the Amendment.
§ Mr. KING
After the discussion we have had, I hope the Committee will adopt the only possible course, namely, the withdrawal of the Amendment altogether. Really, there is very strong ground for withdrawing the Amendment, because it has been treated not in a practical, but in what one may call an academic spirit. There has not been really a practical suggestion made in the Debate all through. A great many learned authorities have been quoted. I have heard quotations from Maitland, Stubbs, Giraldus Cambrensis, Hooker, Warburton, and others, and we have also had quotations from a work by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil). It is remarkable that the book which the Noble Lord himself described as a very trumpery one, should have been quoted; but if he already does not regard his opinion as at all authoritative, I wonder what the other authorities would say of their very antiquated opinions. I think it is entirely out of place to bring learned discussion and ancient authorities into this matter. After all, we are not discussing an academic question, but a practical question. That leads me to the point that this Amendment does not at all satisfy those who have drafted it, although they will go into the Lobby in favour of it. It has been pointed out once or twice on this side of the House that the definition given in the Amendment in no way meets the whole case. In fact, all the hon. Members who spoke on the other side admitted that themselves. I therefore very earnestly hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn.
Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW
I quite understand the regret expressed by the hon. Member (Mr. King) that we on this side have been citing authorities in the 490 Debate. That regret is not confined to himself, but is shared by hon. Gentlemen on the other side. They seem to have ignored a great many of the authorities on which the Debate has turned. They have ignored them because they are quite ignorant of them. The object of the definition in the Amendment is to try to secure some greater clarity of view with regard to points raised over and over again in the course of the discussions on the Bill. The Government have refused to give us any information or any further expression of view whatever. The Amendment is put down with the object, I believe, at the eleventh hour of getting a further expression from the Government with regard to these difficulties. I do not wish to cover the whole question of what is "Establishment" except in the briefest way, but there seems to be so much confusion about it that I must outline what, in my view, is involved in the question of Establishment and how it affects the matter. We must consider the question of Establishment from the point of view of the Church and also of the State, the two great parties who, by the course of historic connection, have intertwined their relations one with another by mutual consent. It is proposed to tear those two great historical bodies apart so far as Wales is concerned. Therefore anything you are doing to one in this connection will have his correlative effect with regard to the other. At the same time it is convenient to consider them apart. As far as the Church is concerned, Establishment may be considered under three heads. There is, first, its legal aspect. The legal aspect has been stated here to be the effect with regard to the legislative portion of the Church Convocation judiciary—that is the Courts—and the executive portion, namely, the appointment of bishops and deans. All those functions of the Church are affected by the State as the result of Establishment, and with regard to those functions of the Church this Bill, so far as we have gone, does deal—that is to say, it purports to deal—with Convocation and the executive functions of the Crown.
Then comes the moral aspect of the question, the recognition of religion by the State. That is an aspect to which we on this side attach very great importance. That is a thing which in terms is not dealt with by the Bill, though it is quite conceivable that the recognition of religion by the local authorities, and even by the 491 State in certain connections could go on at the expense of other religious bodies. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent it. Then there is the social aspect of the matter, that the Church of England under the present arrangement takes a certain lead in social functions, and so on, which it is suggested deprives Nonconformists of equality. I think, personally, that there is very little in that. In any case, whatever it is, it is not touched by the Bill. Then there is the other side of the question—the aspect of Establishment from the State's point of view. So far as the State as a body is concerned, all that has happened to the Church has its correlative effect on the State. That is to say clearly, if the Church ceases to have her officers appointed by the State, the State ceases to appoint the officers. But when you come to the members of the State we get to the difficulty which has been put to the Government several times, with regard to which the Government refuse to give any answer. The difficulty is this: As the result of the connection between Church and State, the Church, if you like, is saddled with certain duties to individual members of the State at large, and what we want to know is: Do those duties to individuals cease altogether, or do they not? Those individual duties are nearly always the result of law. If this Amendment were carried we should know where we were with regard to that question of the rights of third parties to the ministrations of the Church.
The chief heads which occur to one at once are baptism, burial, marriage, and the right of public worship. Baptism personally may not be defined by Statute, but certainly, as far as burial, marriage, and the right of public worship are concerned, those are all recognised in more or less degree by Statutes of the realm. For instance, the Burial Acts deal expressly with the right of parishioners, irrespective of religious qualifications, to be buried in the churchyard of their parish church. With regard to worship, there again there is Statute as to the rights of parishioners to worship in their parish church, and when we come to the question of marriage, which was discussed at length a night or two ago, I am not at all clear how the matter stands. In the Debate the Noble Lord the Member for Newton-le-Willows (Viscount Wolmer) challenged the Home Secretary as to whether in the proposal which he had just 492 outlined he proposed to place the Church of England with regard to marriage identically in the same position as the Nonconformist body in Wales. If they are placed in that position, then the right of parishioners, as such, to any claim to be married within the Church ceases altogether. The Home Secretary stated, in the course of the Debate, that those rights must subsist at any rate to a limited degree, because the Church was handed over, as he put it, to the Church of England. What we want to know is what is going to happen? Is the fact that third persons are to retain the right which at present are enjoyed by Statute after the Church of England is Disestablished? Because see how the matter stands under the Bill.
Section 1 Disestablishes the Church in terms—whatever that means. With the Disestablishment goes the law of the Church as law of the land. Section 3 sets up again the law as a matter of contract, but between the members only, and not with third persons. Then you have Section 3 saying in the latter part that the Church in its operations as a future legislative body may repeal Statute law. That permission is a very wide one. Clearly it cannot mean it can repeal this Act if it becomes an Act. Then anything that is in this Act will in future permanently bind the Church, and the representative body will not be able to deal with this Act. There are Clauses in this Bill which do lay upon the new Church the heavy hand of Statute law. What we want to be clear about is, if this Bill goes through, is it to be established once for all that the Church's connection with the State is dissolved so as to put the Church on the same footing as any other religious body in Wales? Or is it to be a "heads I win, tails I lose," kind of affair? Is it to be Disestablishment so far as reducing the Church to the same level of equality is concerned, but retaining the tie upon the Church when hon. Gentlemen opposite consider it is convenient so to do? With the object of clearing up that difficulty this Amendment is moved, and I personally will vote for it, though I quite agree that some slight modification of the actual form of words might be advisable. I do not think they substantially affect the Clause itself, though I should be glad if those words could be inserted, but, subject to that, the Amendment shall have my support.
§ Sir A. CRIPPS
I beg to propose, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "cease" to insert the words "to be subject to obligations or," and after the word "been" to insert the words "imposed on or." The Amendment would then read as follows:—
"The expression 'cease to be Established by law' means cease to be subject to any obligations or to possess or enjoy any status, rights, or privileges which have been imposed on or conferred upon the Church by Statute and which are not possessed or enjoyed in
§ like manner and degree by any other religious body in Wales and Monmouthshire."
§ This Amendment is proposed with the full consent of the hon. and gallant Member (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen).
§ Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
§ Question put, "That the words, as amended, be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 155; Noes, 291.497
|Division No. 541.]||AYES.||[6.42 p.m.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Gastrell, Major W. Houghton||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)|
|Aitken, Sir William Max||Gibbs, George Abraham||Nield, Herbert|
|Amery, L. C. M. S.||Gilmour, Captain J.||Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major William||Goldman, C. S.||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)|
|Ashley, Wilfrid W.||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Peel, Captain R. F.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Grant, J. A.||Pole-Carew, Sir R.|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Greene, Walter Raymond||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)||Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)||Pretyman, E. G.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)||Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.|
|Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Quilter, Sir William Eley C.|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)||Randies, Sir John S.|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)||Harris, Henry Percy||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Rawson, Colonel Richard H.|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Helmsley, Viscount||Rees, Sir J. D.|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Hewins, William Albert Samuel||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.||Rolleston, Sir John|
|Bigland, Alfred||Hill, Sir Clement L.||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)|
|Bird, Alfred||Hills, J. W.||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)|
|Blair, Reginald||Hill-Wood, Samuel||Sanders, Robert A.|
|Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)||Hoare, Samuel John Gurney||Sassoon, Sir Philip|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l, Walton)|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Houston, Robert Paterson||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Burn, Col. C. R.||Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Butcher, John George||Hunt, Rowland||Stewart, Gershom|
|Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)||Hunter, Sir C. R.||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)||Ingleby, Holcombe||Swift, Rigby|
|Campion, W. R.||Jessel, Captain H. M.||Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)|
|Carille, Sir Edward Hildred||Joynson-Hicks, William||Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)|
|Cassel, Felix||Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.||Talbot, Lord Edmund|
|Cator, John||Kerry, Earl of||Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Kimber, Sir Henry||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)||Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)||Larmor, Sir J.||Touche, George Alexander|
|Clay, Captain H. H. Spender||Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Tryon, Captain George Clement|
|Clive, Captain Percy Archer||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Tullibardine, Marquess of|
|Clyde, James Avon||Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee||Valentia, Viscount|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)||White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo.,Han.S.)||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Croft, Henry Page||Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud|
|Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)||M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)||Wills, Sir Gilbert|
|Doughty, Sir George||Malcolm, Ian||Winterton, Earl|
|Du Cros, Arthur Philip||Middlemore, John Throgmorton||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Worthington-Evans, L.|
|Fell, Arthur||Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas||Wright, Henry Fitzherbert|
|Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes||Moore, William||Yate, Col. C. E.|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Mount, William Arthur||Younger, Sir George|
|Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue||Newdegate, F. A.|
|Fletcher, John Samuel||Newman, John R. P.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen and Sir A. Cripps.|
|Forster, Henry William||Newton, Harry Kottingham|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Agnew, Sir George William||Baker, H. T. (Accrington)|
|Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)||Ainsworth, John Stirling||Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)||Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)|
|Addison, Dr. C.||Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)|
|Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.||Arnold, Sydney||Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Barton, William|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-Shire)||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Nuttall, Harry|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||O'Brien, William (Cork)|
|Bentham, G. J.||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N)|
|Bethell, Sir J. H.||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Donnell, Thomas|
|Boland, John Plus||Hazleton, Richard||O'Dowd, John|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Helme, Sir Norval Watson||O'Grady, James|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Henry, Sir Charles||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)|
|Brace, William||Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||O'Malley, William|
|Brady, P. J.||Higham, John Sharp||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)|
|Brocklehurst, William B.||Hinds, John||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Brunner, John F. L.||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||O'Shee, James John|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Hodge, John||O'Sullivan, Timothy|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Holmes, Daniel Turner||Outhwaite, R. L.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Holt, Richard Durning||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Hope, John Deans (Haddington)||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)||Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Hudson, Walter||Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||John, Edward Thomas||Pirie, Duncan Vernon|
|Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)||Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)||Pollard, Sir George H.|
|Chancellor, Henry George||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Clough, Wiliam||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)|
|Clynes, John R.||Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)||Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)|
|Collins, G. P. (Greenock)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Primrose, Hon. Neill James|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Joyce, Michael||Radford, G. H.|
|Cotton, William Francis||Keating, Matthew||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Kellaway, Frederick George||Reddy, Michael|
|Crooks, William||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Crumley, Patrick||Kilbride, Denis||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)|
|Cullinan, J.||King, Joseph||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Molton)||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Richards, Thomas|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)|
|Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|
|Dawes, J. A.||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|De Forest, Baron||Leach, Charles||Roberts, George H. (Norwich)|
|Delany, William||Lewis, John Herbert||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Devlin, Joseph||Lundon, Thomas||Robinson, Sidney|
|Dewar, Sir J. A.||Lyell, Charles Henry||Roche, Waiter F.|
|Dillon, John||Lynch, Arthur Alfred||Roche, Augustine (Louth)|
|Doneian, Captain A.||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Roche, John (Galway, E.)|
|Doris, William||McGhee, Richard||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Duffy, William J.||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Rowlands, James|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)||Rowntree, Arnold|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)||Macpherson, James Ian||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H, L. (Cleveland)|
|Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||M'Callum, Sir John M.||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||M'Kean, John||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|Farrell, James Patrick||M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)||Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.|
|Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lines.,Spalding)||Sheehy, David|
|Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||M'Micking, Major Gilbert||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Ffrench, Peter||Manfield, Harry||Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)|
|Field, Willam||Markham, Sir Arthur Basil||Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)|
|Fitzgibbon, John||Marshall, Arthur Harold||Smyth, Thomas F, (Leitrim, S.)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Mason, David M. (Coventry)||Snowden, P.|
|George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd||Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.||Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert|
|Gilhooly, James||Meagher, Michael||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)|
|Gill, A. H.||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Sutherland, John E.|
|Ginnell, L.||Millar, James Duncan||Sutton, John E.|
|Gladstone, W. G. C.||Molloy, Michael||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Glanville, H. J.||Molteno, Percy Alport||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Mond, Sir Alfred M.||Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)|
|Goldstone, Frank||Money, L. G. Chiozza||Tennant, Harold John|
|Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)||Mooney, John J.||Thomas, J. H.|
|Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)||Morgan, George Hay||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Greig, Colonel James William||Morrell, Philip||Toulmin, Sir George|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Morison, Hector||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Muldoon, John||Verney, Sir Harry|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||Munro, Robert||Wadsworth, John|
|Hackett, John||Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.||Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)|
|Hancock, J. G.||Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.||Walters, Sir John Tudor|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Nolan, Joseph||Walton, Sir Joseph|
|Hardie, J. Keir||Norman, Sir Henry||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)||Norton, Captain Cecil W.||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Wardie, George J.||Whitehouse, John Howard||Winfrey, Richard|
|Waring, Walter||Whyte, A. F.||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)|
|Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay||Wiles, Thomas||Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)|
|Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)||Wilkie, Alexander||Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)|
|Watt, Henry A.||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Wedgwood, Joslah C.||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.|
|White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|White, Patrick (Meath, North)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
§ Government Amendment made: In Subsection (1), after the word "orders" ["who is in Holy Orders"], insert the words "the expression 'parochial benefits' has the same meaning as 'benefits' in the Incumbents Resignation Act, 1871."—[Mr. Ellis Griffith.]
§ Mr. CAVE
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the words last inserted, to insert the words, "The expression 'all incidental expenses sanctioned by the Treasury of carrying this Act into effect' shall include all expenses incurred by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty with the sanction of the Treasury in carrying this Act into effect."
The expression referred to in the Amendment will be found in Clause 10, Subsection (6). These bodies have a good many duties to perform, such as making certain inquiries, and making orders; and if hon. Members look at Clause 5, they will see that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty will have delicate inquiries to make with regard to property which comes under the Clause, and which vests in the Commissioners under this Bill. Besides that Clause, you will find in Clause 7, Sub-section (3), that they have other inquiries and adjustments to make, because they have to declare what constitutes private benefactions under the Act. There are also other Clauses and Schedules under which duties are cast on the Commissioners and on the Governors. It is quite proper that those bodies should perform those duties; there is not the least objection to the duties being cast upon them; but, just as the expenses in regard to the Welsh Church Commissioners are paid out of certain funds transferred from the Church, so it is only fair that any expenses incurred by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty in performing those duties should be paid out of the same fund.
By Clause 10, Sub-section (6), it is provided that "all incidental expenses sanctioned by the Treasury," to carry the Act into effect, "shall be paid by the Commissioners out of money in their hands in pursuance of this Act, but not so, as in 498 any way to diminish the property to be-transferred to the representative body or county councils under this Act." They take those expenses out of the same funds as are used in respect of the Commissioners' services. The duties may involve certain very difficult inquiries and legal questions; but whatever they are, I think they ought to be paid for out of the expenses fund, if I may so call it. I have only heard one objection to this proposal, and that is that, for the purposes of the recent Commission, a number of inquiries were made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, and the results were furnished to the members of the Commission. Of course, with regard to work already done, there is no suggestion of any kind that the expenses should come from those funds. So far as the work is done and finished, it will not come under these words. But I understand the information obtained for the purposes of the Commission—no doubt carefully obtained, and no doubt useful to the Commission—is not sufficient to enable the Commissioners to perform their duties under the Clauses to which I have referred. They must now make extremely careful inquiries; they must be prepared with evidence of all the facts which they have to ascertain, which must involve some further trouble and expense; and I cannot help thinking that the Government will feel that a clear case is made for paying those expenses, not, of course, out of funds to be furnished by Parliament or by the Treasury, but out of the actual moneys which are to be transferred from the Church. I do not think the matter requires longer discussion. I cannot distinguish myself these expenses from those which are already referred to in Clause 10, Sub-section (6), and I hope the Home Secretary will be willing to accept the Amendment.
§ The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY (Mr. Hobhouse)
The suggestion which is now put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman is practically the same as that which was put forward on the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Newbury Division (Mr. Mount) in the course of 499 yesterday's discussion, and really I have very little to add to what I said in reply to the appeal he then made. Really there is very little left for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty to do, and I think it will be well to describe to the Committee what their actual duties and obligations are under this Bill. Under the 4th Clause, they have to ascertain Welsh ecclesiastical property. That is not very difficult, nor would it require a very long time. Practically they have got the whole of this information from the Welsh Commission, and I am informed by a member of that Commission that the only thing which they refused as to the way in which property was now held, and as to the way in which property will be in future held, had reference to the estates of the four bishops, which I think come under the head of particular properties transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Under that head there is extremely little for the Commissioners to do which has not already been done. Under Clause 5, certain property vests automatically in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and it will at once pass from them, as the mere conduit pipe, to the Welsh Commissioners on the passage of the Bill, and on the date of Disestablishment. That, therefore, gives practically no trouble at all. Then they have to make certain orders declaring what those properties are. That is very trifling. They have to make Orders with respect to property transferred to the Welsh Commissioners under Clause 7. That again is a small matter. They have to make orders with reference to border parishes, of which there are some twenty or thirty, and that, too, is very trifling.
§ 7.0 P.M.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
We must always have regard to the fact that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty are in the position of having practically the whole of the information in respect of these properties, and all that they would have to do would be to issue orders transferring the property from themselves to the Welsh Commissioners. They have to deliver all the books and documents in respect of property transferred to the Welsh Commissioners. Finally, and I suspect this may be some of their hardest work, under the second part of the First Schedule and under Clause 33, they have to make orders 500 respecting adjustments, but then they are relieved of a very considerable amount of duty the moment the Bill becomes law, which they have now to undertake. While, no doubt, a certain strain may be put on their staff during the twelve months before the Bill becomes law and the date of Disestablishment arrives, I do not think that work will be a very great amount. Queen Anne's Bounty and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have had full notice of what their duties will have to be. The work will not be sprung on them. They have not only had a year since this Bill was first introduced into this House, but they will have between the time the Bill becomes law and the date of Disestablishment six months necessarily, and twelve months perhaps, so that gives them at least two years. I do not think, if the warnings we get from another place are to be believed, that anybody anticipates that this Bill will become law within a short time after it has been read a third time in this House. Therefore I think they will have at the very least two or three years in which to prepare for carrying out those duties. There will not be really any necessity to increase their staff or to suppose that they will not be able to carry out such duties as are cast upon them by this Bill by the means at their disposal now.
§ Mr. MOUNT
I am bound to say, with all respect, that I do not think that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was a very convincing one. He has omitted to mention, among the duties which will be cast upon the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty, another duty imposed upon them by a new Clause which is to be moved by the Home Secretary. That Clause is bound to give a considerable amount of extra work. The Chancellor of the Duchy has based his refusal of this very small request mainly upon the fact that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty had already carried out a good deal of the work which they would require to do under the Bill. So far as that work has been carried out it will not require to be done again, and it is not proposed by my hon. and learned Friend that they should be allowed to charge those expenses on the Bill, but only in regard to extra expenses which may be incurred. The right hon. Gentleman further based his argument to a certain extent on the fact that there would be a very long period of time during which these inquiries could be 501 made, and during which the Commissioners could be carrying out preparations for the necessary work, and that therefore it would not be necessary to increase their staff. He included in that period the time between now and the passage of this Bill under the Parliament Act. I am bound to say I should have thought the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty would be going beyond what is necessary if they were to take it for granted that this Bill was going to become law, even under the Parliament Act. I think they might well be considered to be rather exceeding their powers if they went to any expense or took any real steps until they knew for certain, which I hope will not be the case, that this Bill is going to become law. The question is a small one, and the amount of money involved is not very great, and even if we do get this Amendment accepted we are not going to impose any burden upon the Exchequer, but we are going to take it out of the money which we say belongs to the Church, and which is now being handed over to the county council. On those grounds I do urge upon the Chancellor of the Duchy to reconsider his decision.
§ Sir A. CRIPPS
I wish also to appeal to the Chancellor of the Duchy. I do not think he has really understood the position here. It is not a question whether the amount is small or large. Here is a Bill which we are told is for the benefit of Wales, and the proposal is for that purpose to take money out of a trust fund which is now devoted in England to religious purposes of a very urgent character. The point is how can that be justified. Why should these expenses be taken from the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty, out of moneys which provide pensions for poor clergy, and to make the stipends of the incumbent what we call here a living wage. I hope the Home Secretary will consider this point of principle. Surely if this Bill is being passed for the benefit of Wales, all the incidental expenses ought to come out of what I would call for this purpose the Welsh Fund in the hands of the Welsh Commissioners, and none of it ought to come out of funds which are now applicable and would now be applied to the Church in England. It seems to me on every point of principle to be quite unjustifiable to put a charge of this kind, small or great, against funds otherwise urgently needed for Church purposes in England. 502 I hope, therefore, that the decision will be reconsidered.
The two arguments which, I understand, were used by the Chancellor of the Duchy were: first of all he said a long time will be allowed to the Commissioners and the Queen Anne's Bounty office to prepare and make ready, and, I suppose, the conclusion he wants us to come to is that it will not cost them anything. Surely it is obvious that time has nothing to do with the wages of extra clerks who would have to be paid whether they receive long or short notice. It was suggested that a great deal of work has been already done. Those who have experience of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty know how admirably on the whole their work is done. Preparing information for a Bill of this kind and looking into the legal rights of the parties are different things, and although a good deal of that work has been done, it was done some six years ago. Therefore from every point of view it will require to be repeated and re-checked in order that there may be that absolute accuracy which is so necessary when the private rights of property have to be dealt with.
If the secular funds in the hands of the Welsh Commissioners do not bear these costs, as the Amendment suggests, then the costs can only come from one or two sources, either from the corporate funds of two institutions, or otherwise out of funds going to the representative body, and that, in effect, is imposing a burden on the Church. The Church has not asked for this injustice and has not made the alteration. It is not the body which is going to benefit, and it is the commonest rule in the administration of funds of this kind that the beneficiaries ought to bear the cost of adjustment and alteration. Therefore on those grounds I venture to urge not only is it unfair to place a burden on the two institutions concerned, because they are not going to be the bodies benefiting, but it is also unfair to place the burden on the Church funds because they are not going to be benefited, and that the secular fund which goes to the Welsh Commissioners ought to bear the cost. The second matter I wish to refer to is one of actual fact, and that is that the cost incurred will be by no means inconsiderable, and that ought to be borne in mind before this Amendment is refused.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."504
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 272.505
|Division No. 542.]||AYES.||[7.16 p.m.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert||Newton, Harry Kottingham|
|Amery, L. C. M. S.||Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.|
|Ashley, Wilfrid W.||Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William|
|Astor, Waldorf||Fleming, Valentine||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Fletcher, John Samuel||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Forster, Henry William||Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)||Gastrell, Major W. Houghton||Perkins, Walter Frank|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Gibbs, George Abraham||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)||Gilmour, Captain John||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc, E.)||Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Goldman, Charles Sydney||Pryce-Jones, Col. E.|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Gouldlng, Edward Alfred||Quitter, Sir William Eley C.|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Greene, W. R.||Randies, Sir John S.|
|Bennett-Goldney, Francis||Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Bigland, Alfred||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Rees, Sir J. D.|
|Bird, Alfred||Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Blair, Reginald||Harris, Henry Percy||Rolleston, Sir John|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Helmsley, Viscount||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)|
|Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)||Hewins, William Albert Samuel||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Hill, Sir Clement L.||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)|
|Burdett-Coutts, William||Hills, John Waller||Sanders, Robert A.|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Hoare, Samuel John Gurney||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Butcher, John George||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Sandys, G. J.|
|Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Sassoon, Sir Philip|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)||Houston, Robert Paterson||Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)|
|Campion, W. R.||Hume-Williams, William Ellis||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Hunt, Rowland||Stewart, Gershom|
|Cassel, Felix||Ingleby, Holcombe||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)|
|Cator, John||Jessel, Captain Herbert M.||Swift, Rigby|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.||Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)|
|Cave, George||Kimber, Sir Henry||Talbot, Lord Edmund|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)||Larmor, Sir J.||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)||Lewisham, Viscount||Tryon, Captain George Clement|
|Clay, Captain H. H. Spender||Lloyd, George Ambrose||Tullibardine, Marquess of|
|Clive, Captain Percy Archer||Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Clyde, James Avon||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han, S.)||Wills, Sir Gilbert|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred||McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Croft, Henry Page||Malcolm, Ian||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Yate, Colonel C. E.|
|Doughty, Sir George||Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas|
|Du Cros, Arthur Philip||Moore, William||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Mount and Mr. M. Barlow.|
|Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.||Newdegate, F. A.|
|Fell, Arthur||Newman, John R. P.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Dawes, James Arthur|
|Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)||Brace, William||De Forest, Baron|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Brady, Patrick Joseph||Delany, William|
|Addison, Dr Christopher||Brocklehurst, W. B.||Denman, Hon Richard Douglas|
|Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.||Brunner, John F. L.||Devlin, Joseph|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Bryce, John Annan||Dillon John|
|Agnew, Sir George William||Burke, E. Havlland-||Donelan, Captain A.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Doris, William|
|Alden, Percy||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Duffy, William J.|
|Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)||Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Buxton, Rt. Hon S. C. (Poplar)||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)|
|Arnold, Sydney||Byles, Sir William Pollard||Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)|
|Baker, H. T. (Accrington)||Cawiey, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Elverston, Sir Harold|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)||Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Clancy, John Joseph||Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)|
|Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Clough, William||Essex, Sir Richard Walter|
|Barton, William||Clynes, John R.||Farrell, James Patrick|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Cory, Sir Clifford John||Ffrench, Peter|
|Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo)||Cotton, William Francis||Field, William|
|Bentham, George Jackson||Crooks, William||Fitzgibbon John|
|Bethell, Sir John Henry||Crumley, Patrick||Flavin, Michael Joseph|
|Black, Arthur W.||Cullinan, John||Gilhooly, James|
|Boland, John Plus||Davies, Ellis William (Eiffon)||Gill, Alfred Henry|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Ginnell, Laurence|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)||Gladstone, W. G. C.|
|Glanville, Harold James||Macpherson, James Ian||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|
|Goldstone Frank||M'Callum, Sir John M.||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Roberts, George H. (Norwich)|
|Greig, Colonel James William||M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)|
|Griffith, Ellis Jones||M'Micking, Major Gilbert||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)||Manfield, Harry||Robinson, Sidney|
|Gulland, John William||Markham, Sir Arthur Basil||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||Marks, Sir George Croydon||Roche, Augustine (Louth)|
|Hackett, John||Marshall, Arthur Harold||Roche, John (Galway, E.)|
|Hancock John George||Mason, David M. (Coventry)||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Harcourt Robert V. (Montrose)||Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.||Rowlands, James|
|Hardie, J. Keir||Meagher, Michael||Rowntree, Arnold|
|Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Harmsworth R L (Caithness-shire)||Molloy, Michael||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Molteno, Percy Alport||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||Mond, Sir Alfred M.||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Money, L. G. Chiozza||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Mooney, John J.||Sheeny, David|
|Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Morgan, George Hay||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Morrell, Philip||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|Hayward, Evan||Morison, Hector||Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)|
|Hazleton, Richard||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Helme, Sir Norval Watson||Muldoon, John||Snowden, Philip|
|Henderson J. M (Aberdeen W.)||Munro, Robert||Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert|
|Henry, Sir Charles||Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)|
|Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||Nolan, Joseph||Sutherland, John E.|
|Higham, John Sharp||Norman, Sir Henry||Sutton, John E.|
|Hinds, John||Norton, Captain Cecil W.||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Hodge, John||Nuttall, Harry||Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)|
|Holmes, Daniel Turner||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Tennant, Harold John|
|Holt, Richard Durning||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Thomas, James Henry|
|Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Hudson, Walter||O'Donnell, Thomas||Toulmin, Sir George|
|Illingworth, Percy H.||O'Dowd, John||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Jardine Sir J (Roxburgh)||O'Grady, James||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|John, Edward Thomas||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)||Verney, Sir Harry|
|Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||Wadsworth, John|
|Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)||O'Malley, William||Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Wardle, George J.|
|Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||O'Shee, James John||Waring, Walter|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||O'Sullivan, Timothy||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)||Outhwaite, R. L.||Watt, Henry A.|
|Joyce, Michael||Parker, James (Halifax)||Webb, H.|
|Keating, Matthew||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Kellaway, Frederick George||Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.||White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)|
|Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Kilbride, Denis||Phillips, John (Longlord, S.)||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|King, Joseph||Pirie, Duncan V.||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Molton)||Pollard, Sir George H.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Law, Hugh A (Donegal, West)||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid,Cockerm'th)||Primrose, Hon. Nell James||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs, N.)|
|Leach, Charles||Pringle, William M. R.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Radford, George Haynes||Winfrey, Richard|
|Lundon, Thomas||Raffan, Peter Wilson||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Reddy, Michael||Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)|
|Lynch, Arthur Alfred||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Young, William (Perth, East)|
|Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)|
|McGhee, Richard||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. G. Howard and Captain Guest.|
|Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Rendall, Athelstan|
|MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)||Richards, Thomas|
§ Sir J. D. REES
I beg to move, after the word "convention" ["The expression ' Synod' includes any assembly or convention "], to insert the words,
"The expression 'representative body' means representatives elected, whether for Wales as a whole or for northern and southern divisions of Wales, or according to dioceses."
This Amendment must be read together with Clause 13, Sub-section (1), which provides that nothing shall prevent the 506 bishops, clergy, and laity from holding Synods or electing representatives thereto for the general management and good government of the Church in Wales, and the property and affairs thereof, whether as a whole or according to dioceses. I can quite see that it might appear at first sight that there was no great object in this proposal, since it is provided in Clause 13 that four representative bodies might, in point of fact, be created under the Bill as it stands. Nor have I any idea 507 whether or not it would be acceptable to those who are most interested to provide specially for a northern and a southern division. I cannot say, for instance, what the bishops would think on the matter, My past—I hope not an abandoned past— has not placed me at the present moment deeply in the confidence of the bishops or of those who are about to make these arrangements. But I am proposing what seems to me a desirable thing to do. There is such a difference between North and South Wales that there are in point of fact practically two entirely different nations. They differ more than any other two parts—at any rate, adjacent parts— of the United Kingdom that I know, and T wish the expression to be so defined that this representative body may provide specially for a division into North and South Wales. One hon. Member said just now that this was not the occasion for long and learned dissertations or historical researches into the past. I strongly hold that opinion, and consequently I do not propose, although it would strengthen my argument, to go into learned disquisitions as to the spheres of influence of the Silurian, the Brythonic and other elements which go to make up modern Wales.
This question concerns the Re-establishment, as I consider it, of the Church in Wales after that Church has been deprived of a large amount of its ancient Endowments. I would look upon the matter absolutely and entirely from the modern point of view, and not attempt to imitate the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. Llewelyn Williams), who, whenever he addresses the House, invariably makes an incursion into history. The Leader of the Welsh Party (Sir D. Brynmor Jones) has dealt with this matter in a book which I have studied with much interest. The fact that his collaborateur is a namesake of mine also commended the book to me. The right hon. Gentleman has gone at great length into the ethnological question; he has shown that the Welsh are on a level with the old Cornish and Breton peoples and has pointed out how in Glamorgan there had been, what I suppose must be regarded as an unfortunate, invasion of the English. My point is that there are in fact so many points of difference, and that so complete is the division from the ethnological, to some extent from the linguistic, from the industrial, and from the sentimental points of 508 view, that it is absurd and entirely wrong in a Bill of this kind to proceed upon the basis that there is one Welsh nation. Arising out of those differences I suggest that the Bill should deal with facts, as indeed should all legislative measures, and within its four corners acknowledge what is the actual state of things. The Solicitor-General, in point of fact, in opening the case for the Bill made some reflections upon myself, which could be accepted by those who think that a change of sides is respectable only when it is gilded by office. This matter is generally argued upon the basis that Wales is a nation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman argued it upon that point. If he was right, I should say there was no need to make any definition, or to provide for a definition of the representative body in the manner which I desire to do by the Amendment. I submit that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong. I cannot see how you are to argue that North and South Wales are one unit, any more than you can argue that Devon and Cornwall are a unit. Where are we to begin and where end?
Where are those characteristics to be found that compose a unit? The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill pointed out that in fifty years Glamorganshire had been filled with an English-speaking population. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Welsh party described it as an English invasion. By the showing of the right hon. Gentleman most immediately interested in the passage of this Bill, you have the admission of such distinction between the different parts of Wales that I think justifies, and more than justifies, the definition which I have the honour to urge upon the Committee. If you take the linguistic test, there to a great extent the argument of the other side fails. I am not prepared to say that the Welshman speaking Welsh in the North of Wales would be unintelligible in the South of Wales, or vice versa. I would not submit that, but I do urge that there are very great differences between the idioms and pronunciation, and that even in regard to the linguistic test—which I suppose would be one of those most peculiarly put forward and strongly dwelt upon—that, even that, would rather fail if you are arguing from it that North and South Wales were one homogeneous whole, to be properly dealt with by one representative body or by four representative bodies, informed by one purpose and one spirit, and so acting—as 509 they would in any case—if there was one for each diocese, as one whole. If 700,000 English people are found in Glamorgan shire, as the Home Secretary said the other day—and he always is most accurate, and I am sure he was accurate there—and have come in in fifty years—
§ Sir J. D. REES
I regret if I have quoted the right hon. Gentleman erroneously. I have no doubt, however, that the statement is correct. If you have one-third of the population of Wales resident in one county, all English-speaking, and most of them English-speaking monoglots, where is the justice of making one representative body suffice? Canon Rashdall, a Liberal, speaking at Hereford, dwelt upon the fact in order to obtain this definition and the recognition of these two divisions. He said:—Wales is two nations. The rural and Nonconformist towns are one. The Liberals of the mining districts are Liberals on general grounds, not out of opposition to the Church, which we well know is extremely strong in North Wales and often give it a complexion and character which wholly marks it off from South Wales —so as to make it absolutely necessary and proper that in this Bill that patent fact, which I am sure hon. Members opposite will find it difficult to controvert, should find proper expression and recognition. I have not been able, through no fault of my own, to put this Amendment at some more appropriate place in the Bill. I would not attempt now to quote speches made in Wales in regard to this. They would bear out my point. I was so unfortunate before as to endeavour something of this kind, and when I read what I said in cold print the next morning, it occurred to me that it might be possible that my remarks would be regarded—though they were not meant so—as disrespectful to the Chair, in which case I would make a humble apology now and explain that that was not my intention in the least. No Member in the House has a greater wish to keep within the four corners of law and order than I, though some others appear to do this with more success. I shall not attempt to quote now, though those speeches would, to a great extent, bear out the argument that I am attempting to put before the House. There was a religious census, 510 which was taken before the Disestablishment of the Irish Church, and has been repeated at intervals ever since. If we had that in Wales that also would go to a great extent to bear out my argument.
Take the case as bearing out my argument that Wales falls naturally for ecclesiastical, industrial, ethnological, linguistic, and for other purposes, into the two natural divisions of North and South. Let me quote what happened when the United Methodist Church Act was passed. My quotation derives additional strength, seeing that it is contained in a letter of a constituent of mine. I think what follows will not be denied:—In forming districts under that Act Wales was not treated as a separate nationality. The whole of the-circuits in Wales were included in District No. 2—Bristol and South Wales.A far more homogeneous area than those which are treated as one in this Bill?District No. 9 was Liverpool and North Wales.I will not dwell any further on that; it illustrates my point. In the Minutes of the Conference of 1907 which led up to that Bill, it was said:—Careful consideration was given to the district allocation as regards the communications, history, and commercial associations, and the need for the strengthening of the weaker districts.It is further stated—and the right hon. Gentleman opposite will remember it, because he took a great part in this, as he has taken a great part in most matters connected with Welsh history of recent years —in the Report of the Land Commission:—Liverpool stands for many purposes in the position of the capital for North Wales.So it does; I know it well. I have lived in North Wales.Cardiff stands in the same position as the capital of South Wales.That also I am in a position to speak to. Here you have—in dealing with the ecclesiastical division of the country made in connection with the Establishment—and I call attention to it—by law of a Nonconformist Church, Wales divided into Liverpool and North Wales, and Bristol and South Wales. If that is not exactly what I am arguing, it is very much the same thing; practically the same point. What I am arguing is this: The Bill does not touch Liverpool or Bristol. They come out. But the fact that the area of North and South are naturally more in touch with these great cities further north and further south of them, and have no cohesion of themselves, is a strong confirmation of the position which I venture to lay before the 511 Committee, and which I wish to see have legislative recognition in the Bill. Take the religious point of view. The Cal-vinistic Methodists are 5 per cent, in South Wales and upwards of 17 per cent, in North Wales. I could give statistics to the same effect showing that the religious character, as well as several other aspects, are wholly different between the two divisions. The one and only national thing now in Wales is the Welsh Church, and that is being Disestablished. I cannot understand, as the Bill provides that representative bodies may be formed for dioceses, why there should be any objection in the mind of anybody, no matter what his views may be, to the recognition of the fact that the natural divisions of the country require, or point to, the making of two representative bodies. Mark, again, the necessity there is, as I hold, for treating these two parts of the country as absolutely distinct units. Take the case of the English language. In the five Western counties, with the one exception of Denbigh, where they are 38 per cent., over 50 per cent, are English monoglots. Monmouthshire and Radnorshire contain 86 and 93 per cent, respectively. Where are the Welsh areas in those counties? Where are the Welsh in an English-speaking population of 86 and 93 per cent.? What reason is there to suppose that a representative body formed for the whole of Wales—one representative body, presumably, which I believe is in contemplation—that prima facie such a representative body would not be representative of, say, conspicuously the English community? Would it not be far better to give legislative expression and recognition to the fact that there should be a Southern representative body which would have a difference in spirit, outlook, and composition from that which has in future the looking after the interests of the Church in North Wales? Nearly 85 per cent, of the people of Wales speak English. Fifty per cent, can speak no other language. Yet it is proposed in this Bill not to acknowledge that fact, but to leave it entirely out of account, in forming these representative bodies. This, I submit, is a grievous omission, and makes the Bill entirely a misrepresentation of what is the actual position in Wales. English speakers, it may be laid down as a general rule in Wales, are not even Disestablishers. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I venture to assert that as a general rule.
§ Sir J. D. REES
At any rate, Sir, I was in order in my general argument, I hope, though I perhaps a little overshot the mark in my illustrations. I cannot conceal the fact that behind the Amendment as it really is—Clause 13—the definition—in Clause 35—that behind the Amendment lies the question whether or not there is a nationality in Wales—whether there is a Welsh nation. I recognise that, but it is not my fault; in order to get my Amendment accepted I have had to deal with the fact that is material to it. I trust I shall be in order in pointing out that while half the population of Wales speak English only, 15 per cent, speak Welsh only. Is that not a very material fact in defining what the representative body shall be? Is it not thoroughly material to my argument to point out that in the six northern counties which are the Welsh counties which want Disestablishment there have been the most trifling increase of the population between the last two Censuses. In three cases there has been retrogression. In the south, which is the English-speaking, progressive, and industrial part of Wales, the increases in three counties have been 18, 35 and 39 per cent. Do not these facts support my argument? I submit they very strongly support it, and are entirely relevant to it. South Wales must be treated as a separate unit and must have a separate representative body. May I dwell a moment on the character of the counties in other respects? The northern counties are chiefly agricultural, sparsely populated, wild, hilly. Take the south. There you have the rich men and miners at any rate in Glamorgan and Monmouth, and an English population in counties like Radnorshire and Brecknock subject to English influence, and is it not obvious that where these distinctions and divisions have developed in the past they will develop still more in the future? Is it not practical and absolutely essential in passing this Bill that one of the most salient facts connected with Wales should receive some, even if belated and insufficient recognition? I am anxious not to trespass upon the indulgence of the Committee, but I submit that these points and arguments are none the less important because, for some reason that I cannot understand, they are left to one who has a good knowledge of North and South Wales to bring before the Committee. I submit these are relevant points to this 513 particular Clause. I do not know how one representative body can perform functions which are nowhere denned. How are they to perform them by one body in respect to totally dissimilar regions? Supposing we have one body for the whole of Wales, how will that body, regarding chiefly the conditions from the South Wales point of view, be able to decide questions as to what diocese should absorb the parish of Montgomery. It would be extremely difficult, whereas if you have two instead of one, they would far more successfully accomplish their operations.
I submit that there is nothing of similarity but all of contrast between North and South Wales. Ethnologically, linguistically, industrially, sentimentally, they are in direct antagonism. Geographically it is very difficult to get from one to the other. So far from their being any friendly feelings or any cohesion, there is nothing but antagonism between them. On these grounds I submit there is no reason whatever that points to any cohesion between these two parts of the country. I am aware of what lies behind my argument, and I will keep off that, but I protest that the considerations I am allowed to bring forward and put before the Committee, warrant me in urging the acceptance of this Amendment.
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH
The hon. Gentleman covered a good deal of ground, but he has not been able to come to what lies behind his Amendment. With regard to the Amendment I think the hon. Member is under some misapprehension in regard to Clause 13. I think he referred his Amendment to Sub-section (1). Sub-section (1) of Clause 13 has nothing to do with the representative body. If he will look at the Clause, he will find his Amendment bears no relation of any kind to Subsection (1), but where it does apply is to Sub-section (2).
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that that affects his argument in any way, but his argument is irrelevant to both. If the hon. Gentleman will reflect for a moment on what is the respective functions of these two bodies, he will see the same argument is not applicable to both bodies. They perform very different functions. As I understand the hon. Gentleman the facts and figures he mentioned were quoted to 514 prove one conclusion, that there ought to be two representative bodies. He applied his Amendment to Sub-section (1). Now he seeks to apply it to Sub-section (2). We have heard a great, deal about the ethnological, sentimental and industrial difference between North and South Wales, and I think the basis of his argument was that there ought to be two representative bodies. If his argument is right, he would have either one representative body, or two or four. I suppose he can take his choice again. We are not looking at Wales from a northern or a southern point of view. He said there is to be a Welsh National Church. I do not want to strike any controversial note, but I hope the Church will be a National Church for the whole of Wales, North and South, when the Bill is passed. We do not want to make these divisions. After the Bill is passed, the Church will be the Church of North and South Wales, not of divisions, as he said, but for Wales as a whole. It is quite true that under Sub-section (1) of Clause 13 we do give the bishops and clergy and laity the right to form a constitution, and we are taking into account that they may wish to organise themselves as a Welsh National Synod, or body, or according to diocese.
The Sub-section to which this Amendment applies contemplates one representative body. The hon. Member will see, if he thinks for a moment, that is a necessary part of the scheme of the Bill, because that is a body that will deal not with doctrine or government of the Church, but deals with property. I am sure the hon. Member will agree with me that in the adjustments to be made under this Bill by the Welsh Commissioners on the one hand, and the representatives of the Church on the other, in whom property will be invested, it would be most convenient that the Welsh Commissioners should have one body to deal with for the whole of the property. That is the scheme of the Bill. The hon. Member is under a misapprehension, and I am sure he will agree that for the purposes of this Bill, taking the Bill for granted for a moment, in order to carry it into effect and to make adjustments of the property, it would be a great convenience for all interests and for one nation that there should be one representative body. Directly after this work is done, there is nothing to prevent the representative body dividing itself into committees or bodies to deal with any portion of Wales, North or South, as the case 515 may be. Under these circumstances the Government cannot accept this Amendment.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
I do not agree either with the Mover of the Amendment or with the hon. Member who has just sat down. I certainly do not agree with any Amendment which would split up the Disestablished Church into two Churches or four Churches. I think it is essential we should preserve as much unity as the Government allows us. We want more unity. I do not think it is in the least likely we shall in any way split up into a North and South Welsh Church, but there is something to be said for having ultimately at any rate diocesan bodies for the holding of property. I think one of the first things likely to happen if this Bill ever comes into law, is that the Church would entirely abrogate the constitution you seek to give it under Clause 13. I think this government, by Synods and representative bodies, is likely to be one of the first things they will settle, and that probably will not be the permanent constitution of the Church in Wales. This particular Amendment is designed to insert into Sub-section (2) what you have already inserted into Sub-section (1). You inserted into Sub-section (1) that you may have diocesan organisations. I am not at all sure that we ought to insert in Subsection (2), provision that you should have similar diocesan organisations to hold property, and that as you allow diocesan Synods, you should allow diocesan representative bodies. But when we come to the other portion of the Amendment, that is to the question of North and South Wales, I think my hon. Friend has overestimated the case to be met. I should most strongly oppose a North Welsh Church and a South Welsh Church, and a North Welsh Synod and a South Welsh Synod. With regard to the other question whether it would be possible to have North Wales organised for the administration of the Endowments, and South Wales organised for the same purpose, I think that is possible but not probable, and I think it much more likely it will be done on diocesan lines.
I quite agree that there are certain conditions peculiar to North Wales, and certain conditions peculiar to South Wales, and that it would be exceedingly difficult to administer anything Welsh as a whole from inside Wales. We know that bodies representing the whole of Wales have to 516 meet at Shrewsbury, or London, or Birmingham, which are more convenient to get at than getting from Swansea to Carnarvon, or from Carnarvon to Swansea. There are essential geographical difficulties in treating Wales as a unit. If we were discussing Welsh Home Rule, I think there are geographical considerations which should weigh, but upon this point I invite my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment, because! I do not think he would secure very much if this Amendment was inserted, partly for the reasons I have already given. One of the first acts of the Church will be to abrogate your constitution under Clause 13 and Clause 2. These adjustments are only temporary. You have these secular Commissioners and these various bodies which will have to deal probably with the Church as a whole. One of the greatest inconveniences is that you will not regard diocesan organisations any more than provincial organisations. I do not think anything-can be gained by setting up a power of this kind. Even if this Amendment were inserted it would really afford no more permanent or better solution than the very bad solution which the Bill offers.
§ Sir J. D. REES
This Clause is so badly drawn that even experts have difficulty in making out what it means, but as my hon-Friend who has appealed to me to withdraw my Amendment is one of the pillars of the Church, I think I should not be justified in putting the Committee to the trouble of a Division, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The next Amendment standing in the name of the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin Division; (Lord R. Cecil) seems to me to be practically the same question we have already decided upon—an Amendment which was moved to Clause 13. If the Noble Lord' wishes to say anything on this point I shall be pleased to hear him.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
I think there is a distinction between my proposal and the-Amendment which has been previously-discussed. If you look at Clause 13, Subsection (1) you will see with regard to the summoning of the Synods there is nothing which lays down how they are to be summoned or how they are to be set in motion. I think it is essential that somewhere in 517 the Bill there should be some provision to actually set the machinery of the Bill in motion. Perhaps my Amendment would be in order if I inserted at the commencement the words "and in the case of the first Synod it means an assembly or Convention defined in regulations."
§ The CHAIRMAN
I think that Amendment would be in order. I wish to say, however, that I hope the Committee will not traverse again the whole ground which was covered in the discussion on the Amendment to Clause 13, moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Laurence Hardy).
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
I beg to move, after the word "Convention" ["The expression ' Synod ' includes any assembly or Convention"] to insert the words,
"and in the case of the first Synod means an assembly or Convention defined in the regulations made by Convocation of the Province of Canterbury with the assent of the House of Laymen of the said province."
Clause 13, which we have already had occasion to criticise, suggested that such a Synod should be brought into being as a first step towards reorganising the Church. It says:—
"(1) Nothing in any Act, law or custom shall prevent the bishops, clergy, and laity of the Church in Wales, from holding Synods or electing representatives thereto, or from framing, either by themselves or by their representatives elected in such a manner as they think fit, constitutions and regulations for the general management and good government of the Church in Wales."
"Synod" is a term in regard to which I should think there would be a great deal of difficulty in knowing what is its real signification. This Amendment gives a very wide power, and it suggests that the proper way of reorganising themselves would be to summon a kind of general meeting of the Church of Wales, whatever that may mean, and by that general meeting there is to be regulations and constitutions formed, and that ultimately a representative body elected which is to receive a charter from the Home Secretary. The question arises who is to summon this general meeting of the Church, and what is to be the machinery for setting it going? It may well be that the bishops will summon it. They will have to elect their representative body, and they will have to 518 get their charter from the Home Secretary. Unless there is some definite machinery put into the Bill the Church will be absolutely under the domination of the Minister of the day. The present Homo Secretary might be succeeded by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. George Greenwood), and on account of his determined opposition to the Church and to Christianity I should be very sorry to see him settling the organisation of the Disestablished Church, and yet it would be absolutely in the power of the Home Secretary of the day to settle down to the smallest detail how this Synod ought to be convened unless you give to some ecclesiastical authority, or some authority which meets with the approval of this House, power at the start which will overcome the difficulty. If this is not done it will be a State Church in the worst form, the very organisation and regulations of which will depend upon an assembly which can only come into being if it is approved by the Home Secretary. I see a great risk that before anyone undertakes to go to the expense and trouble of summoning this general meeting he or they will have to go to the Minister of the day and say, "If we had this, that, or the other, will you regard that as satisfactory, so that we can get our charter for our representative body later on?" They have to go to the purely secular authority and ask for consent in advance to what they propose to do. I do not think even the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Llewelyn Williams) would regard that as a satisfactory organisation for his own Church, and he would not like our Church-to be bound upon starting for the first time to come to the Minister of the day and say, "Do you approve of the way I am going to summon the meeting of my Church to settle its organisation1?" I am sure the hon. Member would say that that should be a matter left entirely to the Church itself, and that is really all I am asking for. We have a body of the Church called Convocation and the House of Laymen. They are not State institutions—in fact they are purely voluntary bodies and have no existence except by agreement. We suggest that Convocation and the House of Laymen should settle the machinery by which the Synod is to come into being, and I think that is a thoroughly reasonable proposal.
The Home Secretary did say that if the members of +he Church in Wales were to specify to him that they desired to have 519 a particular definition of "laity" he would put it into the Bill in the Definition Clause. According to the decision of the Chair, it would not be in order for me now to put forward a definition of "laity" in the only form in which we could accept it, namely, that it should be left to the Ecclesiastical or Church authorities to settle who the laity are. For these reasons I ask that it should be left to the Church authorities to settle the whole preliminaries of the Synod or general meeting or assembly, which is the foundation of the whole organisation and constitution of the Disestablished Church. I cannot see how such a request can be denied if the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that it meets the wishes of those who sit on this side of the House. I have no authority to speak for anybody but myself, but I say that the proposal which I am making is one which has been considered by a certain number of my friends who have acted with us on this Bill, and they approve of it. That seems to me to meet the condition which the right hon. Gentleman laid down. I do not think we are asking for anything unreasonable, and it appears to me that we are only carrying out the spirit of this Bill, much as we disapprove of it and dislike all its provisions. We do recognise that at this stage that if we have a proposal which I will not say improves the Bill, but, at any rate, makes it less burdensome to the consciences of Churchmen, we are bound to put it forward, and it must be the responsibility of the Government and the Government alone if they reject it. It is in that spirit that I move this Amendment. The Chairman, in allowing me to move this Amendment, said he did not think it would be fair to reopen the whole discussion, and therefore I will content myself by merely saying that the Committee should recollect the difficulties which were raised on this subject before, and bear them in mind in coming to a decision upon my proposal.
§ Mr. McKENNA
I gather from the remarks made by the Noble Lord that he desires this Amendment should be adopted to enable the machinery of the Bill to work better. In spite of the most earnest efforts, I regret I have not been able to make clear to hon. Members opposite what the meaning of Clause 13 really is The Noble Lord appears to think that the Bill is intended to do something which it does not do. He has fears which I hope I shall be able to dispel and which 520 are not at all applicable to our proposal as it stands. The Noble Lord stated it would be ultimately in the power of the Home Secretary to settle how the Synod may be convened. He has in mind that the Home Secretary has the power in the last resort, by refusing to accept any particular definition, to compel the Disestablished Church to adopt the form of Government which is satisfactory to him. That is really what is understood by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I can assure them that is not the meaning of the Bill, nor do I think the language of the Bill, on examination, could by any possibility bear that construction. If the Bill were ambiguous and open to that construction, I agree it would have to be altered, but T certainly would not be responsible for laying upon myself or my successors any liability to have to determine the constitution of the Disestablished Church in Wales. I would not accept the responsibility, nor would I make myself responsible for introducing such a Clause into the Bill. May I ask the Noble Lord only for a moment to leave the representative body out of account. Let us for a moment suppose the representative body is not provided for at all. What, then, will be the new constitution and how will the new constitution of the Disestablished Church come into existence? It is necessary to give the Church, so long as it is an Established Church, power to hold a Synod; otherwise, the Established Church could not hold a Synod. After the passing of the Bill and before the date of Disestablishment the Church of England in Wales will remain an Established Church, and, unless power were given to that Established Church to hold a Synod, it could not do so. We, therefore, after the passing of the Bill for the ensuing six months or a year, as the case may be, give power to the Established Church to hold a Synod in order to provide for the government of the Disestablished Church. They have got that power. Why should we lay it upon them as a duty that, as the Noble Lord says, that power should be exercised by Convocation?
§ Mr. McKENNA
Yes, the Noble Lord says:—
"And in the case of the first Synod means an assembly defined in the regulations made by Convocation."
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
It is quite evident from the right hon. Gentleman's 521 speeches, both on this occasion and on previous occasions, that we are like those people we sometimes sec on the stage who are supposed to be fighting one another, but who never hit one another. That is a serious situation. The point is this. You have got to construct a constitution which will hold water in this sense, that the whole property of the Church will depend upon the validity of the constitution and the regulations under which that property is held.
§ Mr. McKENNA
I asked the Noble Lord, to begin with, to leave all questions of the constitution of the representative body out of his mind. I shall have something to say on that immediately. I am dealing now with the future constitution of the Disestablished Church—that is to say, the governing body of the Church.
§ Mr. McKENNA
It has nothing to do with the representative body at all. The Established Church is empowered to hold a Synod. They do not need to call in Convocation by Act of Parliament to enable them to do that. They can do it without an Act of Parliament.
§ Mr. McKENNA
We mean precisely the same as the Noble Lord's definition, "an Assembly or a Convention," which they could not hold without this Clause. The Established Church cannot now hold a Synod.
§ Mr. McKENNA
I do not wish to present myself to the House as an ecclesiastical lawyer, which I am not, but I have endeavoured to inform my mind. The Church could not without this Clause hold a Synod so long as it is Established. This Clause is directed to the period after the Bill is passed, and while the Church is still Established, and we say the Church can hold a Convention. That does not in the least prevent Convocation, 522 in which the whole of the Church of England, whether in England or in Wales, is represented, for one moment from framing a constitution. But the Church in Wales without the English members could hold its own under this Clause. A constitution framed by Convocation could be accepted by the Welsh Synod, and if it does accept that constitution the Disestablished Church will start with that constitution; so that when the new Church, I will not say comes into existence, but when it renews its life in its new form, it will start with a constitution so framed. The representative bodies have nothing whatever to do with that at all. We do not desire that they should have anything whatever to do with what you might call the spiritual constitution of the Church, and, therefore, a separate representative body is formed for the purpose solely of acting as trustees for its property. That is the sole purpose under the Bill. It is quite true that the new governing body of the Church, which, I assume, may have been framed by Convocation in the constitution, and have been accepted by the Synod of the Welsh Church—it is quite true that that new governing body may give the representative body other functions if it pleases. But the sole function the representative body must have under the Bill is the function of receiving and holding property.
We do not know what the constitution of the governing body of the Welsh Church is going to be. We do not know whether it is going to be one body or several bodies. We do not know whether it will be really representative of the clergy or whether it will be representative of all parties. That is no concern of ours. It is the concern of the Church. But it is our concern to see that property handed over for the use of the Church shall be held by some representative body which can be incorporated by charter and which will have a legal character. The representative body and the governing body are two quite distinct bodies. The governing body of the Church and the constitution of the Church may be framed by Convocation. The only condition is that the constitution must be accepted by the Welsh Synod. The Welsh Synod may say we wish our constitution to be purely Welsh. We will have—
§ Sir CLIFFORD CORY
The Clause says that the representative body shall be 523 appointed by the bishop, clergy, and laity. We want to know who are the people who are to be considered to be the laity.
§ Mr. McKENNA
Let us look at the Bill and see what it says. Remember we are dealing with the English Church in Wales as it now is. There are the Welsh bishops. There are the Welsh clergy, and there are the laity as they are represented in the diocese.
§ Mr. McKENNA
If I did as the Noble Lord suggests, I should be purporting to define what the Church should be. Let us suppose that a Synod is called consisting of the bishops, of representatives of the clergy, and of representatives of the laity, such representatives being selected by the Welsh members of the Church. That would be a Synod under this Bill, and if that Synod framed a constitution, or decided to accept a constitution framed by Convocation, that constitution would be the new governing body of the Church under this Bill.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me I He misunderstands our position. It is not a question of what we like or dislike. We want something which will stand fire in the Courts of Law if any dispute arises. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would devote his mind to this point. This body will have to make regulations which will be the conditions on which Church property is held. If the House will look at Clause 3, it is as plain as a pikestaff that the existing laws of the Church have to be enforced according to the constitution of the Church. If you make the smallest alteration, you may have a cantankerous clergyman raising all kinds of difficulties. I must say that the attitude taken up by the right hon. Gentleman is nothing but pure official obstinacy of the worst kind.
§ Mr. McKENNA
I am sorry the Noble Lord has introduced an element of that sort into this Debate. As far as the Government are concerned, we have not the smallest objection to put in a definition of laymen, if such a definition is presented to us on behalf of the Welsh Church. Really—and I do not say this with any intention to offend the Noble Lord—we cannot accept his view, because, after all, he is representative only of the Church of England in England.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
The Welsh bishops are in agreement with the principle as embodied in the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ashford Division.
§ Mr McKENNA
We want to have a definition satisfactory to the Church in Wales. I cannot accept the Noble Lord as representative of Welsh feeling. If the Welsh bishops will agree upon a definition of the term "laymen" and ask me to accept that and insert it in the Bill I am content to do so.
§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
Why confine it to the definition of "laymen." If I can satisfy the right hon. Gentleman that the Welsh bishops are in agreement with this Amendment, will he accept it?
§ Mr. McKENNA
No, no. That is quite a different matter. We find that in the Irish case these identical words were sufficient.
§ Mr. McKENNA
I know the point which the hon. Member wants to raise. In the case of the Irish Church there were at the time of Disestablishment lists of the laity, and consequently there was, in a certain sense, a definition of laity which 525 could be applied in the case of this Bill. I am perfectly willing to put in a definition in this Bill so as to bring it into complete analogy with the Irish case. The only condition I make is that that definition should be authoritatively put before me or before the Government by the combined Welsh bishops. I think that that is reasonable. It is not my duty to make a distinction between the Welsh and the English Church.
§ Mr. McKENNA
And therefore I do not propose myself to introduce a definition of laymen, but I am willing to do so at the request of the Welsh bishops. What is the proposal that the Noble Lord makes I He says that in the case of the first Synod the Assembly is to be defined by Convocation.
§ Mr. McKENNA
Yes—that is to say, it is to be denned by Convocation and the House of Laymen, in which the English are the overwhelming majority.
§ Mr. McKENNA
The hon. Gentleman tells me so, but I really know enough of the controversies in the Church to know that it may be the case.
It seems to me that Clause 13 is dividing the Church of England before the date of Disestablishment.
§ Mr. McKENNA indicated dissent.
It is so. The right hon. Gentleman will see that until the date of Disestablishment the Church of England is whole and undivided, and the only Synod which can be called is the Synod of the whole Church of England. There is no Church of Wales before the date of Disestablishment which can tell a Synod. You cannot call a Synod of the Church in Wales before the date of Disestablishment, because there is no Church in Wales. You can only call a Synod of the members of the Church of England who are in Wales. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman and his Nonconformist friends must appreciate that until the Church is Disestablished the only body which can call any part of her members 526 together, or make any suggestions, is Convocation, the recognised governing body of the whole Church. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will answer that.
§ Mr. McKENNA
We are really at cross purposes. What the hon. Member says is perfectly true, but what has that to do with Clause 13, which gives express power? You have to consider what the case will be after Clause 13 is law. After that is law the bishops, clergy, and laity of the English Church in Wales—
§ Mr. McKENNA
I do not say whether there is a Church or is not a Church; all that I say is that under Clause 13 the bishops, clergy, and laity of the Church of England in Wales will hold Synods.
§ Mr. McKENNA
I can only say that I am advised that they cannot. If the hon. Member is right, the Clause is surplusage. After Clause 13 is passed they will certainly be able to hold a Synod, and the Synod which they so hold will be able to frame a constitution for the new Church. I cannot accept that the first Synod of the Church should be framed by Convocation, because, above everything else, it is my duty to safeguard the character of the constitution of the Disestablished Welsh Church, and to see that it shall be Welsh.
§ Mr. McKENNA
No. How quick the Noble Lord is to seize a bad point. The Noble Lord says that I am framing a constitution. I am not.
§ Mr. McKENNA
No. I am leaving the Welsh Church to frame its own constitution, unfettered by the dominant majority in England. I see the Noble Lord (Viscount Wolmer) opposite. He represents a very small section of the English Church.
§ Mr. McKENNA
It is common property. After all the dissensions in the Church have not been hid. We are entitled to ask that the Disestablished Church shall be governed in accordance with its own wishes. If that be so, it is essential that the first Synod should be framed upon lines satisfactory to the Welsh, therefore we say that the first Synod must be representative of the bishops, clergy, and laity of the Church of England in Wales. I repeat, that if the term "laity" is misunderstood in Wales I am willing to accept a definition that is satisfactory to the Welsh Church.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I had nothing to do with the majority of the English laity. I am one of a minority of the House of Laymen, this point has nothing to do with what is a layman in the Church in Wales. I tried to put my point just now, but the right hon. Gentleman did not attempt to answer it. There will be no Welsh Church to summon before the date of Disestablishment. Is not that clear? Will there be a Welsh Church to summon? Is not the very purpose of this Bill to divide the Church, and to set up a Church in Wales by itself? That happens on a certain date, which is the date it comes into operation, and not before. I rather thought I was going to get some agreement with what I stated, but as there is no answer 'I may take it as a fact that until the date the Bill comes into operation there is no Church in Wales.
§ Mr. McKENNA
Clause I says:—
"the Church of England so far as it extends to and exists in Wales and Mon mouthshire (in this Act referred to as the Church in Wales)"—
§ Mr. McKENNA
It goes on—
"shall cease to be Established."
The term "the Established Church in Wales" is defined in the first Clause. If the hon. Gentleman says that no meaning is to be attached to those words, I do pot agree with him.
I did not say anything of the sort. I said that until the date of Disestablishment there is no separate body of the Church in Wales. I think that is perfectly clear. That deals with the body after the date of Disestablishment.
Very well. You cannot call a Synod of any part of the Church in England, in Wales, in Scotland, or in Yorkshire, or anywhere else before the date of Disestablishment, because the Church is undivided. The Church in Wales is part of the Church of England Men may live in Wales, but they are part of the Church of England before the date of Disestablishment, and until that date every Nonconformist knows for a fact and agrees with me, because it is the charter of their freedom that they have their own governing body of their Church and the Church of England has its own established governing body, which is Convocation and no other, and it would be against every principle of Nonconformity by Act of Parliament to divide the governing body of the Church into halves before the date of Disestablishment. What you are going to do is to say that on a certain day, which is not defined, the Welsh bishops may, if they choose, say to Convocation, "We are going to say good bye to you; we are going to have a Synod of our own before the date Of Disestablishment." You ask them to set up a Synod of their own which they have no business to do. That is why I want Convocation put in. If you are going to advise that the new Church is to transfer itself in a moment, the only body which can possibly do that, properly speaking, is the governing body of the undivided Church. You cannot prevent any number of Welsh bishops, clergy, and laity meeting together before the date, because they may form themselves into a Convention of their own—but that is not a Synod of the Church—and therefore they do not want any Act of Henry VIII. for that. Anyone can have a Synod. You cannot before the date of Disestablishment empower any body whatever to form a 529 Synod because they have already got that which is legally a Synod of the Church, which is the house of Convocation of the Province of Canterbury. The right hon. Gentleman wishes to bring about divisions of opinion in the Church of England by putting in the Bill a definition of laymen. That is not what we are asking. We are asking that they shall act up to their principles and not divide our Church and our governing body before the time. If they are going to cut it in halves, which is against all their principles, properly speaking, let them do it, but as long as we have a representative, governing body—a legal governing body—of our Church, they cannot before the date of Disestablishment divide that in halves and empower the Welsh bishops to divide the spiritual body of which until the appointed day the Welsh bishops and the members of the Church in Wales are still members.
§ Sir C. CORY
By Clause 13 I understand the bishops and clergy and laity in Wales have the power of appointing a Synod for the government of the Church and all the administration of the Church, and also the bishops, clergy, and laity have the appointment of the representative body, who will hold the property of the Welsh Church in future. I want to know what layman has a legal right to claim to be the laity under this Clause. My right hon. Friend said he was quite willing to define the laity if the bishops of the Welsh dioceses would give him a definition of what this laity ought to be, but I entirely object to that. Why should you leave it to the bishops to say who the laity are to be?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I allowed the Home Secretary to deal with that point, because he was making, as I thought, a rather important announcement of his position in regard to it; but I think the hon. Baronet was not in the House when the Amendment was first moved. The Noble Lord who moved the Amendment thought the definition of the laity should not be made the dominant feature of this discussion. I must ask the hon. Baronet to confine himself more particularly to the Amendment on the Paper.
§ Sir C. CORY
The Amendment provides that the first Synod is to be formed in a certain way, and the Bill provides that it shall be appointed by the bishops the clergy, and the laity. Therefore, I am well within the purview of the Amendment when I ask how the laity are to be con- 530 stituted. I object, for my part, to the proposal of the Noble Lord, and I certainly think it ought to be defined who the laity are. I entirely object to it being left to the bishops to say who the laity are, or, as will be the case under the Bill, that the bishops, clergy, and laity are to select such of the laity as suit their purpose in order to form the first Synod. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept some Amendment as to how the laity are to be called in this first body which is to form the Synod, and not leave it for the bishops or the clergy, who are the last men to whom it ought to be left, to say who these laity are. I trust the Government themselves will define in a fair and proper spirit who the laity are to be.
§ Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS
There has been some complaint made in this Debate that the Noble Lord who moved the Amendment and the Home Secretary were anxious to fight, but were unable to deliver their blows at each other. I think after the Debate they have got a little nearer, and I hope to bring them to quite close quarters, because it seems to me it is not a very complicated question. The Home Secretary said that Clause 13, taken as a whole, does not deal with the constitution of the representative body. I differ entirely from that. The Home Secretary-says the House has not so interpreted it. I do not see how they can interpret it otherwise. To start with, the Clause is headed "Constitution of representative body." The marginal note to Sub-section (1) is "power to hold Synods and constitute representative bodies," and the whole of the way in which the representative body is to be brought into being is included in Sub-section (1), and Sub-section (2) only determines the way in which, when constituted, it shall become the representative body.
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH
No, no. The word "so" in Sub-section (2) ["appointed any persons so to represent them"] has gone out.
§ Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS
I do not think that makes any difference, because you have got in Sub-section (I) the machinery by which you are going to create a body, and that body is to become the representative body under the circumstances detailed in Sub-section (2)—that is, if it holds property; then by an Order of His Majesty in Council it is to become the representative body. But in order to bring it into being you must rely on the machinery in 531 Sub-section (1). There is no other machinery provided in the Act. It is the body which, as I say, is called into being in Sub-section (1), and which becomes the representative body when it holds property and when it has the charter. What has the body that is created under Sub-section (1) got to do? The first thing it has got to do is to determine the way in which it is going to elect the representatives to its own body. Clause 13, Sub-section (1), says:—
"Nothing in any Act, law, or custom shall prevent the bishops, clergy, and laity of the Church in Wales from holding Synods or electing representatives thereto, or from framing, either by themselves or their representatives elected in such manner as they think fit."
Therefore, they must be already in existence to determine what they think fit
"constitutions and regulations for the general management and good government of the Church in Wales…"
This body which is to be brought into being under Sub-section (1) has to make rules and regulations for the Church for the vesting of the property in this newly created corporation, and for the manner in which the representatives to it are to be elected in future. The only question that this Amendment is designed to meet is this: Somebody has got to call together the first body that is going to determine how in future its representatives are to be elected. But the Bill is perfectly silent as to the way in which that first body is to come into being. Supposing the Act were in operation now, the first thing you have got to do is to have this preliminary meeting called. Who is to call it together? How are you going to start, it? It is to be composed of the bishops, clergy, and laity; but if the Chancellor of the Duchy were called upon to bring that body into being, to whom would he apply I How would he convene the meeting! The bishops and the clergy we know, but who are the laity? Somebody has to send out notices convening the meeting. The only object of the Amendment is to provide that this work shall be carried out by the existing body that regulates the affairs of the Church. It will have no power as to the second and subsequent meetings, because the first meeting will provide for the election of the future representatives. This is a mere matter of machinery, and unless you put something of this kind in the Bill, it is difficult 532 to see how the first meeting is to be called. If you leave the matter as it is, it will be simply chaotic, because nobody will know to whom to apply. I submit that the power of calling the body together should be vested in the body which exists at the present time for the regulation of the affairs of the Church. If the Government will not accept the Amendment, they should make clear how the meeting is to be called.
Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS
I quite agree that Clause 13 is somewhat unhappily drafted. I said that before, and on reconsideration I see no reason for altering that view. But we are not really discussing Clause 13 now. We are discussing the Amendment moved by the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil), and in my opinion that Amendment is worse than the Clause. The worst that can be said for Clause 13 is that it leaves the matter in an undefined position. The only reason why I support the Clause is because there is a similar Clause in the Irish Act which has worked very satisfactorily as I understand. There was no difficulty in Ireland in finding out who the laity were, and I do not see how there should be any difficulty in finding out who they are in Wales. We know that the Church authorities gave evidence before the Royal Commission and claimed to have 103,000 communicants in the Church in Wales. I should have thought that if they could find out that number, it would be equally easy to find out who the laity are. The hon. Member for the Western Division of Dorset (Colonel Williams) suggested another difficulty which is really no difficulty at all if he would look at the various Clauses in the Bill. The terms used in Clause 13 is "the Church in Wales." What is the Church in Wales? It is true that at present there is no Church of Wales, but there is the Church of England in Wales. There will be after Disestablishment what is meant to be the Church in Wales as defined by the first Clause of the Bill. It says:—
.…the Church of England, so far as it extends to and exists in Wales and Monmouthshire…"
The object of Clause 13 is to enable that portion of the Church of England in Wales to define by its representatives what its constitution is to be. The real difficulty, and I agree that there is a difficulty, is that we have no definition of "laity." The Home Secretary has pointed out, and it has been acknowledged constantly, that 533 there are serious argumentative difficulties in the way of definition. That is the real difficulty so far as argument is concerned, but I think I have shown that it will not be a difficulty in practice once the Act has been passed. There will not be any difficulty in finding out the constituent body of the first Synod. The sole object we have in opposing any such proposal as that made by the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) is that we want the Church people in Wales to have full and perfect freedom to decide for themselves what sort of constitution they want to have. I have no doubt whatever that in practice it will be Convocation and the House of Laymen that will be consulted by the Church people in Wales. Probably Convocation and the House of Laymen will frame the constitution of the new Church in Wales, and I have equally no doubt that when the constitution is placed before the first Synod of the Church in Wales after the passing of the Act it will be accepted. We do not want to dictate in any way to the members of the Church in Wales as to how their constitution should be framed and by whom it should be framed. We do not want to put out imprimatur in advance upon any constitution that may be framed by Convocation. We want the first Synod of the Church in Wales to feel absolutely free from dictation on the part of Parliament as to whether it ought or ought not to accept a constitution framed by Convocation. If we could without fettering the freedom of the Synod of the Church in Wales accept such a proposal as has been made, we should be only too glad to do so. We agree that it is a matter for the Church people to decide for themselves. If they in their wisdom, after discussion, decide to accept a constitution framed by Convocation of Canterbury, then it is their own business and their own business only.
§ Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS
That is not affected in the least, because as soon as they are met together they can frame their own constitution. This Amendment is confined to calling them together for the purpose. It is mere machinery as to how they are going to be called together.
Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS
We are only too anxious to see what are the difficulties which present themselves to the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite who are in a position to speak for the Church. We are perfectly willing to meet hon. Gentlemen in these matters, which do not 534 concern us as long as they do not ask us, as a Parliament, to impose any restrictions on the freedom of action of the people of the Church in Wales. I quite agree that the words in Clause 13 as they stand do present argumentative difficulties, but in practice, when the thing comes to be worked out, I do not believe for a moment that there will be the slightest difficulty. For instance, the Church today has no difficulty in calling together the laity to a diocesan conference. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite give their definition and the Home Secretary says he will accept it. If the Government were to define in the Bill what the lait5' consists of, hon. Members will agree with me that it would be said they are trying to set up a limit as to what is and what is not a member of the Church of England, and to limit the freedom of the Welsh Church before it comes into being. If hon. Members opposite put forward authoritatively, and on the authority of the Welsh bishops or the Welsh clergy or Convocation, any definition which is acceptable to them of what the laity consists of, I am perfectly certain—though I am only in a position to speak for myself, yet I think I know the feelings of my colleagues from Wales sufficiently well to be able to say I speak for them—that no sort of difficulty or obstacle will be placed in the way by us if they can convince the Government that the definition of laity which they put forward is one that will be generally acceptable to the Church. It is not a matter upon which any time need be spent. We are all equally anxious that the Church in Wales should have every freedom with regard to her own constitution, and one of the first things is to see that an organisation satisfactory to herself shall be constructed. The only way to do that is to leave her absolute freedom.
§ Viscount WOLMER
Really, I think that the Home Secretary absolutely surpassed himself to-night. He comes to this House, and pretends that he does not desire to force a constitution on the Church in Wales. That is the very thing which he is doing and the very thing hon. Members opposite are doing. They are forcing on the Church in Wales a constitution of absolute chaos. The point that has been made by the Noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) the Member for Hitchin has never been answered. Here we have got a Church which has got to govern herself and to make rules and regulations for her members, and which is given the power 535 to alter an Act of Parliament, and yet you do not even define or allow anyone else to define what the Church is. That is an arrangement which is bound to plunge the Church in Wales into absolute chaos directly anyone, whether he is a Churchman or not, tries to contest the validity of her enactments. The point has been made ad nauseam and has never been answered. I cannot see, if hon. Members opposite do not desire to injure the Church, why they do not accede to the unanimous desire of the representatives of the Church on this question. When the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Hardy) moved an Amendment to Clause 13 he was able to state that he had behind that Amendment the authority of the four Welsh bishops and the other leaders of the Church in Wales. That has never been disputed, yet hon. Members opposite, while pretending to emancipate the Church, are refusing to the Church the status and the constitution which those who are entitled to speak for her desire.
They do so because they say they do not wish Welsh churchmen to be out-voted by English Churchmen in the framing of the constitution of the Church by the Houses of Convocation, as if such an event were ever likely to occur. What they are obsessed with is this idea that the Church in Wales is a distinct body from the Church in England. Why, the Church in Wales was the same body as the Church in Eng land a thousand years before hon. Members opposite were born and it will be the same a thousand years after their death. What they are doing by this Bill is they are splitting off the Church in Wales and refusing to acknowledge the claim we make that the Church is one and in divisible. What they are asking for is that the Convocation of Canterbury, to gether with (he assent of the Houses of Laymen of the Province, should be allowed to define the constitution of the Church in Wales. We do not ask that because we desire to assert English superiority over fellow Churchmen in Wales, any more than Welshmen desire to assert Welsh superiority over fellow Churchmen in England. We are equal. But we assert it for this reason, that Convocation is an authority which is known to the law, and that if Convocation lays down a certain constitution for the Church in Wales—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I would remind the Noble Lord that this point was 536 fully argued on Clause 13. The sole object of this Amendment is that Convocation shall have the right to nominate the first Synod, and that is the question which has been argued on both sides of the House. I ask the Noble Lord to confine his remarks to that point.
§ Viscount WOLMER
I shall certainly confine my observation to that point, but I submit that the matter is one capable of wider interpretation. Of course, the whole point of the thing is whether the first Synod shall have behind it the legal authority of Convocation, that the first Synod should be able to claim the authority of some body recognised by law, and, of course, we demand that that body should be the Convocation of the Church, and should not be the House of Commons. The Home Secretary has said in order to remove the difficulty, that he is willing to insert a definition of laymen into this Bill if he is asked to do so by the four bishops. That in itself is a fixing of the constitution of the Church in Wales by this House of Commons. We repudiate that solution, because we deny that this House has any right to teach any constitution for the Church in Wales. The sole body that has any authority to make provision with regard to the first Synod of the Church in Wales is the Convocation of Canterbury. That right belongs to the Convocation of Canterbury; it does not belong to this House, which has no right to touch the question. For the Home Secretary to come down here and say that he is willing to insert a definition of laity into this Bill, it to offer us the very solution of the question which we repudiate. We are not going to have a definition of laity decided by this House or any other secular institution. But the point I wish to urge on hon. Members opposite is that the whole of this idea of Welsh Churchmen being outvoted by Englishmen in Convocation—so far as I understand that is the only reason they have been able to put forward against accepting the Amendment of the Noble Lord—is an outrage and an insult to Churchmen in Wales and England alike.
The Home Secretary pretends that he is prepared to give the Church in Wales the constitution that it wants. We ask him across the floor of this House, Who is the Church in Wales? Whose word will he accept? I suppose that he would accept the word of the four bishops, and the four Welsh bishops are in favour of this Amendment. Why does he not accept it? It is, of course, because it 537 would touch his pettifogging theory of the Church in Wales being a separate entity from the Church in England, though the Church extends over England and Wales without interfering with the nationality of either. Is that beyond the grasp of the Home Secretary? He apparently cannot get out of his head that the Church in Wales is a separate little sect, like the Congregationalists. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] There is no single Nonconformist body that I am aware of which has its organisation confined to Wales. Nonconformist bodies have also their organisations extending over England and Wales, yet you deny to the Church the right, alike in England and Wales, to co-operate and try to settle the constitution of the Church in Wales. Instead of that, you come here and say that Convocation, the governing body of the Church of England and Wales, shall not be empowered to decide what the first Synod of the dismembered Church in Wales shall be, and simply for the sake of this theory of Welsh nationality gone mad—though there is nothing contrary to the claim of Welsh nationality in the least—you are prepared to take away all legal basis from the governing body of the Church in Wales, and I hereby throw her affairs into chaos.
I assert that hon. Members opposite are inflicting a cruel wrong upon the Church. [An HON. MEMBER: "How?"] Because the governing body of the Church will always be liable to have its authority questioned in any Law Court by anybody, Churchman or Nonconformist, who in any way disagrees with any of its decisions. Such a person could go to the Law Courts and say, "It is perfectly true that this was an enactment passed by the first Synod of the Church in Wales, but I dispute that that Synod was called together in the proper manner; I dispute that the laity were properly represented; I dispute that the right kind of laity were present; I dispute that the clergy had a proper voice in the constitution of that body." All these things would be arguable before the Law Courts, and if anybody in Wales or in England had any reason to be dissatisfied with any enactment which the Church is entitled to make under Clause 3, he might take the Church into the Law Courts and might say, "I dispute that the body was constituted in a proper way, and therefore I prefer that this Court should decide what the constitution was or ought to have been." That is why I 538 assert that you have not escaped from forcing a constitution on the Church in Wales. What you have done is to refer it to the Law Courts. That is what it comes to.
Somebody must define what the first Synod of the Church in Wales shall be. We ask that Convocation should define it. The Home Secretary says that he is prepared that this House should define it if the Welsh bishops ask him to do so, knowing full well that the Welsh bishops made no such request, and very rightly, too. But we refuse the Home Secretary's solution, and the Home Secretary refuses ours, and the result will be that the constitution will in fact be decided by the Law Courts, and must be decided by the Law Courts. Therefore, you are not getting rid of responsibility, you are simply shifting on to the Law Courts, on to a lay tribunal, the onus of deciding what the constitution of the Church in Wales ought to be. The source from which the whole Church in Wales will derive her authority will be questioned in the Law Courts, and will have to be decided by the judges and lawyers of this country; and you could avoid all that confusion, uncertainty, and difficulty to which you are exposing the Church, if you accept that solution which the leaders of the Church in Wales ask you to accept, and which would not interfere with this Bill in the slightest degree or injure any Nonconformist in England or Wales if you did accept it. We regard it as a gross piece of tryanny to plunder the Church into this absolutely gratuitous difficulty and chaos. We regard it as a gross piece of tyranny that this House should launch the Church on a new era of her existence without allowing her to meet the difficulty in the manner which Churchmen desire. The hon. Baronet the Member for St. Ives (Sir C. Cory), I think, got up and raised the point as to the laity. He was not allowed to develop his argument, but he made it clear that he, for one, would be prepared to question the definition of laity made by the bishops, because he did not recognise their authority in this matter. That is liable to happen at any moment.
If you refuse to define what the constition of the Church in Wales should be, then you leave it open for hon. Members like the hon. Member for St. Ives to go to the Law Courts and say that this Synod was not constituted in a proper manner, and to dispute its authority altogether. It is only a few weeks ago since the Home 539 Secretary himself did not scruple to say in this House that he was technically a member of the Church of England. As long as you get men who are prepared to make statements of that sort when they know perfectly well in the ordinary meaning of the language they are nothing of the sort at all—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because they do not believe in the doctrines of the Church of England. [An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know?"] You have got the Home Secretary stating in this House that he was technically a member of the Church of England. Exactly; and it will be open to any Nonconformist in Wales to say the same after this Bill has passed. You refuse to define laity, and every Nonconformist in Wales is technically a layman of the Church of England. There is nothing in this Bill that takes away that right and status; it is not mentioned in any single Clause or Sub-section, and therefore the right will not be taken away by this Bill. He will still be able to go to the Courts and say, "I had a right to be consulted in the management of the Church; that right was denied, and therefore I refuse to acknowledge the authority of the first Synod." The whole of this trouble and of this difficulty, to which you are exposing the Church, is simply the result of this pettifogging, insular theory of absolute division which must of necessity exist between Welshmen and Englishmen when no such division exists, and which Welsh Churchmen have repudiated and English Churchmen have repudiated. Both English Churchmen and Welsh Churchmen wish that the constitution of the dismembered Church should be decided by the proper authority—that is, by Convocation of the Province of Canterbury. Hon. Members opposite come down and deny the Church that right, and by so doing they are inflicting a cruel, gratuitous and wanton wrong upon the Church.
§ Mr. HOARE
I rise simply to ask a question. I am one of those who very strongly object to this House defining who is a layman or who is not, and I am not sure, speaking frankly, whether I am prepared to agree with the Amendment or not. It all seems to me to depend on who is going to summon the first Synod. I will not make a speech, because on the answer to that question depends whether I have any further observation to make. Who is going to summon the first Synod?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
The hon. Gentleman has, I think, quite rightly and in his very brief inquiry, gone to the root of the whole matter, and has touched in all its essence the whole question which has now occupied the attention of the Committee for nearly two hours. The Amendment before the House is that the first Synod is to be an assembly—
"which is so defined in the regulations made by Convocation of the Province of Canterbury with the assent of the House of Laymen of the said Province."
I must go into this question at much greater length before I come to the answer which I propose to give to the hon. Gentleman. Supposing this Amendment was accepted, it would give statutory authority to the decisions of a purely voluntary body, namely, the House of Laymen. In answering the question which has just been put, I have to ask myself who compose the House of Laymen, and are they really representative of the generality of the members of the Church of England? I think that is a question which nobody can answer for certain. I think they do represent the opinions of a large body of the laity of the Church of England, but I am by no means certain that they represent the majority. So it comes back to this, that you propose to allow a body which has no statutory authority at the present moment to assume statutory authority over the future composition of the Church in Wales. I do not think that can be defended by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Let us go a little further. At the present moment how do Synods in Wales come together? In my diocese of Salisbury we always spoke about a Diocesan Synod, though I believe in other dioceses they call it Diocesan Conference. How is the Diocesan Conference got together? It is true, I think, with regard to the four Welsh dioceses, that the composition of the conference is laid down by certain regulations. You have certain Members of Parliament of both Houses, but when you come to elected representatives how are they elected and who calls them together? What happens is this, that the clergyman of the individual parishes summons those persons whom he knows to be members of the Church of England in his parish to meet, and they elect the representatives or the representatives of those who are to go to the Diocesan Conference. There is no test in the matter at all.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
I am speaking of the representatives of the individual parishes who are elected by the parishioners. Some of my experience in this matter was gained when I was a much younger man. There is no test of the persons who elect the representatives, but there is common knowledge in the parish of who is and who is not a member of the Church of England.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
The summons for the Diocesan Conference comes from the bishop of the diocese. There is no difficulty in finding representatives of Church opinion in the diocese, although the constituent body in each parish is not defined by law, and is not defined by practice, but is known simply to consist of persons who are known to the clergyman of a parish to be members of the Church of England. That would be the tendency. Therefore you start from an entirely undefined basis, and from that undefined basis you gradually build up your Diocesan Conference or Synod. That is summoned by the bishop of the diocese. What happened in the Irish case? There were in Ireland thirteen dioceses instead of four as in Wales, but once the Irish Church was Disestablished there was no difference between its position and what will be the position when the Welsh Church is Disestablished. In the Irish case the two archbishops met and called together Provincial Synods, and those Provincial Synods chose certain clerical representatives. Then there were mixed Diocesan Conferences of clergymen and laymen, also built up in the same way upon a purely undefined basis, and these conferences chose lay representatives.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
Certainly. Now I come back to the Amendment. You have there the House of Laymen. It does not follow that they represent, not the view of the Church in Wales, but the view of Churchmen in Wales upon this matter. They might provide in their constitution that the number of lay representatives 542 and of clerical representatives should be equal. That happened in the Irish case to begin with. The clergy thought that the laity would be content with an equal number of lay and clerical representatives, but when the laity came together they desired to have, and eventually obtained, twice as many lay as clerical representatives. The same thing might easily occur, supposing the future constitution was referred to a body which was not necessarily familiar and might be very unfamiliar, not with the opinion of the Church in Wales as it is now constituted, but with the opinion of Churchmen in Wales. I am in some measure acquainted with the views of the laity in Wales. Some of the laity who dislike this Bill have told me that when they start on their mission they wish at all events to frame their own constitution themselves. They may be entirely in agreement with any constitution produced by Convocation, but, on the other hand, they may be not at all in agreement. We all wish in the future to get at the wishes of Churchmen in Wales. I use that expression because I think it is infinitely preferable to that used by the Noble Lord—"the Church in Wales." The Church in Wales is part of the Church of England at the present moment. Perhaps I had better use the expression "the Church of England in Wales." The Church of England in Wales, being an integral part of the Church of England, need not necessarily be expressing the views of Churchmen in Wales. That is the whole point which is overlooked in the argument of the Noble Lord and those who followed him.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
There is really a fallacy underlying the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. Taking the way in which the House of Laymen or the diocesan conferences are built up, he says that they start from an undefined basis. The basis is not quite undefined. In the primary assemblies the parochial bodies elect their representatives to the decanal conference, and from the decanal conference the diocesan conference is elected. But even in that case there is a definition of "layman." The definition is a person who has shown himself to have the status of a communicant. That is the definition in practical use in most dioceses. It is the case in all four Welsh dioceses. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that there is no difficulty in that case. But the diocesan conferences and the House of Laymen are 543 purely voluntary bodies. They have no statutory authority at all; they have no power. Although they do a very useful work, fulfil very useful functions, and have added largely to the influence of the Church for good all over the country, they have no statutory position; they are really in the nature of private debating societies. I am not undervaluing their influence, but that is what, they are from a legal point of view. That being so, as they have no power, as they cannot legally control any funds, nobody objects. But when you come to" the body to be set up by this Bill, the position is entirely different. This Synod, or representative body, is to be a statutory body, and is to control funds. Therefore anybody can, and somebody very likely will, object if the definition of layman or anything else does not happen to accord with their wishes. You cannot say that because the system, which the right hon. Gentleman quite correctly described, works perfectly smoothly in the case of such bodies as diocesan conferences or the House of Laymen, therefore it will work with equal smoothness in the case of the representative body.
Let me show what might happen. The representative body is to control these funds. In the view of many Members no doubt they are large funds, and they may become larger later on. There are Members below the Gangway who think—I do not agree with them—that larger funds are being handed back to the representative body than ought to be handed back. The representative body can only control those funds if it receives a charter. What is the position of the Government? They can refuse a charter unless they are convinced that the Synod, which selects the representative body, is truly representative of the Church in Wales. Therefore we come back to the initial difficulty. To compare voluntary bodies like the House of Laymen or diocesan conferences with a statutory body which controls funds and is constituted by Government charter is not really to compare like with like. That is the fallacy which underlies the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman himself used these words, "That it was not certain that the House and laymen represented the majority of the laymen of the country." It does not matter in the case of the House of Laymen. They have no special powers of their own, and are purely a voluntary body. It is not worth any body's while to object—
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
May I point out that I was dealing with the position as a whole as affected by this Amendment? The House of Laymen under the Amendment are going to create a constitutional House for the new Church of Wales.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
No, I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. It is not the House of Laymen alone—
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
It is Convocation plus the House of Laymen. Surely a moderate opinion is that the laity should have a greater voice in the affairs of the Church. It may be that it is not certain that the House of Laymen, with their purely voluntary functions, represent a majority of the people in England and Wales. But does not the right hon. Gentleman see if that objection is taken in the case of the representative body or Synod that it might be fatal? You might get laity from Wales, who ordinarily take their part on the Nonconformist bodies objecting that they have not been fairly represented in the Synod. In that case the Government would undoubtedly have the right to refuse the charter to the representative body. We are driven back to this: You must have something to begin upon. You must have a definition of what is to be a Synod or empower some body or another to make a definition. I think our definition is a very fair one. You could have no better body to do it than the old-established constitutional authority of the Church, namely, Convocation. The Church in Wales is part of the Province of Canterbury. What body therefore is better entitled to define what is to be the constitution of the Church of Wales in the future than Convocation of Canterbury, in which the Church in Wales has always been represented? If we add that the assent of the House of Laymen is necessary that is a simple concession to public opinion I think of great importance. Unless some definite body is introduced or some definition given by this House—as I have said before I would rather that Convocation defined this House—unless you get somebody to start the whole thing ab initio, it seems to me that you are in an impasse, and I do not know what the results will be. I really believe there is very little between us on this side of the House and hon. Members opposite, because we do feel that we must have some legal status for 545 the new body to define what our Constitution is to be.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
I listened in the earlier part of the Debate to the Home Secretary. He got into difficulties on this Amendment, and he began by saying that we on this side of the House consider that in the Bill as it stands something is going to happen that will not really happen. Our position is not that. It is exactly the reverse. We say that something will not happen which ought to happen. You have provided no machinery at all for the continuity of the Church, or for bringing this new constitution of the newly Established Church into existence. Unless you do provide some machinery, some authority, by this Amendment to summon the Synod, to give some outline as to what the constitution of the Synod shall be, you cannot establish any new constitution of any kind. Consider this question of the definition of the Synod—is the first essential. To create this Synod you must have some authority to summon it. Before that Synod can draw up a constitution for the Church of Wales it will become statutory, or if it remains voluntary should be in such a position that it will receive the assent of the Home Secretary, and will be regarded as a Synod, as the Assembly or governing body of the Church of Wales. Until you have done that you cannot bring this Act into force. The Church will not be a National Church.
The two crucial points are these. The Home Secretary referred to them. He said first that he could not agree to this Amendment because the Welsh Synod might define something else as a Welsh Synod. Does this Welsh Synod include the hon. and learned Member for Carnarvon Boroughs? Does it include all the hon. Members below the Gangway opposite? They are in Wales. They are Welshmen. They might claim to come to this Assembly or Convention, which under this Clause is absolutely undefined. Unless you define that Synod in this Act, those Welshmen may claim to be members of that Synod. There is nothing in your Act saying who shall and shall not compose that Synod. It is essential to the continuity of the Church and for bringing into existence of the constitution of the future Church that you should have somebody to bridge over the interval between the existing constitution and the future constitution. You cannot start absolutely de novo. It is not as though there were no Church in Wales at the present time. You 546 have a Church, and you have to put in some definition, if there is to be any reality at all about the working of this Act. You seem to think it will be a perfectly easy matter as to who shall summon this Synod. You say the four Welsh bishops. Why the four together? Why should not the laymen summon it? It seems to me essential, if you are going to have an Act of Parliament to read an Act of Parliament, and if it is to be a piece of legislation at all worthy of any Parliament or any Legislature, that you ought to put this Amendment into the Bill. It is not a very drastic proposal.
Why should it not be the senior bishop who is to summon this Convention? You ought to put into this definition machinery whereby the Convention which is to consider the new constitution of the future Church of Wales should be the safeguard which Churchmen ask to ensure that that constitution shall be a result of a bond, fide Church creation. By your acceptation of this Amendment you do enable a logical and perfectly legitimate succession to be made between the existing Church in Wales and the future organisation of the Church of Wales. I am one of the Welsh members of the House of Laymen and I am perfectly confident that although aspersions are cast upon the House of Laymen as not being representative, it is as representative as anything is likely to be, and is much more representative and a much greater safeguard to the future interests of the Church which you say you are anxious to safeguard than leaving it perfectly general and leaving it possible for any Welshman to attend that Synod. This Synod is to meet and draw up the constitution. This constitution is to be for the governing body of Wales, but they are to decide what the representative body is to be which is to hold this property and that has to receive the sanction of the Home Secretary. What is to happen if this representative body is chosen by the Synod, if somebody says it is not a right Synod, and is not a Synod representative of the Church in Wales? What is to happen if that question is taken into a Court of Law unless some binding definition is put into this Act of Parliament? I imagine it might be made exceedingly awkward. Some rather doubtful member of the Church who considers himself a member in a way, but who might not be strictly a conforming member might say, "I was not summoned or consulted, and I am not represented by this Synod." He 547 would send his petition to the Home Secretary and what is to happen then? It seems to me that unless you put in some definition of the first Synod you open the door to endless grievances and to possibilities of endless division and the possibility of far greater difficulties than the Home Secretary realises.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSE
This seems an interesting point, but it occurred in connection with the Irish Church Act. Now what happened on the first occasion? When the representative conference, including the clergy and laity, met, it was considered that nobody but communicants should be fit to be elected. That was proposed and seconded formally, and there was a Debate upon it and it was rejected by the conference and lay members, and it was felt desirable by the Church that the persons who were to form the electors were to consist, not of communicants, that was ruled out, but that practically anyone who chose to attend; and at the present moment, I believe, all that is desired from persons who desire to form part of the elected representatives of the governing body is that they should sign a declaration that they are adherents of the Church of Ireland.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
That is one of the reasons why we are anxious to press this Amendment. It is because there is a doubt as to what is a layman and what is the fundamental constitution and as to what is the first step. It is because of difficulties like that which arose under the Irish Church Act, that we are most anxious to have something definite in this Act. Supposing a similar resolution was proposed in the first Synod of the Church in Wales, and supposing it was rejected that communicants should be the test of the laymen, what would you fall back on? You would fall back you say upon the declaration, but you might have to fall back a great deal further. You might have the claim put forward that various people who have parishioners' rights for marriage and burial purposes should form part of that Synod, if they cared to attend. That is one of the dangers we wish to guard against, and when the Home Secretary this evening said, "I am here to safeguard this Welsh organisation, he is arrogating to himself enormous powers. He is arrogating to himself authority to say who shall attend the Welsh Synod and who 548 shall not. He is putting himself in the position of those people who decided in the Irish Church case for themselves, and he will say, "You have taken communicants only, and they are not representatives of the laymen of Wales." The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. How do we know, if we decide that communicants and communicants alone are to be the people to represent the laymen in Wales, that he will not say differently. Supposing we decided that the meeting took the view of the Irish laity that you ought to include any persons who are subscribers. Where are we to stop?
§ Mr. McKENNA
Then in that case I should have nothing to say to it. It would not come before me in any form at all.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
Does the Home Secretary mean to say that the governing body of the Church in Wales are never to have any authority or constitution? Is it to remain for ever a purely voluntary association?
§ Mr. McKENNA
It has the legal status the Bill gives it. All I say is that it never comes before me. I should have nothing to do with the governing body of the Church. I should have to do with the representative body, and the sole purpose of the representative body under the Bill is to hold the money of the Church.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
Then I have two-questions to ask on that. Who creates the representative body? Is it a governing body or is it not? Surely it is a constituent assembly, and surely it is the governing body which creates the representative body.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
The representative body cannot hold property until two things have happened—until it is constituted by the Synod and until it has received the assent of the Home Secretary, and therefore the Home Secretary has got to consider, in giving his assent to the representative body whether it was properly constituted by the Synod and properly representative of the Synod, and whether the Synod was properly representative of 549 the bishops, clergy, and laity of the Church in Wales. He cannot disregard the constitution of the Synod. It is utterly impossible, and he cannot get out of it by that method. The other point is this: If the constituent assembly of the general governing body only has to receive his assent, how is the Synod ever going to enforce its decisions even upon its own members. How is it ever going to be recognised in any Court of Law? Any clergyman taken out of his benefice for wrongdoing in any way by the authority of the Church in Wales can say, "Oh, your original Synod was not properly constituted, and your Synod is not now properly representative of the laity in accordance with the Established Church (Wales) Act." This clergyman will come into a Court of Law and under Clause 13 will say, "This Synod which has turned me out is to be representative of the bishops, clergy, and laity of the Church in Wales, and it is not so." Until you have got some machinery for carrying on the existing organisation, constitution, and authority of the Church in Wales in the new Church, you will bring the Church into an intolerable legal position. You will be putting the representative body and the governing body into a position you have no right to put them in, simply because you have this scruple about accepting an Amendment of this kind.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I think I ought to inform the Committee that an Amendment to the Amendment has been handed in by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare), and I think it would be convenient to allow him now to put it before the Committee.
§ Mr. HOARE
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words, "Convocation of the Province of Canterbury, with the assent of the House of Laymen of the said province," and to insert instead thereof the words, "the bishops of the Welsh dioceses."
We have just had a most important statement from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. In answer to a question, he informed us that the persons who would summon the first Synod would be the bishops. I think my words express what is the intention of the Government, and I think we are now in a better position to know what the state of affairs is. After the answer which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave me, I 550 do not see that there can be any objection to my Amendment.
§ Lord R. CECIL
I will agree to that Amendment to my Amendment if the Government are willing to accept it, but if it is going to be resisted then I prefer my Amendment in its original form. I do not think the proposal of the hon. Member for Chelsea is as good as my own.
§ Mr. McKENNA
It is not necessary to insert words to make the bishops summon or define the Synod. They can do so if they like. The only condition is that the Synod so summoned, which will consist of Welsh representatives of the Church in Wales, that is to say the bishops and clergy and the Welsh laity, shall agree to the Synod so defined and so summoned.
§ Mr. McKENNA
I am stating as clearly as I can that I do not accept it. The bishops and the clergy are people who are known, but the laity are not known. I have already said that I am willing to introduce an Amendment defining the laity if the four Welsh bishops will agree to a form of definition which they wish introduced. I do not think I ought to go any further than that. I am being asked to introduce into this Clause words which would limit and define the constitution of a Synod in Wales pressed upon me by English Members who, with all their great qualities, ability, and knowledge of the subject, and devotion to their Church, are not so well qualified to speak on behalf of the Church in Wales as the Welsh Members.
§ Mr. McKENNA
It is not the Noble Lord's definition which I am willing or unwilling to accept, but the definition of laymen for the purpose of the first Synod only in order to get over a difficulty which I regard as purely imaginary. In order to meet hon. Members who think this is a difficulty, I am willing to insert words, the only limitation being that, those words should be acceptable to the heads of the Church in Wales.
§ Sir A. CRIPPS
Certainly, I prefer the original proposal to its amended form. What the Home Secretary has said is rather important, and we should clearly 551 understand what we mean by the Synod, the representative body, and layman, when dealing with a question of this kind. I do not think we ought to have any definition of the laity of the Church by Statute in this Bill, whatever the views of the Welsh bishops may be. We are dealing with the method of calling the first Synod and not the future constitution of the Church in Wales or the representative body. Everyone will agree that it is necessary if possible to have determined and defined what the method of summoning the first Synod will be, because it will be in the nature of a Convention, and it will be the body to take steps to have the constitution of the Church in Wales settled in the future. From that point of view it appears to me that you ought to have some authority defined to do that. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that what was done as regards Ireland does not meet this case. You had the Synods there summoned by the archbishops. Of course, the position in Wales is that you merely have the four bishops of the four different dioceses, and what their powers are as regards summoning a Synod is extremely indeterminate. No one on the opposite side will dissent from the proposition that you ought to determine, if possible, so as to have no friction or trouble, how the first Synod ought to be summoned. I do not know that I should have spoken on this Amendment if it had not been for what was said by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as regards the House of Laymen. I should have thought Members on the opposite side of the House, perhaps rather more than Members on this side, would have considered that even as regards the first Synod—that is, the constitutional body— laymen should have a proper voice. As regards the position of the House of Laymen, and their being a representative body, if I may speak on behalf of the House of which I have the honour to be chairman, the Chancellor of the Duchy was really quite mistaken. The constitution of the House of Laymen does not depend upon the differing constitutions of the different diocesan conferences at all. It does not depend upon parish votes or anything of that kind.
§ Sir A. CRIPPS
Then I do not understand with what the right hon. Gentleman 552 was dealing. He suggested in reference to the diocesan conferences that the House of Laymen was not a representative body of Church laymen. I say the two matters have nothing whatever to do with one another, and all he said as regards the constitution and the conferences really has nothing to do with the question of the constitution of the House of Laymen. We have endeavoured in every possible way to get the best representative body, and, in order to make the representation better, we are proposing a modified system of what is called proportional representation. The qualification is not "a communicant," but "a person having the status of a communicant"—that is to say, he has been baptised and confirmed, which is a different thing altogether. I wonder anyone on the opposite side takes a different view. I claim that the voice of laymen ought to have its proper weight, and I also claim, if you want to ascertain what the proper weight of the voice of laymen should be, you can only find it in a representative body whose constitution has been framed so as to give as fair a representation as possible to Church laymen at large. In my view, the House of Laymen is an admirable microcosm of the views of Churchmen at large. I think the views of Church laymen ought to be ascertained and have their due weight, and that is the meaning of the Amendment proposed by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin. Why is that so? They are to have some determinate method of electing the first Synod. Why should the Chancellor of the Duchy throw cold water out? I understand his view to be that if the four bishops agreed he would not mind. Why are not laymen to have a proper voice? They are just as much members of the Church, and are entitled in all matters of organisation to have a voice. We are not dealing with matters of doctrine: we are dealing with matters of constitution and of organisation, and it certainly astonishes me to hear hon. Members opposite—to hear the Chancellor of the Duchy take up an attitude of this kind—i.e., that the lay representatives are not to have a very full voice in these matters. That is really the question here. I do not wish to repeat what has been said before, but I repudiate what has been said by the Chancellor of the Duchy —that they are not to have a proper voice in the representation.
§ Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON
On of the greatest titles of the Church to respect and 553 confidence has in the past been her exceedingly comprehensive character. One of the highest duties and functions of the Church of England has been to render pastoral care to those who it may be are simply parishioners, and so long as the Church retained that comprehensive character that was one of her greatest characteristics. Directly you Disestablish the Church she at once loses that claim over these indefinite members, and we have this paradox, that whereas one of her titles to greatness was her indefiniteness, directly you put her on the same footing as other religious denominations you will have of necessity greater definiteness. I have considerable sympathy with the Home Secretary in what he said as to the bishops, and his willingness to agree with them as to what should be the definition of laymen. I think, if I remember rightly, he said that for his part he would be perfectly willing to accept as a definition of laymen that which is accepted by all four Welsh bishops as the proper definition of the Diocesan Conference. But that has not found a place in the Bill, and we are left therefore at the moment with my Noble Friend's Amendment which is the best we can do on the present occasion to define laymen. It has, I think, been demonstrated that some definition of laymen is desirable. I agree that one of the most urgent reforms of the Church of England is that there should be a rather larger part given to the laity. But until the Government have made up their minds to come here with an authoritative proposal how to define laymen the best thing we can do is to take the old constitutional body and join with it a voluntary body of laymen. I think such an arrangement would be acceptable to Churchmen in Wales. If we vote for this Amendment it does not follow that on subsequent occasions we shall close our minds altogether to the proposal of the Home Secretary.
§ Lord HUGH CECIL
I think the Home Secretary should have accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chelsea. Our point is that the Amendment is not so satisfactory as my Noble Friend's Amendment. I do not think the Home Secretary really understood the position. But the main point is that we desire that the Disestablished Church, under this new departure in its career, should start with a governing body about the spiritual title of which there should be no dispute or ambiguity whatever. Therefore we are 554 anxious that it should trace its authority back to a spiritual authority, and beyond all doubt that is the Convocation of Canterbury, which is the parent of the Church in this matter, assisted by the House of Laymen. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend (Sir A. Cripps) that it is very proper that the laity should have a voice; proper not only because we desire the laity should assent to it, but also proper because they are, by the will of Convocation itself, part of the concerted body of the Representative Church Council. That is by far the best solution of the difficulty. I understood—although I was not present at the time—that the Chancellor of the Duchy attached importance to the provision that the bishops of the Welsh Church should be the deciding authority.
§ Lord HUGH CECIL
The point we are contending for is that it should be given to Convocation or to the bishops, and that it should not be decided by this House. The Home Secretary comes forward and proposes some sort of private negotiation with the four bishops, with a view to incorporating the decision the four bishops and he come to in this Bill. That would not give to the Synod the spiritual character we desire to give to it. That would make the Disestablished Church in Wales, in current phrase, a Church by Act of Parliament. It is precisely that we desire to avoid. We desire that the governing authority of the Church in Wales should be a purely spiritual body. If the right hon. Gentleman had liked to put in that the bishops should choose the lay qualification and define it, that would be a tolerable solution. It would not be the best. By far the best course is to adopt the Amendment of my Noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil) and put the authority into the hands of Convocation. It certainly would not meet UB to have negotiations with the bishops, as if the bishops were party leaders like my right hon. Friend (Mr. A. Lyttelton), or any other right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench. That would be an unsatisfactory way of approaching the subject. It would make the title of the Synod in future a purely House of Commons title, which would be unsatisfactory to the spiritual views of the Church. I should have thought there would be no difference between the people who are to summon 555 and the people who are to define. You must define before you summon. In asking people to a dinner party, you define in your own mind who are fit guests, and then you summon them. The process of definition must come before the process of summoning. As the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Hoare) is not accepted, I think it would be better not to take a Division on that, but rather on the Amendment of my Noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil).
§ gave me they would have accepted mine. In view of what has taken place I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ It being half-past Ten of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 28th November, 1912, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
§ Question put, "That the words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 163; Noes, 279.559
|Division No. 543.]||AYES.||[10.30 p.m.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Forster, Henry William||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Gastrell, Major W. H.||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)|
|Archer-Shee, Major Martin||Gibbs, G. A.||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Ashley, W. W.||Gilmour, Captain John||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)||Glazebrook, Capt. P. K.||Peel, Captain R F.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Goldman, C. S.||Perkins, Walter F.|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Grant, J. A.||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Greene, W. R.||Pole-Carew, Sir R.|
|Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)||Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)||Guinness, Hon.W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Pryce-Jones, Col. E.|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Quilter, Sir William Eley C.|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Harris, Henry Percy||Randles, Sir John S.|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Bennett-Goldney, Francis||Helmsley, Viscount||Rawson, Colonel R. H.|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-||Hewins, William Albert Samuel||Rees, Sir J. D.|
|Bigland, Alfred||Hickman, Col. Thomas E.||Roberts, s. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Bird, A.||Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)||Royds, Edmund|
|Blair, Reginald||Hills. J. W.||Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Hill-Wood, Samuel||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)||Hoare, Samuel J. G.||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)|
|Boyton, J.||Hohler, G. F.||Sanders, Robert A.|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Sassoon, Sir Philip|
|Burdett-Coutts, William||Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Houston, Robert Paterson||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Butcher, J. G.||Hume-Williams, William Ellis||Stanier, Beville|
|Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)||Hunt, Rowland||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)|
|Campion, W. R.||Ingleby, Holcombe||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Jessel, Captain H. M.||Stewart, Gershom|
|Cassel, Felix||Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)|
|Cator, John||Kerry, Earl of||Swift, Rigby|
|Cautley, H. S.||Kimber, Sir Henry||Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)|
|Cave, George||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Knight, Captain E. A.||Talbot, Lord Edmund|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)||Larmer, Sir J.||Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)|
|Chaloncr, Colonel R. G. W.||Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)|
|Clay, Captain H. H. Spender||Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Clive, Captain Percy Archer||Lewisham, Viscount||Tobin, Alfred Aspinall|
|Clyde, J. Avon||Loyd, George Ambrose||Touche, George Alexander|
|Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham||Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)||Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)||White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)|
|Cripps, Sir C. A.||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S.Geo.,Han.Sq.)||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Croft, Henry Page||Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud|
|Donelan, Captain A.||M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)||Wills, Sir Gilbert|
|Doughty, Sir George||Malcolm, Ian||Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Middlemore, John Throgmorton||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.||Moore, William||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Faber, George D. (Clapham)||Mount, William Arthur||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Fell, Arthur||Neville, Reginald J. N.||Yate, Colonel C. E.|
|Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert||Newdegate, F. A.|
|Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes||Newman, John R. P.|
|Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.||Newton, Harry Kottingham||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord Robert Cecil and Mr. M. Barlow.|
|Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)|
|Fletcher, John Samuel||Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)||Mond, Sir Alfred M.|
|Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)||Greig, Colonel James William||Money, L. G. Chlozza|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Griffith, Ellis J.||Mooney, J. J.|
|Addison, Dr. C.||Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)||Morgan, George Hay|
|Adkim, Sir W. Ryland D.||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Morrell, Philip|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Gulland, John William||Morison, Hector|
|Agnew, Sir George||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Hackett, J.||Muldoon, John|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Hancock, John George||Munro, R.|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.|
|Arnold, Sydney||Hardie, J. Keir||Murray, Cant. Hon. A. C.|
|Baker, H. T. (Accrington)||Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)||Neilson, Francis|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||Nolan, Joseph|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Norman, Sir Henry|
|Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||Norton, Capt. Cecil W.|
|Barton, W.||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Nuttall, Harry|
|Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Bentham, G. J.||Hayward, Evan||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Bethell, Sir J. H.||Hazleton, Richard||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)||O'Dowd, John|
|Boland, John Pius||Helme, Sir Norval Watson||O'Grady, James|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Henry, Sir Charles||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Higham, John Sharp||O'Malley, William|
|Brace, William||Hinds, John||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Brocklehurst, William B.||Hodge, John||O'Shee, James John|
|Brunner, J. F. L.||Hogge, James Myles||Outhwaite, R. L.|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Holmes, Daniel Turner||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Burke, E. Havlland-||Holt, Richard Durning||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Hudson, Walter||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)||Illingworth, Percy H.||Pollard, Sir George H.|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||John, Edward Thomas||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)|
|Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||Primrose, Hon. Neil James|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Jones, Haydn (Merioneth)||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Clough, William||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||Radford, G. H.|
|Clynes, J. R.||Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)||Rea, Waiter Russell (Scarborough)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Joyce, Michael||Reddy, M.|
|Cotton, William Francis||Keating, Matthew||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Crooks, William||Kellaway, Frederick George||Redmond, William (Clare)|
|Crumley, Patrick||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)|
|Cullinan, John||Kilbride, Denis||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Davies, E. William (Eiflon)||King, J.||Richards, Thomas|
|Davies, Timothy (Louth)||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Molton)||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|
|Dawes, J. A.||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|De Forest, Baron||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)|
|Delany, William||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rid, Cock'rmth)||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Leach, Charles||Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)|
|Devlin, Joseph||Lewis, John Herbert||Robinson, Sidney|
|Dickinson, W. H.||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Dillon, John||Low, Sir F. (Norwich)||Roche, Augustine (Louth)|
|Doris, William||Lundon, T.||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Duffy, William J.||Lyell, Charles Henry||Rowlands, James|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Lynch, A. A.||Rowntree, Arnold|
|Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||McGhee, Richard||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Elverston, Sir Harold||MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||M'Callum, Sir John M.||Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.|
|Essex, Sir Richard Walter||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Sheehy, David|
|Falconer, J.||M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Farrell, James Patrick||M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding)||Shortt, Edward|
|Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||M'Micking, Major Gilbert||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||Manfield, Harry||Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)|
|Ffrench, Peter||Markham, Sir Arthur Basil||Smyth, Thomas F.|
|Field, William||Marks, Sir George Croydon||Snowden, P.|
|Fitzgibbon, John||Marshall, Arthur Harold||Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Martin, Joseph||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)|
|Gilhooly, James||Mason, David M. (Coventry)||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)|
|Gill, A. H.||Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Ginnell, Laurence||Meagher, Michael||Sutton, John E.|
|Gladstone, W. G. C.||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Glanville, H. J.||Millar, James Duncan||Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Molloy, M.||Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)|
|Goldstone, Frank||Molteno, Percy Alport||Tennant, Harold John|
|Thomas, James Henry||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)||Wardie, George J.||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Toulmin, Sir George||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay||Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)|
|Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander||Watt, Henry A.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Verney, Sir Harry||Wedgwood, Josiah C.||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon,(Glas.)|
|Wadsworth, John||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)||Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)|
|Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)||Young, William (Perth, East)|
|Walters, Sir John Tudor||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Walton, Sir Joseph||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. W. Jones and Mr. H. Webb.|
|Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)||Wiles, Thomas|
§ The CHAIRMAN then proceeded, successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendment and new Clauses proposed by the Government, of which notice had been given, and the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the clock at this day's Sitting.
§ Government Amendments made: After the word "house" ["The expression 'house' includes "], insert the words "and any house of residence provided for an assistant curate."560
§ After the word "to" ["appurtenant to the house"], insert the words "or usually occupied with,"—[Mr. McKenna.]
§ Government Amendment proposed: After the word "tenths" ["in lieu of first fruits and tenths "], insert the words "but annual sums in lieu of first fruits payable at such times and in such manner as tenths are payable shall be treated as included in the expression 'tenths.'"— [Mr. McKenna.]
§ Question put, "That the Amendment, be made."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 282; Noes. 161.563
|Division No. 544.]||AYES.||[10.44 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Cory, Sir Clifford John||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)|
|Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)||Cotton, William Francis||Hackett, John|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Crooks, William||Hancock, John George|
|Addison, Dr. Christopher||Crumley, Patrick||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)|
|Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.||Cullinan, John||Hardie, J. Keir|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)|
|Agnew, Sir George William||Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Dawes, J. A.||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)||De Forest, Baron||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Delany, William||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Arnold, Sydney||Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry|
|Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)||Devlin, Joseph||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Dickinson, W. H.||Hayward, Evan|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Dillon, John||Hazleton, Richard|
|Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Donelan, Captain A.||Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)|
|Barton, William||Doris, William||Helme, Sir Norval Watson|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Duffy, William J.||Henry, Sir Charles|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)|
|Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, S. George)||Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan)||Higham, John Sharp|
|Bentham, George J.||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Hinds, John|
|Bethell, Sir John Henry||Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.|
|Black, Arthur W.||Elverston, Sir Harold||Hodge, John|
|Boland, John Pius||Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||Hogge, James Myles|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Holmes, Daniel Turner|
|Bowerman, Charles W.||Essex, Sir Richard Walter||Holt, Richard Durning|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Falconer, James||Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)|
|Brace, William||Farrell, James Patrick||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||Hudson, Walter|
|Brocklehurst, William B.||Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||Illingworth, Percy H.|
|Brunner, John F. L.||Ffrench, Peter||Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)|
|Bryce, John Annan||Field, William||John, Edward Thomas|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Fitzgibbon, John||Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Gilhooly, James||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Gill, Alfred Henry||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)||Ginnell, Laurence||Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Gladstone, W. G. C.||Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Glanville, Harold James||Joyce, Michael|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Keating, Matthew|
|Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)||Goldstone, Frank||Kellaway, Frederick George|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)||Kennedy, Vincent Paul|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Greig, Colonel James Wilson||Kilbride, Denis|
|Clough, William||Griffith, Ellis Jones||King, Joseph|
|Clynes, John R.||Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Molton)|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Gulland, John William||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe|
|Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Sheehy, David|
|Lawson, Sir w. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)||O'Dowd, John||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Leach, Charles||O'Grady, James||Shortt, Edward|
|Lewis, John Herbert||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)||Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)|
|Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)|
|Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)||O'Malley, William||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Lundon, Thomas||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)||Snowden, Philip|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert|
|Lynch, Arthur Alfred||O'Shee, James John||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)|
|Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Outhwaite, R. L.||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)|
|McGhee, Richard||Parker, James (Halifax)||Sutherland, John E.|
|Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Sutton, John E.|
|MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|M'Callum, Sir John M,||Pirle, Duncan v.||Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)|
|McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Pollard, Sir George H.||Tennant, Harold John|
|M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Thomas, James Henry|
|M'Laren, Hon.F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding)||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|M'Micking, Major Gilbert||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||Toulmin, Sir George|
|Manfield, Harry||Priestley, Sir Arthur Grantham||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Markham, Sir Arthur Basil||Primrose, Hon. Nell James||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Marks, Sir George Croydon||Pringle, William M. R.||Verney, Sir Harry|
|Marshall, Arthur Harold||Radford, G. H.||Wadsworth, John|
|Martin, Joseph||Raffan, Peter Wilson||Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)|
|Mason, David M. (Coventry)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)||Walters, Sir John Tudor|
|Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.||Reddy, Michael||Walton, Sir Joseph|
|Meagher, Michael||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Millar, James Duncan||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)||Wardle, G. J.|
|Molloy, Michael||Rendall, Athelstan||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay|
|Molteno, Percy Alport||Richards, Thomas||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Mond, Sir Alfred M.||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)||Watt, Henry A.|
|Money, L. G. Chiozza||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Morgan, George Hay||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Morrell, Philip||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Morison, Hector||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)||Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)|
|Muldoon, John||Robinson, Sidney||Wiles, Thomas|
|Munro, Robert||Roche, Walter F.||Wilkle, Alexander|
|Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.||Roche, Augustine (Louth)||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.||Roe, Sir Thomas||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|Nellson, Francis||Rowlands, James||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|Nolan, Joseph||Rowntree, Arnold||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Norman, Sir Henry||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKlnnon (Glas.)|
|Norton, Capt. Cecil W.||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)||Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)|
|Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Young, William (Perth, East)|
|Nuttall, Harry||Scanlan, Thomas|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. W. Jones and Mr. Webb.|
|O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Cautley, Henry Strother||Greene, Walter Raymond|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Cave, George||Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)|
|Archer-Shee, Major Martin||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Guinness, Hon.W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)|
|Ashley, Wilfrid W.||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)|
|Baker, sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)||Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hltchln)||Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Harris, Henry Percy|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Clay, Captain H. H. Spender||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Clive, Captain Percy Archer||Helmsley, Viscount|
|Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)||Clyde, James Avon||Hewins, William Albert Samuel|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, south)||Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham||Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc, E.)||Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||Hill, Sir Clement L.|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Craik, Sir Henry||Hills, John Waller|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh' Hicks||Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred||Hill-Wood, Samuel|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Croft, Henry Page||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy|
|Bennett-Goldney, Francis||Doughty, Sir George||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish||Duke, Henry Edward||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)|
|Bigland, Alfred||Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.||Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)|
|Bird, Alfred||Faber, George D. (Clapham)||Houston, Robert Paterson|
|Blair, Reginald||Fell, Arthur||Hume-Williams, William Ellis|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith||Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert||Hunt, Rowland|
|Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)||Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes||Ingleby, Holcombe|
|Boyton, James||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Jessel, Captain Herbert M.|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue||Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.|
|Bull, Sir William James||Fletcher, John Samuel||Kerry, Earl of|
|Burdett-Coutts, William||Forster, Henry William||Kimber, Sir Henry|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Gastrell, Major W. Houghton||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement|
|Butcher, John George||Gibbs, George Abraham||Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford|
|Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)||Gilmour, Captain John||Larmor, Sir J.|
|Campion, W. R.||Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.||Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)|
|Cassel, Felix||Goldman, Charles Sydney||Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)|
|Cator, John||Grant, James Augustas||Lewisham, Viscount|
|Lloyd, George Ambrose||Pole-Carew, Sir R.||Swift, Rigby|
|Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Pollock, Ernest Murray||Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)|
|Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)||Pretyman, Ernest George||Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)|
|Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm, Edgbaston)||Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.||Talbot, Lord Edmund|
|Lyttelton, Rt. Hen. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)||Quilter, Sir William Eley C.||Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)|
|Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)||Randies, Sir John S.||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)|
|McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Malcolm, Ian||Rawson, Colonel Richard||Tobin, Alfred Aspinall|
|Middlemore, John Throgmorton||Rees, Sir J. D.||Touche, George Alexander|
|Moore, William||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Valentia, Viscount|
|Mount, William Arthur||Royds, Edmund||Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)|
|Neville, Reginald J. N.||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)||White, Major G. D. (Lance., Southport)|
|Newdegate, F: A.||Salter, Arthur Clavell||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Newman, John R. P.||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud|
|Newton, Harry Kottingham||Sanders, Robert Arthur||Wills, Sir Gilbert|
|Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)||Sanderson, Lancelot||Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)|
|Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.||Sassoon, Sir Philip||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)||Spear, Sir John Ward||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Parkes, Ebenezer||Stanier, Seville||Yate, Col. C. E.|
|Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)|
|Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir H. Carlile and Mr. Hoare.|
|Perkins, Walter Frank||Stewart, Gershom|
|Peto, Basil Edward||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)|
§ Further Government Amendment made: At the end of the Clause add the words,
§ (4) For removing doubts it is hereby declared that the principal or other member of Jesus College, Oxford, who may from time to time be rector of Llandyssil, shall as such be treated as a lay impropriator564
§ and not as the holder of an ecclesiastical office.—[Mr. McKenna.]
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 281; Noes, 162.567
|Division No. 545.]||AYES.||[10.55 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)|
|Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)||Cory, Sir Clifford John||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)|
|Acland, Franics Dyke||Cotton, William Francis||Gulland, John W.|
|Addison, Dr. C.||Crooks, William||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)|
|Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.||Crumley, Patrick||Hackett, J.|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Cullinan, J.||Hancock, John George|
|Agnew, Sir George William||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)||Hardie, J. Keir|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)||Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Dawes, James Arthur||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)|
|Arnold, Sydney||Da Forest, Baron||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)|
|Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)||Delany, William||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Devlin, Joseph||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry|
|Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Dickinson, W. H.||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Barton, William||Dillon, John||Hayward, Evan|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Donelan, Captain A.||Hazleton, Richard|
|Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)||Doris, William||Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)|
|Bentham, George Jackson||Dully, William J.||Helme, Sir Norval Watson|
|Bethell, Sir John Henry||Duncan, C. (8arrow-ln-Furness)||Henry, Sir Charles|
|Black, Arthur W.||Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)||Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)|
|Boland, John Pius||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Higham, John Sharp|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||Hinds, John|
|Bowerman, Charles W.||Elverston, Sir Harold||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||Hodge, John|
|Brace, William||Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Hogge, James Myles|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Essex, Sir Richard Walter||Holmes, Daniel Turner|
|Brocklehurst, William B.||Falconer, James||Holt, Richard Durning|
|Brunner, John F. L.||Farrell, James Patrick||Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)|
|Bryce, John Annan||Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey|
|Burke, E. Haviland||Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||Hudson, Walter|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Ffrench, Peter||Illingworth, Percy H.|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Field, William||Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Fitzgibbon, John||John, Edward Thomas|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea)|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Gilhooly, James||Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Gill, Alfred Henry||Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Gladstone, W. G. C.||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)|
|Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Heywood)||Glanville, H. J.||Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Goldstone, Frank||Joyce, Michael|
|Clough, William||Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)||Keating, Matthew|
|Clynes, John R.||Greig, Colonel James William||Kellaway, Frederick George|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Griffith, Ellis J.||Kennedy, Vincent Paul|
|Kilbride, Denis||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|King, Joseph||Nuttall, Harry||Seely, Colonel Rt. Hon. J. E. B.|
|Lambert, Rt. Hen. G. (Devon,S.Molton)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Sheehy, David|
|Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Shortt, Edward|
|Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||O'Dowd, John||Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)|
|Lawsen, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)||O'Grady, James||Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)|
|Leach, Charles||0'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Lewis, John Herbert||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert|
|Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||O'Malley, William||Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)|
|Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)|
|Lundon, Thomas||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Sutherland, John E.|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||O'Shee, James John||Sutton, John E.|
|Lynch, A. A.||Outhwalte, R. L.||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Parker, James (Halifax)||Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe)|
|McGhee, Richard||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)|
|Maclean, Donald||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)||Tennant, Harold John|
|Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Thomas, J. H.|
|Macneill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)||Pirle, Duncan V.||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Pollard, Sir George H.||Toulmin, Sir George|
|MCallum, Sir John M.||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||Verney, Sir H.|
|M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lines.,Spalding)||Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)||Wadsworth, John|
|M'Micking, Major Gilbert||Primrose, Hon. Nell James||Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)|
|Manfield, Harry||Pringle, William M. R.||Walters, Sir John Tudor|
|Markham, Sir Arthur Basil||Radford, George Heynes||Walton, Sir Joseph|
|Marks, Sir George Croydon||Raffan, Peter Wilson||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Marshall, Arthur Harold||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Martin, Joseph||Reddy, M.||Wardle, G. J.|
|Mason, David M. (Coventry)||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay|
|Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Meagher, Michael||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)||Watt, Henry A.|
|Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Kendall, Athelstan||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Millar, James Duncan||Richards, Thomas||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Molloy, Michael||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Molteno, Percy Alport||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Mond, Sir Alfred M.||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Whyte, Alexander F.|
|Money, L. G. Chiozza||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Morgan, George Hay||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Morrell, Philip||Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Morison, Hector||Robinson, Sidney||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Roch, Walter F.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|Muldoon, John||Roche, Augustine (Louth)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Munro, Robert||Roe, Sir Thomas||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)|
|Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.||Rowlands, James||Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)|
|Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.||Rowntree, Arnold||Young, William (Perth, East)|
|Neilson, Francis||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Nolan, Joseph||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. W. Jones and Mr. Webb.|
|Norman, Sir Henry||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Norton, Captain Cecil William||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)||Forster, Henry William|
|Amery, L. C. M. S.||Campion, W. R.||Gastrell, Major W. Houghton|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Gibbs, G. A.|
|Archer-Shee, Major Martin||Cassel, Felix||Gilmour, Captain J.|
|Ashley, W. W.||Cator, John||Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.|
|Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)||Cautley, Henry Strother||Goldman. Charles Sydney|
|Balcarres, Lord||Cave, George||Grant, James Augustus|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)||Greene, Walter Raymond|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Cecil, Lord R. (Herts. Hitchin)||Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)|
|Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)||Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Guinness, Hon.W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Clay, Captain H. H. Spender||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)|
|Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)||Clive, Captain Percy Archer||Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Clyde, James Avon||Harris, Henry Percy|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||Hewins, William Albert Samuel|
|Bennett-Goldney, Francis||Craik, Sir Henry||Hickman, Colonel Thomas|
|Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish||Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred||Hill, Sir Clement L.|
|Bigland, Alfred||Croft, Henry Page||Hills, John Waller|
|Bird, Alfred||Doughty, Sir George||Hill-Wood, Samuel|
|Blair, Reginald||Duke, Henry Edward||Hoare, Samuel John Gurney|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Grifflth||Eyres-Monsell, B. M.||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)|
|Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid.)||Faber, George D. (Clapham)||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)|
|Boyton, James||Fell, Arthur||Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert||Houston, Robert Paterson|
|Bull, Sir William James||Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes||Hume-Williams Ellis|
|Burdett-Goutts, William||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Hunt, Rowland|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue||Ingleby, Holcombe|
|Butcher, John George||Fletcher, John Samuel||Jessel, Captain Herbert M.|
|Kebty-Fietcher, J. R.||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)|
|Kerry, Earl of||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Kimber, Sir Henry||Parkes, Ebenezer||Stewart, Gershom|
|Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)|
|Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford||Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)||Swift, Rigby|
|Larmor, Sir J.||Perkins, Walter Frank||Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)|
|Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)||Peto, Basil Edward||Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)|
|Lawson, Hon. H. (T. Hints, Mile End)||Pole-Carew, Sir R.||Terrell, George (Wins N.W.)|
|Lewisham, Voscount||Pollock, Ernest Murray||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)|
|Lloyd, G. A.||Pretyman, Ernest George||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.||Tobin, Alfred Aspinall|
|Locker-Lampson, G. (Ramsey)||Quilter, Sir William Eley C.||Touche, George Alexander|
|Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)||Randies, Sir John S.||Valentia, Viscount|
|Lyttelton, Rt.Hon.A. (S. Geo. Han.Sq.)||Rawlinson, Frederick Peel||Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)|
|Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)||Rawson, Colonel Richard H.||White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)|
|McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)||Rees, Sir J. D.||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Malcolm, Ian||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud|
|Middlemore, John Throgmorton||Royds, Edmund||Wills, Sir Gilbert|
|Moore, William||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)||Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.)|
|Mount, William Arthur||Salter, Arthur Clavell||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Neville, Reginald J. N.||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Newdegate, F. A.||Sanders, Robert Arthur||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Newman, John R. P.||Sanderson, Lancelot||Yate, Colonel C. E.|
|Newton, Harry Kottingham||Sassoon, Sir Philip.|
|Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, West)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. E. Cecil and Mr. Hohler.|
|Nield, Herbert||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.||Stanier, Beville|