Commons Sitting of 28 January 1913

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

ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
Petitions against the passing of the Established Church (Wales) Bill were presented by—
Mr. Evelyn Cecil, from the Penrith Division of Cumberland, the Eskdale Division of Cumberland, and East Birmingham (48 petitions), containing 8,599 signatures; and
Sir Hildred Carlile, from the Biggleswade Division of Bedfordshire (48 petitions), containing 7,784 signatures; and from the Luiton Division (28 petitions), containing 10,542 signatures.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889 (ORDINANCE), UNIVERSITY COURT ORDINANCE No. 39 (GLASGOW, No. 12) (AFFILIATION OF THE ROYAL TECHNICAL COLLEGE, GLASGOW).
Petition from Glasgow, for approval; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations made by the Irish Insurance Commissioners as to the sums payable in respect of Deposit Contributors towards the expenses incurred by Insurance Committees in the Administration of Benefits [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 471.]
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 27th January, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health
1148
Insurance (Collection of Contributions) Regulations (Wales), 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 472.]
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 25th January, 1913, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Irish Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Collection of Contributions) Regulations (Ireland), 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 473.]

IRISH UNIVERSITIES ACT, 1908.
Copy presented of Accounts of Receipts and Expenditure of Universities and Colleges, Ireland (including the Fee Fund Grant), for the year ended 31st March, 1912, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 474.]
CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS).
Appropriation Accounts presented for the year ending 31st March, 1912, together with the Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon, and certain Reports upon Store Accounts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 475.]
TREASURY CHEST.
Account presented for the year 1911 –12, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 476.]
DEVELOPMENT FUND.
Copy presented of Abstract Account of the Receipts into and Issues out of the Development Fund in the period ended 31st March, 1912, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 477.]
PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (ELECTORS, ETC.) (UNITED KINGDOM).
Return presented relative thereto [Address 27th January; Mr. Ellis Griffith']; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 478.]

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the county borough of Bournemouth, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending the provisions of Section 4 of the Shops Act, 1912, to certain classes of Shops within the county borough, and fixing the day on which the Shops are to be closed for the weekly half-holiday [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the urban district of Walthamstow, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending the provisions of Section 4 of the Act to certain classes of Shops within the urban district, and fixing the day on which the Shops are to be closed for the weekly half-holiday [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 15th January, 1913, in terms of Section 4 of the Act, affecting certain classes of Shops in the burgh of Leven [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

TREATY SERIES (No. 2, 1913).
Copy presented of Agreement between the United Kingdom and Siam respecting the rendition of Fugitive Criminals between certain States in the Malay Peninsula and Siam. Signed at Bangkok, 20th November, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered Tomorrow (Wednesday), and to be printed. [Bill 355.]
NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Thomas Henry Parry, esquire, for Flint Boroughs.
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow (Wednesday), and to be printed. [Bill 356.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  War in Balkans.
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the letter addressed to the Foreign Office by the London Committee of All India Moslem League regarding the treatment which it is stated the Mussulmans of Macedonia have been subjected to at the hands of the Balkan allied forces; whether the Consular reports received by him, which have been brought to the notice of the Governments that now control the territories in which these outrages are said to have occurred, have been productive of any result; and whether he has any information to show that outrages on the unarmed peasantry, either by one side or the other, have now been put a stop to?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and I am informing the league of the steps taken by His Majesty's Government in this matter as stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds on 16th January, and of the further information contained in my reply to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds to-day.
  Mr. WALTER GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the following alleged facts in connection with the occupation of Dedeagatch by the Bulgarians have been brought to his notice, that over 50 Turkish houses with their inhabitants and a mosque containing 300 refugees were dynamited, that 3,000 men, women, and children were massacred during 13 days, that in the neighbouring village of Ferejik over 500 Moslems were murdered; whether he will call for a report from, the British Vice-consul at Dedeagatch; and, if these statements prove well founded, will he make urgent representations to the Bulgarian Government to put an end to such atrocities?
  Sir E. GREY: As was indicated in my reply to the question of the hon. Member for Hull on 9th January, the reports which have reached me respecting the treatment of the Moslem inhabitants of territory in Servian and Bulgarian occupation, cannot be considered as authentic in detail. In view, however, of subsequent information tending to indicate that these reports were not without some foundation, I took the action of which the hon. Member was informed in my reply to his question of 16th January. To that reply, and the answer which I also made to his question of 21st January. I have at present nothing to add, except that the Bulgarian Prime Minister has stated that no outrages have been committed by Bulgarian Regular troops, and that any actions of Bulgarian bands have been quite irregular and directly opposed to the orders issued from headquarters.
  Mr. W. GUINNESS: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman suggests that the Consular reports may not have been accurate in detain?
  Sir E. GREY: The Consuls have not got first-hand information of these things. They report such things as they hear and such things as they think may have some foundation. They have not been eye-witnesses.
  Mr. W. GUINNESS: May I ask whether it is impossible to investigate them, and whether we are to understand that British Consuls in these towns are practically prisoners, as we are told by General Baumann has been the case with the French and German Consuls in spite of their protests?
  Sir E. GREY: In the state of things which prevails when a country is at war you cannot expect the British Consuls to be in a position to investigate and supervise all the things that happen. They send such reports as they can. With regard to reports from British Consuls, during the last few months I have dealt with them in the same way as the reports with regard to things which happened under Turkish administration before the war began in the last four years.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTON: May I ask whether reports have not been received from both sides, and whether there is not a distinction to be drawn between atroci-
  1152
  ties by irregulars and those committed by troops under regular officers?
  Mr. W. GUINNESS: May I ask whether the only way to get rid of atrocities committed by irregulars not under control is to publish the whole information and induce the Regular troops to put a stop to them in response to European opinion?
  Sir E. GREY: Ever since 1908 I have been asked to publish the reports about things which went on in Macedonia. I declined to publish the reports which I was asked to publish regarding outrages that happened, or were alleged to have happened, under Turkish administration in Macedonia when there was a state of war existing between Italy and Turkey. At that time I was the subject of some reproach because I was supposed to be sheltering the Turks in not publishing the reports. I am pursuing precisely the same course in regard to the reports I have received since.
  Mr. W. GUINNESS: Would it not be the best course so as to avoid all suggestions that the right hon. Gentleman is not acting with absolute and strict impartiality, and that he is sheltering the Turks, to publish all the reports since the last Blue Book was published in 1908, which would satisfy the Turks and everybody else?
  Sir E. GREY: I think the probable result would be to dissatisfy practically everybody. The reports contain matters, some of which appear to have good foundation and some of which are rumours. They are inextricably mixed up together. What I thought was the best course was to put such information as appeared to have some foundation before the Governments which might be in a position, directly or indirectly, to control events and prevent things of this kind happening. That is what I have done. To go beyond that would not, I think, be in the public interest at the present moment, and would be going far beyond what any other Government has done.
  Mr. W. GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in order to prevent a repetition of the atrocities which have been committed by the allied forces on the Moslem population of Macedonia, he will make urgent representations to the Bulgarian Government, and take immediate steps to ensure the presence of Consuls or other

  1153
  impartial witnesses if and when the town of Adrianople capitulates?
  Sir E. GREY: In reply to the first part of this question, I have nothing to add to the replies which I have already given to the hon. Member on this subject. In regard to the second part, the Consular representatives of the Powers are, so far as I am aware, still at their posts in Adrianople.
  Mr. W. GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that General Baumann, Inspector-General of the Turkish Gendarmerie, has stated that when the Greeks and Bulgarians entered Cavalla all the Moslems that could be found were massacred, including a large number in the mosque, where he saw twenty-five corpses in the doorway alone; that the Bulgarian General Gueneff compelled the Greek metropolitan to surrender the Turkish women to whom he was affording refuge, and gave them to the troops; that the Bulgarian soldiers mutilated women in a manner which it is impossible to describe in words; that these atrocities only ceased with the arrival of a French cruiser; and will he call for a Report from the British Vice-Consul, and, if General Baumann's charges are substantiated, bring pressure to bear on the Greek and Bulgarian Governments to punish those responsible?
  Sir E. GREY: I have seen a copy of a notice circulated by the Porte, which is stated to have been received through the intermediary of General Baumann. The statements contained therein are not made by General Baumann himself, nor is the identity of their author revealed. It is therefore difficult to judge as to the degree of authenticity attaching to such allegations. The same difficulty occurs in the case of other and similar reports which have reached me and which do not rest on first-hand knowledge or proof. The hon. Member is already aware of the action taken in regard to these reports. I may add that in the only case where the information which has reached me has been sufficiently detailed to give the names of certain irregulars stated to have been the authors of outrages, a further communication is being made to the Government concerned, and His Majesty's Minister has been instructed to express the hope of His Majesty's Government that those who can be proved to have been responsible for excesses will be dealt with as justice demands.
  Mr. W. GUINNESS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of his saying that the reports are not transmitted to General Baumann, whether his attention has been drawn to a French pamphlet saying that these particular allegations have been made to General Baumann himself and transmitted by him, and containing the statements in extenso in inverted commas?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot go into all the pamphlets published in this country, and still less into those published in France.

  Colombia (Charge against Mr. Hughes).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the exact charge on which Mr. Hughes has been imprisoned by the Colombian Government; when he was first imprisoned; for what length of time he was in prison; how long on bail; and whether a date for his trial has been fixed?
  Sir E. GREY: The charge against Mr. Hughes is one of "maltratamiento," or serious bodily injury, punishable by a long term of imprisonment. He was first arrested on 21st February, was released however and rearrested and imprisoned later, being kept in prison about a month. He has been on bail during the remainder of the time since the incident, which occurred on 20th February last year. The Colombian Government state that the case cannot be decided before March. I have not heard that a definite date has been fixed for the trial.
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman press for the promise of a hearing at least in March?
  Sir E. GREY: I have told the hon. Gentleman that the last representation I made was that proceedings should be brought, not that they should be proceeded with at all.

  Boxer Indemnity (British Share).
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked if the Government can see their way to forego the balance of the Boxer indemnity due to this country over and above what is necessary to pay proven claims for indemnity arising out of the Boxer disturbances, so as to avoid any accusation of making a profit out of China on the plea of indemnity?
  Sir E. GREY: The British share of the Boxer indemnity was assessed as far as

  1155
  possible only on the basis of actual expenditure. Should it eventually be found when fully liquidated that there is any surplus, it will be returned to the Chinese Government, and its disposal would be left to their discretion. There will, therefore, be no question of making any profit out of it.
  Mr. D. HALLasked if pressure has been brought to bear upon the Chinese Government to pay further instalments of the Boxer indemnity; and if any promise or inducement has been held out to the Chinese Government that, in the event of that Government complying with the main terms suggested by the Powers who would provide what is known as the six-Power loan, the demand for the immediate payment of further instalments of the indemnity would not be persisted in?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. LYNCH: Has any pressure been brought by this Government to bear on the Chinese Government to accept the six-Power loan on conditions which would fetter its free development?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not see that that has anything to do with the question as to the Boxer troubles. It is not at all relevant.

  Police, Ganjam (India).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can state in what language the police records are kept in the Balliguda, Gumsur, and Chatrapur divisions of the district of Ganjam, and what is the language spoken by the majority of the population in those parts; and whether he is aware that, although these records are not open to inspection by the general public, they are exhibited in the course of the trial by courts, and the parties to the action are entitled to public copies of them?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The Secretary of State has no information as to the first part of the hon. Member's question, except that police vernacular records are kept in Telegu in Ganjam in all circles but one. As regards the second part, under certain conditions the parties are allowed, at the instance of the Court, to call for police diaries and to inspect them. The conditions are prescribed in
  1156
  the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these records are kept in Telegu in the Uriya-speaking districts, whereas the Uriyas are appointed to a district which is not Uriya speaking?
  Mr. ACLAND: I am not aware. I should have to obtain the information from my hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in the district of Ganjam, out of 545 police officers 291 are Uriyas; whether, practically, the whole of these Uriya officers are stationed in the Balliguda division, which consists largely of malarious unhealthy tracts inhabited by non-Uriya-speaking hill tribes; whether he can state for what reason Uriya officers are not appointed to any proportional extent to the Uriya-speaking parts of Ganjam, namely, the Gumsur and Chatrapur divisions?
  Mr. ACLAND: The figures cited by the hon. Member are correct, but the Secretary of State has no information as to the distribution of individual constables in Ganjam.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    RANGK-FINDEUS.
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Secretary of State for War what steps have been taken, by the issue of further orders, to equip the Army with the 316 one-man range-finders by which it is still deficient, according to the rate laid down for each battalion?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): Further orders are being and will be issued as funds are available.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in view that the price will be very much reduced if they are ordered in large bulk rather than in small batches?
    Colonel SEELY: Yes, I am aware of that consideration, which the hon. Gentleman has brought to my notice several times.

    OFFICEKS' PAY.
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is prepared to appoint a Commission or Committee to examine the question of the rates of pay to officers in the Army; how far these rates affect recruitment; and

    1157
    whether they are adequate to attract the most suitable candidates, having regard to the remuneration in other professions and to the change of conditions since any substantial addition has been made to the long-prevailing rates?
    Colonel SEELY: As I have already informed the House, the rates of pay of officers in the Army have been and are now receiving my earnest consideration, and I do not think that at present the proposed Commission or Committee would materially facilitate progress in the direction mentioned.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Would not the appointment of such a Commission or Committee bring home to the mind of this House the facts of the case, and call attention to a very great grievance?
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Will the pay of the soldiers be taken into consideration at the same time whenever the pay of the officers is taken into consideration?
    Sir H. CRAIK: It has been increased over and over again.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the matter in introducing the Army Estimates in the coming 'Session?
    Colonel SEELY: At the present time I do not think such a Commission as is referred to is opportune. With regard to my hon. Friend's question, I would say we will certainly bear in mind the desirability of making it possible for the poor man to rise from the ranks in considering this question. In reply to the last question, I do not think I shall be able to make any full statement on the Army Estimates.

    TIDWOKTII AND BULFORD CAMPS.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the difference between the price in the contract for German made cable for the Army camps at Tidworth and Bulford, accepted by the War Office, and the prices quoted by the three lowest English contractors for best quality English cable?
    Colonel SEELY: The tenders were for the complete installation and do not indicate separately the cost of the cable. The three lowest tenders which included cable believed to be of British manufacture, were from 27 per cent, to 37 per cent, above the accepted tender.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked whether the War Office Department have issued
    1158
    specifications for extra work at Tidworth and Bulford camps; were the War Office electrical staff able to prepare these without the assistance of Messrs. Kennedy and Jenkin; and do the specifications again allow for the use of German cable, or must it be of British manufacture by members of the Cable Makers' Association?
    Colonel SEELY: Specifications for the internal wiring of some houses at Tidworth have been issued; these were prepared by the Department of the Director of Barrack Construction and not by the electric light staff of the War Office. The conductors are to be association grade Cable Makers' Association make.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that there is a different requirement in the specification from the one in the previous specification?
    Colonel SEELY: I must have notice of any further question on these very technical matters.

    FLOODING.
    Mr. KINGasked at what date flogging was abolished as a method of disciplinary correction in the Army; whether any demands have since been received from officers or others asking for its reintroduction; and whether, since the abolition of flogging, there has been any deterioration or improvement in the morale and discipline of the Army?
    Colonel SEELY: Flogging was restricted by the Mutiny Act of 1868 to active service and to certain offences committed while under sentence in military prisons. Under the Army Discipline and Regulation Act, 1881, it was further restricted to military prisons and in 1906 corporal punishment in military prisons was abolished. No demands have been put forward by officers or others for the reintroduction of flogging. The general improvement of conduct in the Army during the last few years has been remarkable, but it is not possible to say whether that improvement is due to the abolition of flogging.
    Mr. J. WARD: Of course it is.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE: (CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT)
    Mr. ALAN SYKESasked whether the Grant which is given to county associations for the provision of clothing and equipment for Infantry Territorial battalions is calculated on the basis of packs being included in the equipment; and, if

    1159
    not, from what source should county associations draw the money if they decide to adopt packs?
    Colonel SEELY: The initial equipment Grant is calculated on the cost of the 1903 pattern bandolier equipment and not on the web pattern, which includes packs. If county associations desire to adopt packs the cost must be met out of surplus funds.
    Mr. ALAN SYKES: The right hon. Gentleman has given them too much, so they will have surplus funds?
    Colonel SEELY: I have not given too much, but they have got the surplus funds in many cases, I am glad to say.

    SPECIAL RESERVE.
    Mr. HUNTasked whether the twenty-seven fourth battalions of the Special Reserve will be available for foreign service just as much as any others; and whether they might have to go abroad and into the fighting formation?
    Colonel SEELY: These battalions would be available for service abroad at the commencement of war either in relief of Regular battalions oversea who were required to proceed to the seat of war or for the lines of communication.
    Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ex-Secretary of State for War said that men trained for less than six months would be no use against Continental troops?
    Colonel SEELY: Nothing which my Noble Friend has said is at all in opposition to the statement which I have just made.
    Mr. HUNT: Did not the ex-Secretary of State for War say that troops trained for less than six months would be of no use against Continental troops, and is not that a direct negative of what has just been said?
    Colonel SEELY: Mr. Speaker has ruled that I cannot be expected to remember all Lord Haldane's speeches.

    Licensed Houses (Assessment).
    Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the loss inflicted upon the licensed trade in the county of London under the Finance Act, 1909, by reason of the higher assessment of licensed houses
    1160
    under the Metropolitan Quinquennial Valuation Act as compared with the rest of the country; and whether he is prepared to deal with this state of affairs in the Finance Bill of this year?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The principle of assessment is the same throughout the whole country, namely, the full annual value at which the licensed premises are worth to be let by the year, and on this principle no inequality, so far as is known, exists in the assessments in the Metropolis as compared with the rest of the country.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that assessments are screwed up much higher in the Metropolitan area than outside, and that, therefore, a real injustice is inflicted in this way?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think that the assessments are screwed up much higher. The rents are much higher, and to that extent they have got to pay more in their taxes.

    Excise and Customs (Amalgamation).
    Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the hours of attendance without extra re muneration of the London Customs surveyors prior to the amalgamation of the Customs and Excise Departments were fixed by Treasury Minute not exceeding eight hours per day between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. for landing and shipping, and between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. for other duties; whether under G.O. 54/1912 their hours have been extended to a normal day between the hours of 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. for all duties; whether he will state if surveyors are required or expected to give a less number of hours' attendance per normal day under the present conditions than hitherto; and, if so, to what extent?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second and third parts of the question, it is not expected that, as a general rule, the attendance which surveyors will be required to give between 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. in future will exceed the attendance which they have given between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. in the past.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Chairman of the Board of

    1161
    Customs and Excise stated in his evidence before the Committee on the Amalgamation of the Customs and Excise Departments that, with regard to the second and third-class surveyors of Customs, the present prospects of the second-class men are to succeed by selection to the first-class scale of £490 to £550 and the prospects of the third-class men are to succeed to the second-class scale of £430 to £480, and that some special arrangement seems required to reserve these prospects to them, otherwise they would be prejudiced; whether an increased maximum of £50 was given to meet this loss of prospects and to compensate for loss of overtime emoluments; what were the average overtime earnings of surveyors and principal clerks, respectively, for the year ended 31st December, 1911; and if he will say upon what basis the sum of £50 compensation was arrived at and applied to both surveyors and principal clerks, having regard to the disparity in the average overtime emoluments of the two grades?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The average overtime earnings of members of the old surveyor and principal clerk classes for 1911 are estimated at about £43 and £l, respectively. The increase of £50 in the maximum of these classes was granted by reference to the effect of amalgamation looked at as a whole, the different classes being, of course, affected in different ways.

    Thames Embankment (South Side).
    Captain MURRAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the scheme for providing an embankment on the south side of the Thames from the new County Hall to the projected St. Paul's Bridge, and to the suggestion that the London County Council and the various local authorities concerned should be asked to contribute £500,000 towards the cost of the scheme, while the balance of approximately the same amount should be provided by the Road Board; and whether the funds at the disposal of the Road Board can properly be applied to schemes of this description?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No application has been made to the Road Board in connection with the scheme referred to, and I am, therefore, unable to reply to the last part of the question.

    Increment Duty.
    Colonel BURNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, owing to the decision in the case of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Lumsden that a vendor who sells house property for more than its valuation under the Finance Act, 1909, and as Increment Duty is payable, although the site value has not increased, he will introduce legislation to amend the Act so that a vendor can deduct from any Increment Duty arising from the sale the legal expenses he is put to in buying and selling property before any Increment Duty is assessed?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In view of the provisions of Section 3 (5) of the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910, I do not consider amending legislation of the nature indicated by the hon. Member to be necessary.
    Colonel BURN: Why will not the right hon. Gentleman allow legal expenses which have been incurred in selling before the amount of Increment Duty is assessed, since he allows deductions to be made for any improvement by the landlord before Increment Duty is assessed?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is perfectly obvious that we cannot interpret a Clause in an Act of Parliament by question and answer. It has been discussed over and over again in Committee on the Finance Bill, and I have no doubt will be discussed again.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    AMENDMENT.
    Mr. FREDERICK HALL (Dulwich)asked when it is proposed to introduce the legislation to amend the anomalies of the National Insurance Act which was promised on behalf of the Government at the time of the Edinburgh election?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As the main benefits of the National Insurance Act have only been in operation for barely a fortnight, it would be obviously premature to make any such statement as that asked for by the hon. Member. The actual words I used were, "where experience proves that the Act needs Amendment, either to meet special cases or otherwise, it will be amended."
    Mr. F. HALL: Has it not already been proved beyond any question of doubt that the Act requires much alteration with

    1163
    regard to many of those who are particularly desirous of having their own doctor, as was promised by the right hon. Gentleman in his tabernacle speech?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should not raise a series of contentious matters at Question Time which he cannot pursue. It is only a waste of time.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether, on the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's estimate that the number of insured persons and their dependants will probably include more than four-fifths of the total number of persons suffering from tuberculosis in the country, he realises that in Gloucestershire during the first six months of sanatorium benefit 53 per cent, of such cases will be amongst insured persons, and 27 per cent, amongst dependants; whether, seeing that on the basis of the Astor Report one sanatorium bed and one hospital bed will be required for every 5,000 of the population, sixty-six sanatorium beds and sixty-six hospital beds will be required for this purpose in Gloucestershire, fifty-two of each for insured persons and their dependants, and thirty-five of each for insured persons only, and that allowing for the provision in addition of nine dispensaries only the estimated annual expenditure will be £7,366, whereas the 8d. available for institutional treatment of insured persons is estimated to produce £3,433 only, leaving £3,933 to be found from other sources for insured persons alone, or including dependants £6,679, or including the whole community £8,738; and whether, in view of the unwillingness of the already over-burdened ratepayers and their representatives to provide out of the rates the sum of £4,369, a moiety of the above amount, he will be willing, in order that the work may not be carried out piecemeal, but that this problem may be attacked as a whole, to provide a larger proportion than hitherto promised of the above deficit by way of an increased Exchequer Grant?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope to see a deputation of the County Councils Association at an early date with regard to schemes for the treatment of tuberculosis throughout the country. In the meantime I do not think that I can undertake, within the limits of a Parliamentary answer, an argument as to the detailed financial proposals of one county.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether the insurance committee for the county of Gloucester originally decided to provide for their tuberculous population nineteen dispensaries at an average distance of ten miles, so that such institutions might be reasonably accessible to all requiring advice and simple treatment, but that, when 6d. per head was deducted from the original Is. 3d. as representing domiciliary treatment under the arrangements for medical benefit, the number of dispensaries was reduced to nine only, the average area of such dispensary district being now 137 square miles; and whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer can state what is the area which each such dispensary ought to be made to serve?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The provision of dispensaries is a matter for the county council and not for the insurance committee. I am not aware that such a scheme as that referred to has been put forward, but even the number of dispensaries stated in the question to be now contemplated would seem to bear a very high proportion to the population as compared with the recommendations of the Astor Report.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are counties where there are large rural areas, and that as consequently there are greater distances for the population to travel, dispensaries must be more numerous?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree. I am only pointing out that they are considerably more numerous than the recommendation in the Astor Report-would warrant us in proposing.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Sir GILBERT PARKERasked in the ease of a young man whose home is in Chatham and whose occupation is in Gravesend, where he lives in rooms for the greater part of each week, from which place would he secure his medical aid if taken ill; or would he have the right to claim medical attendance in both Chatham and Gravesend, and secure a doctor from the panel in either place?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The insured person in question could choose a doctor from the Kent panel either in the neighbourhood of Gravesend or in that of Chatham. He could not be assigned to two panel doctors at the same time. If, after choosing a doctor in one of the

    1165
    districts, he could no longer obtain his services, he could notify the committee, whose duty it would then be to make arrangements for his attendance by another doctor.
    Mr. MORTONasked the Prime Minister whether the proposed Supplementary Estimates will contain a provision for carrying out the recommendations in the recent Report of the Highlands and Islands Committee as to medical service?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am afriad I can add nothing to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on this subject on the 20th and 23rd instant. The various Supplementary Estimates will be published as soon as possible.
    Sir ARTHUR GRIFFITH-BOS-CAWENasked whether domestic servants who are employed in two separate residences by the same employer at different times of the year are entitled to free medical attendance in each area under the National Insurance Act; and whether they are entitled to select a doctor from two separate panels?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Certainly, Sir. A domestic servant who at different times of the year resides in different areas, by giving notice on changing her residence to the insurance committee of the area to which she is going, will be able to select a doctor on the panel in the second area.

    VOLUXTARY CONTIBUTORS.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can now state the number of voluntary contributors under the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No, Sir, accurate information is not yet available. I believe about 10,000 voluntary contributors' cards have already been received from societies and about 200,000 cards for the third quarter have been applied for by societies in England for distribution either to their branches or to members direct. The number will, therefore, be something between these figures.

    SUBSIDIARY EMPLOYMENTS.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that there are a number of bank agents in the country whose work as such does not exceed one or, in some cases, two hours a
    1166
    day once or twice in the week while the agencies are open; that their remuneration for such work would be at a lower rate than £160 per annum if they were employed in whole-time service, but that their income from their concurrent and regular businesses and professions is often considerable, sometimes exceeding £l,000 a year; and whether, under these circumstances, he will include such agents among those obtaining a certificate of exemption under the National Health (Subsidiary Employments) Order, 1912 (No. 1)?
    Mr MASTERMAN: No cases of the kind referred to have been brought to my notice, and no application for exception has been received.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: If any such cases are brought to the right hon. Gentleman's notice, will he exempt them from the operation of the Insurance Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will certainly bring them before the notice of the Commissioners with a view to possible action.

    SUPPLY OF DRUGS (WEST BROMWICH).
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the West Bromwich list of firms from whom drugs and medical appliances can be obtained by insured persons under the terms of the National Insurance Act includes the name of a woman whose sole qualification is that of being a registered (not trained) midwife; and, seeing that it is a breach of medical etiquette for a practitioner to be associated in any professional respect with any person holding the position referred to, will he state what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I presume that the person referred to is a person whose name appears on the West Bromwich list as willing to supply drugs (other than scheduled poisons and medicines which require to be dispensed) and appliances. I do not know whether this person is a registered midwife; but, if she is, this would not disqualify her under the Act, nor, so far as I am aware, under any rule of medical etiquette, from supplying such articles to insured persons.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Is the lady in question qualified to dispense drugs?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Not unless she is qualified under the Pharmacy Act?
    Mr. NEWMAN: Has she an assistant to dispense drugs for her?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not know anything about that. If she is not qualified under the Pharmacy Act, she is certainly not qualified to dispense drugs.

    INSURANCE COMMISSIONS (APPOINTMENTS).
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the number of relatives and connections of officials and prominent members of large friendly societies who have been appointed to positions under the National Health Insurance Commissions; and how many of them were appointed as the result of open competition?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to Cd. 6095, 6231, 6540 and 6582 as to the methods of selecting persons for the different posts under Part I. of the National Insurance Act, and the names of the persons actually appointed with their qualifications. I do not propose to ask the Commissioners to make individual inquiries of each member of their staffs as to whether or not any of his relatives is an official or prominent member of a large friendly society.
    Mr. F. HALL: Were not candidates informed that a knowledge of the Insurance Act and of the rules of friendly societies and a Civil Service examination were necessary? Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the question whether any applicants have obtained positions as a result of such an examination?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That is not the question at all. The hon. Gentleman asked me if I would state the number of relatives and connections of officials and prominent members of large friendly societies who have been appointed to positions under the National Health Insurance Commissions. I do not know who their relatives are, and I do not propose to inquire.
    Mr. F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last part, as to the number appointed as the result of examination?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have referred the hon. Gentleman to three Command Papers, where he will find lull information.

    Calton Prison, Edinburgh.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland if he will say who were the owners of the site of the Calton Prison at the time the prison was built; whether
    1168
    the owners at that time were granted a charter of the land; whether a price was ever paid for the land; whether the estate vested in the Prison Commissioners by the Prisons Act of 1877 was vested subject to all liabilities affecting the land at that date; and whether the Prison Commissioners are bound to discharge those liabilities before transferring the land to any other Department?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I am not in a position to make an authoritative statement on the points raised by my hon. Friend so far as they relate to a period anterior to the date at which the site was by Act of Parliament vested in the Prison Commissioners. As regards the position under the Act of 1877, I can only refer him to the terms of that Statute.

    Small Holdings.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the commissioners of small holdings in Scotland are all whole-time servants of the Crown, or whether they have other outside duties and emoluments?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: There is only one commissioner for small holdings in Scotland; he is assisted by three sub-commissioners. The commissioner and the sub-commissioners are all whole-time servants of the Crown, and have no other outside duties or emoluments.
    Mr. WATT: Have they got anything in the nature of a directorship of a railway company, or industrial concern outside?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No paid office, I understand, at all.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked whether a number of applications for small holdings under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, from Hart-hill and the surrounding district were lodged with the secretary to the Scottish Board of Agriculture about May, 1912; if the right hon. Gentleman can state what steps have been taken to consider and deal with these applications; and whether the Commissioner for Small Holdings has yet visited the Harthill district or reported upon these applications?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; one of the sub-Commissioners to the Commissioner for Small Holdings has made inquiries in the Harthill district,

    1169
    but it has not been possible to discover any land available for the purpose of meeting the special demand of the applicants, most of whom are miners. I am informed that several of these applications are not of the ordinary kind for the purpose of cultivating the land.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that David Meredith applied to the Radnorshire small holdings committee for a small holding in March, 1908; that his application was in due course approved; that he has since repeatedly asked the small holdings committee to satisfy his approved requirements; and will he explain why no land whatever has been offered him during the whole of this period of four years ten months?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): Mr. Meredith applied to the Brecon County Council for a particular farm, but the council considered that in consequence of the heavy cost of making the necessary adaptations and repairs, the rent which they would have to charge would be too high. The owner offered another farm to the council for the purpose of satisfying Mr. Meredith's requirements, but he refused it.
    Mr. RENDALLasked whether James Edward Critchard applied to the Devonshire small holdings committee for a small holding in February, 1908; that his application was in due course approved; that he has since repeatedly asked the small holdings committee to satisfy his approved requirements; and will the right hon. Gentleman explain why no land what ever has been offered him during the whole of this period of four years, eleven months?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Mr. Critchard applied for a particular piece of land, which the county council were of opinion could not be taken without injustice. I am informed that he has received and refused several offers of land, and that the council have received no communication from him for over two years.
    Mr. RENDALLasked whether Samson C. Crocker applied to the Devon shire Small Holdings Committee for a small holding in 1909; that his application was in due course approved; that he has since repeatedly asked the Small Holdings Committee to satisfy his approved require-
    1170
    ments; and will the right hon. Gentleman explain why no land whatever has been offered him during the whole of this period of nearly four years?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Mr. Crocker applied for twenty acres, and, through the' intervention of the county council, he has been provided with about twelve acres. It was understood that this land satisfied his requirements, but he has recently applied for more, and I am informed that his, application is under consideration.
    Mr. RENDALLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that Thomas Titterton applied to the Derbyshire Small Holdings Committee for a small holding in February, 1908; that his application was in due course approved; that he has since repeatedly asked the Small Holdings Committee to satisfy his approved requirements; and will he explain why no land whatever has been offered him during the whole of this period of four years and eleven months?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Mr. Titterton applied for a particular piece of land, which could not be obtained for him without hardship to the existing tenant. He has recently been offered a holding of twelve acres in another part of the county, which he has refused. I am informed that, if any suitable land in his neighbourhood becomes available, the council will endeavour to meet his requirements.

    Glasgow (Court of Session).
    Mr. WATTasked whether Glasgow has recently, under an Act of Parliament, extended her municipal boundaries, and has now about 1,100,000 inhabitants; and, if so, whether the right hon. Gentleman will make representations, in view of these facts, to the authorities to have a branch of the Court of Session set up in that city, from which half of the legal business of Scotland emanates?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am, of course, aware of the recent extension, but I am not prepared to give any pledge.
    Mr. WATT: As this matter has been agitated for forty years, can the right hon. Gentleman not raise to himself a monument by bringing it into operation?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I will consider the question of the monument.

    Conviction for Begging (Glasgow).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether the Secretary for Scotland's attention has been called to the conviction of a child of eight years in the Northern Police Court, Glasgow, for begging on Christmas Day; whether he is aware that the police gave evidence that the father was a decent hardworking man, earning 22s. a week, on which he had to support a wife and eight children, and that the school board officer gave evidence that the child had made very good attendances at school, but the master's report was that lie seemed ill-nourished and sleepy in class; whether he is aware that the magistrate sentenced the child to be sent for eight years to an industrial school; whether he has communicated with the magistrate as to his reasons for imposing such a sentence; and whether he will institute inquiries as to the conditions under which this and other families with incomes of less than 22s. a week are living in Glasgow?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Perhaps the House will allow me to answer the question rather fully, as there has been considerable misapprehension about this case, which has been represented as one of a brutal sentence passed upon a mere child for a trivial offence. This is not a case of punishment at all. The magistrate acted under Section 58 of the Children Act, an Act which was passed, not for the punishment of little children, but to save them from the consequences of neglect. As the result of his inquiry, he came to the conclusion that it would be to the interest of the child that he should be fed, clothed, educated and taught a trade in an industrial school. I understand that my hon. Friend does not dissent from the magistrate's decision. The order of the magistrate places the child, who is nine and a half years of age, in a school until he is sixteen, but under Section 67 of the Children Act there is power by licence to permit the child "to live with any trustworthy and respectable person named in the licence willing to receive and take charge of him." From the information supplied to me by the assessor and clerk of Court, on behalf of the magistrate, I am satisfied that this was a proper case for applying the benefits of this Act. It was proved that the child was neglected, poorly clad, ill fed, was allowed habitually to wander through the streets late at night begging, and was in danger of growing up a mere street arab. It appears
    1172
    to me that he is just the type of child for whose benefit and reclamation industrial schools are maintained. As to the concluding part of the question, I fear I cannot in my reply deal with the vast subject raised. I hope that valuable results may ensue from the inquiries of the Royal Commission on Housing now sitting, but I fear a new inquiry would not be of much assistance. The facts of the problem of low wages are only too familiar.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that my concern is with the fate of the family of nine persons who are left behind, living on an income of 22s. a week and not having the benefit of the beneficent provisions of this Statute? If I address a question to the Prime Minister, will the right hon. Gentleman submit the facts to him in order that the Prime Minister may see whether he can appoint a Commission to inquire into the conditions under which families with small incomes live?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Certainly, I will be pleased to do so, but of course under the Children Act this child was taken up not for begging, though begging was the occasion of the order of the magistrate.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the other children have to go on the street to get the benefit of the Act?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I hope my hon. Friend will not put it like that.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the police officer gave a report to the effect that this child's attendance at school had been fairly satisfactory, and that the house and family were quite respectable; and are we to understand that owing to the poverty of families in Scotland parents are liable to have their children taken away from them by process of law for a period of eight years merely because they are poor?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No, Sir, that is not the reason. It is not merely because the child is poor, but because the child is neglected and is in peril of growing up as a danger to society. With regard to the question of the child's school attendance, it was very good, but the master reported that the child was very ill-educated, was very backward, and that he came to school sleepy and tired, which was to be expected from the way in which he spent his nights in the streets. I would request my hon.

    1173
    Friends not to ask me to discuss the facts about the parents.
    Sir W. BYLES: As a much more favourable colour has been put upon this case by the long answer which the right hon. Gentleman has given, may I ask whether the parents or the father were consulted and acquiesced in the course taken?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not able to answer that, nor is that necessary; but I would say that the essential point that I have given at greater length today was stated with perfect clearness in my answer yesterday.
    Mr. HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a child can be taken away from its parents without any sort of consent from them?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: In certain circumstances it can.
    Sir H. CRAIK: What is the object of the party behind the right hon. Gentleman passing the Children Act and then objecting when it is put in force?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I cannot understand it.

    Board of Agriculture (Secretaryship).
    Mr. HUNTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what experience Sir Sydney Olivier has had of British and Irish Agriculture?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have nothing to add to the answers which I have already given to many similar questions addressed to me on this subject on 9th and 14th February.
    Mr. HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Sir Sydney Olivier ever had any experience at all of English or Irish agriculture?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I answered that question quite fully on 9th and 14th.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    CHATHAM DOCKYARD (COMPENSATION CLAIMS).
    Mr. HOHLERasked the Prime Minister (1) who were persons constituting the Treasury when the claims of H. C. Lunn, then of 22, Cornwall Road, Gillingham, Kent; W. Scudds, then of 55, Baden Road, Gillingham; and G. Clark, of 26, Fair Row, Chatham, for compensation under the Government's scheme for com pensation (No. 116) in case of injury to workmen in Government establishments, were made; and which of those persons
    1174
    heard and determined their claims; (2) whether he is aware that H. C. Lunn, boilermaker in His Majesty's dockyard, Chatham, received a blow on the head, in October, 1908, causing injury to his brain; that in the month of May, 1911, the Treasury, after long dispute, admitted liability, but only awarded him eighteen-sixtieths of his wages; that Lunn then was, and has ever since been, wholly incapable of work as the result of the accident, and as the result thereof is now confined in the County Lunatic Asylum, Fareham, Hampshire; and whether, as the head of the Treasury, he will direct that the full sum to which Lunn is entitled under the scheme, namely, twenty-four-sixtieths, shall be paid to his wife and children, with arrears from the date of his discharge from the Naval Hospital, Chatham, or appoint a time and place when the Treasury will sit to hear and decide his case in accordance with the compensation scheme; (3) whether he is aware that George Clark, general labourer in His Majesty's dock-yard, Chatham, in October, 1911, lost the use of the top joint of the forefinger of his left hand as the result of an accident arising out of, and in the course of, his employment; that he has been refused compensation, though his medical man certifies that, in his opinion, the injury to a certain extent prevents the man following his usual employment, and is a disability and a cause of loss of power in the hand; and whether, as the head of the Treasury, he will direct that the man be paid compensation, or appoint a time and place when the Treasury will sit to hear and determine Clark's case in accordance with the compensation scheme; and (4) whether he is aware that W. Scudds, skilled labourer in His Majesty's dockyard, Chatham, in October, 1905, was caught in a drilling machine and had his arm broken in six places; that as the result of the accident the man, who had theretofore enjoyed good health, completely broke down, and was ultimately discharged from His Majesty's dockyard, Chatham, on the 30th May, 1912, his discharge stating that the reason was extended illness; that his doctor certified in July, 1912, that he had been treating Scudds for the last five years for neurasthenia which, in his opinion, was due to the above accident; that, notwithstanding these facts, compensation has been refused; and whether he, as head of the Treasury, will direct that compensation be paid this man or appoint a time and place

    1175
    when the Treasury will sit to hear and determine Scudds' case in accordance with the compensation scheme?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply. The hon. and learned Member is under a misapprehension in supposing that any hearing is permissible under the Government scheme for compensation. The claims referred to were decided by the Treasury in the ordinary course of Departmental business. In the case of H. C. Lunn, the injury in October, 1908, was a slight scalp wound only, and it was considered doubtful by the Medical Referee (then Sir Dyce Duckworth (15278/10), to whom the Treasury referred the matter, whether Lunn's breakdown from nervous debility eighteen months later could be attributed to it. The Treasury, however, gave him the benefit of the doubt, and he was treated in hospital, receiving half-pay at the same time, till May, 1911, when, as attacks of headache and occasional dizziness persisted, he was discharged with compensation at the materially impaired rate in accordance with the medical certificates under the scheme which he had accepted. I am informed that Lunn was admitted into Fareham Asylum on 24th December, from which date the allowance has been increased to the maximum rate. As regards George Clark, the injury has left nothing more than a slight limitation of the movement of the terminal joint of the left index finger, and it is not considered that his capacity as a labourer is in any way affected. He continued to serve until discharged until the age limit. In the case of Walter Scudds, the Referee (Dr. Sharkey (23830/12) advises that the attack of melancholia which occurred in September, 1911, cannot be connected with the fracture of his right arm six years previously, from which he made a good recovery, No medical certificate to the effect stated in the question has been received. Scudds has now recovered, and was offered re-employment in the dockyard, but it is understood that he has gone to Canada.
    Mr. CROOKS: With reference to the second question, surely the Government do not propose to save money because of the accident, and prevent the man's wife and child having the benefit?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If my hon. Friend will read the particulars which I am circulating, he will then see how the situation is.

    Purchases of Silver (India).
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if he will arrange for all the correspondence, minutes of interview, and other papers and memoranda relating to the arrangements made with the firm of Samuel Montagu and Company to be collected in one volume and issued for the information of Members?
    The PRIME MINISTER: A Parliamentary Paper of 153 pages has already been issued on the subject, containing all the correspondence; and the recommendations of the Finance Committee and the resolutions of the Council of India have been given in reply to a question. If the bon. Member is of opinion that there are any further particular documents "which should be published, I should be glad if he would address a specific request to this effect to the representative of the India Office.

    Women Suffrage Movement.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the number of cases in which persons were convicted and sentenced during 1912 for serious offences in connection with the Women Suffrage movement, ranging from attempted arson and murder to stone throwing; and in how many the sentence was remitted or reduced?
    Mr. McKENNA: I cannot give the figures as to convictions, but in 1912 there were 240 cases in which persons were received into prison under sentences for offences in connection with this agitation, and in eight-four of these cases the sentences were remitted or reduced.

    Churches (Scotland) Act, 1905.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the beginning of the present year there were in the Free Church of Scotland a total of ninety-eight vacancies out of a total of 174 churches or preaching stations; and whether he will consider, in these circumstances, the desirability of the Commission under the Churches (Scotland) Act, 1905, being again empowered to make a new allocation of property between the Free and the United Free Church of Scotland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I recently informed my hon. Friend, the statements of fact alleged by him are disputed by the authorities of the Free Church. In

    1177
    these circumstances I do not at present see my way to reopen the question.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the Prime Minister aware that out of twelve presbyteries of this Church in no fewer than eleven there are 50 per cent, or over of vacancies according to the official figures supplied, and in view of the facts of which I have given private information, will he not appoint a Committee to investigate?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is disputed in point of fact by the authorities of the Free Church.
    Mr. HOGGE: If I can give the Prime Minister accurate information that at the present moment one of the halls belonging to the Free Church and taken from the United Free Church is being used by a dancing master for dancing classes, and that the key is in the hands of a man who has been both in the Ecclesiastical and Criminal Courts, will he make inquiry?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly, that would be a very pertinent fact.

    Ordnance Survey Maps.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture the conditions, if any, subject to which copies of or tracings from Ordnance Survey maps may be made for use by surveyors, land agents, and other persons engaged in private business; whether any payment is demanded for the privilege of making such plans or tracings; and, if so, what is the reason for such payment in view of the fact that such survey is carried out at the expense of the public?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Ordnance Survey maps are copyright. They may be inspected at the Board's office at 3, St. James's Square, and I shall be pleased to send to the hon. Member a copy of the regulations for such inspection. The Board are always prepared to consider applications for permission to make tracings for some public object, or to reproduce parts of the maps for special purposes.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Has any payment to be made for such tracing?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will send the hon. Gentleman full particulars of the regulations. Of course the copyright cannot be copied without the leave of the State.

    Agricultural Credit Societies.
    Mr. HAMERSLEYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the joint stock banks which are willing to render assistance to rural credit societies will charge the societies for such assistance; whether it is contemplated in the arrangement made that the banks will make the bank profits on the loans they make to the rural credit societies as they arrange for in their ordinary business; and whether, in the arrangements made with the said banks, any maximum rate of interest that they may charge the rural credit societies has been fixed?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The banks have agreed to make no charge for advice given to the societies. With regard to the remaining parts of the question, no maximum rate of interest has been fixed, but the banks have undertaken to make advances on favourable terms.

    Cattle Trade Regulations.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that butchers before slaughtering animals invariably keep them fasting for twenty-four hours and consider it necessary to do so, and that practical expert men are of opinion that cattle fed and watered in Ireland at the port of embarkation would only be in the proper condition for slaughter in this country twenty-four to thirty-six hours after being fed at the port of shipment; and whether, having regard to the fact that if lie insists on the compulsory feeding of fat animals which are landed within a moderate distance from the place of intended slaughter it will necessitate the owner postponing the killing of the animals for at least twenty hours from the time of feeding on this side, and that this might inflict under some circumstances more cruelty than feeding would obviate, he will consider the advisability of modifying the regulations in such cases?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The requirement in the new Order that the animals shall receive a proper and sufficient supply of food and water has for many years been applied to foreign animals landed for slaughter, and I am not aware that it has caused any such difficulty as is suggested in the hon. Member's question. If difficulties arise in practice I am always ready to reconsider the matter.

    Sierra Leone (Messrs. Lever Brothers).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why special palm oil ordinances are required in Sierra Leone and the Gold Coast Colony to enable the grant of monopolies to Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited, while similar legislation is not necessary to the grant of similar privileges to that firm in Southern Nigeria?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The statement in the letter from the Colonial Office to Messrs. Lever Brothers of 10th December, 1912, printed in the published correspondence, is that it is not proposed to introduce legislation in Southern Nigeria unless it is shown to be absolutely necessary, which is not at present the case. I may explain that the late Governor was of opinion that any necessary arrangements could be made by means of local agreements with the native chiefs of the districts concerned; and, if this should prove to be the case, it will obviate the necessity for legislative action.
    Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there is a great difference in the laws relating to the granting of monopolies in different Crown Colonies, and will he try to get a common policy for each Crown Colony?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I think it is very desirable to attain gradual uniformity in the regulations.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Does the right hon. Gentleman afford any protection to the native chiefs in connection with the agreements they enter into?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The agreements made with the chiefs have to be validated by the Courts of the Colonies.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he complied with the request of Mr. James Jamieson Thorburn, Governor of the Gold Coast Colony, for copies of laws of a similar nature to the proposed Palm Oil Ordinance for the Gold Coast to enable preferential treatment to be granted to Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited, described by the Governor as, in effect, enabling the Government to grant a monopoly; or if no similar ordinance existed in British Colonies prior to 19121?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The hon. Member will see from the correspondence published in Cd. 6561 that the Governor asked either
    1180
    for copies of similar laws in other Colonies or for a draft of the proposed ordinance. I sent him a draft prepared by the Colonial Office.
    Mr. TOUCHE: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the latter part of the question, whether there is any similar ordinance in any British Colony, or whether any similar ordinance has existed in any British Colony prior to last year?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No, there could not be, as similar circumstances did not exist anywhere.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Would it not have been a good thing if there had been similar ordinances in British Crown Colonies, rather than selling the land to speculators?
    Earl WINTERTON: Is it not the fact that this is the largest monopoly ever granted to any one person in the Crown Colonies?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No. I think if the Noble Lord will refer to my right hon. predecessor who sits on the Front Bench opposite, he will find that is not so.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the right hon. Gentleman why, having informed Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited, on 24th February, 1911, that, as the facilities they desired were so unusual in character and would affect so large a proportion of the palm-bearing area, he was unable to meet their wishes in respect of a larger area in Southern Nigeria than one of five miles radius, he subsequently intimated on 19th February, 1912, that he would offer no objection to an extension of the area within which the rights were granted from one of five to one of ten miles in radius?
    Mr. HARCOURT: As will be seen from the correspondence laid before Parliament, Messrs. Lever's original request was for rights over an area of twenty miles radius, which was reduced to five in the offer of the Colonial Office. Ten was eventually agreed to after considering further the representations of the firm that that area was necessary to the effective enjoyment of the rights granted.
    Mr. TOUCHE: May I ask whether, in justification of their request for an increase from five to ten, they submitted figures of their experience, or whether any figures were asked for by the Colonial Office, as would be the case in an ordinary commercial transaction?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I could not answer that without notice, but I will gladly answer it with notice.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked if the application of Messrs. W. B. MacIver and Company, Limited, with whom Messrs. Lever Brothers, Limited, are associated, for rights for the development of the palm oil industry is restricted to the Gold Coast Colony; and if it has been granted, or any indication given that it will be granted, in respect of approximately 311 square miles?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I would refer the hon. Member to the letter from the Colonial Office to Messrs. Lever of 17th December lest, which is printed at page 44 of the recent Blue Book, Cd. 6561. Nothing has passed since that communication.

    Children Act.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the case of Sidney Smith, aged five years, who was charged at a London Court for wandering; if his father is a policeman in a Northern town, paying 2s. 6d. a week under a bastardy order; whether the boy will be placed in an industrial school, or if the suggestion will be considered of boarding out; and, if so, will the 2s. 6d. be devoted towards the cost of his maintenance?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I find on inquiry that this case is now on remand with a view to a place in an industrial school being found for the boy. The payments made by the reputed father are under an agreement and not under a bastardy order. Under Section 53 of the Children Act the managers of an industrial school have power to board out children sent to the school under the age of eight, and under Sections 75 and 125 the Court has power to order the putative father to contribute towards the child's maintenance.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the right hon. Gentleman if his attention has been called to the cases of K. D. and J. D., of Brixton, aged six and seven years, who have been taken charge of by the officers of the Children Act for residing in a house used by prostitutes; whether the police have taken any action in the matter; if both girls are suffering from contagious skin disease; and if he is aware where the children now are?
    Mr. McKENNA: My attention had not been called to these cases, but I have ascertained on inquiry that the initial action was taken by the police. The children have been certified by the London County Council medical officer to be healthy, and free from any complaint, and are in an industrial school.

    Disorderly Houses (Metropolis).
    Mr. BOOTHasked what is the latest period for which police statistics are avail- able; and whether the number of disorderly houses known to the police includes those known to the individual policeman on the beat or only those known to the officials at Scotland House?
    Mr. McKENNA: The latest available-statistics are those included in the Annual Report for 1911 of the Commissioner of Police. These show the number of proceedings taken against keepers of supposed disorderly houses. Should the constable on the beat have reason to believe that a particular house is being kept in a disorderly manner, it would be his duty to report the fact, and the information would be recorded.
    Mr. BOOTH: In view of the very small number of houses so reported, may we take it that the individual policemen on the beat do not recognise it as their duty to report them?
    Mr. McKENNA: No. I do not think that that would be a proper inference to draw.

    Juvenile Depravity.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to a recent case in which black men and white women were concerned and children of tender years were called by the police as witnesses; and whether the Home Office takes any steps in such cases to protect these children from sinking into a life of depravity?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have not heard of any case which answers to the description given in my hon. Friend's question.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the case was reported fully in some of the Sunday newspapers in London—Conservative newspapers—and that the judge in the case spoke very strongly about the position of the little girl, twelve years of age, who has been left in these surroundings?
    Mr. McKENNA: No. I have looked further into the matter, but I have not been able to trace the case so far. I regret to say that I do not read the newspapers referred to.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Home Secretary if he will constitute a special inquiry into the causes and possible prevention of juvenile depravity, particularly in the Metropolis?
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not think that a special inquiry such as my hon. Friend suggests could give any real assistance in dealing with this question.
    Mr. BOOTH: In view of the Home Office doing nothing, will they not consider it their duty at any rate to get acquainted with the facts, which are deplorable.
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend must not assume, because we do not propose to have a special inquiry that we are doing nothing.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Home Secretary if he is aware of the recent case of a boy who was transferred from the Penton-ville place of detention to a hospital suffering from venereal disease; and will he say if the boy is under twelve years of age, and what action the police have taken, if any, in this case?
    Mr. McKENNA: I find on inquiry that this is a case in which proceedings were instituted by an officer of the London County Council, and not by the police. The boy is, I believe, under twelve years of age, but the police have not any further particulars of the case.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Home Secretary if an application was recently made before Mr. Horace Smith for the arrest of a, boy, J. S., of Putney; whether an officer under the Children Act has since charged the boy for wandering; whether his mother has been reported to the authorities as an habitual prostitute, and if his stepfather lives with her and has no visible means of subsistence; whether the boy is being trained for a life of vice and now uses filthy language in ordinary conversation; and if he will inquire with a view to recommending the police to take action?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am informed that this case is still before the Court, and that so far as the police are aware there is no ground for the suggestion that the boy's mother is a prostitute, or that he is being trained for a life of vice.
    Mr. BOOTH: Was not the application for the arrest of the boy made by his own stepfather, who is a member of the legal profession?
    Mr. McKENNA: I will inquire into the case if my hon. Friend wishes. I am not aware of the fact which he states.

    Coal Mines Act, 1911 (Draft Regulations).
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked when the draft regulations under the Coal Mines Act, 1911, will be adjusted and issued in their final shape?
    Mr. McKENNA: If my hon. Friend is referring to the regulations as to hours of winding enginemen, the statutory inquiry with regard to these is now proceeding, and will, I expect, be concluded shortly. If he is referring to the main body of the general regulations to be made under the Act, these were issued in draft on the 9th of this month, and a period of fifty days has been allowed for the submission of objections by the owners or by the men. It is impossible to say at present when these will be issued in their final shape.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked whether the inspectors of pit ponies under the Coal Mines Act, 1911, have yet been appointed; how many appointments have been made; and how many inspections of each coal mine will be made in the course of a year?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir, the appointments have now been made. The number is six, as I have already stated. The last part of the question is, I am afraid, impossible to answer at present.

    Teachers' Deferred Annuity Fund.
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the President of the Board of Education what is the number of contributors to the Teachers' Deferred Annuity Fund, under the Superannuation Act of 1898, who, according to the official ledgers, on 3lst March, 1912, have not claimed the annuity to which they were entitled on the expiration of their certificate, after having attained the age of sixty-five years, and of whose de cease the Board have not been advised; and what is the total amount of the contributions which they have paid?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The answer to the first part of the question is thirty, and to the second part £78 4s. 4d.

    Bread (Prices).
    Mr. HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the average price of the 4-lb. loaf in this country and in Germany for each of the years 1906 to 1911, inclusive?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): No official price of wheaten bread in loaves is computed in Berlin. A statement showing the mean retail price of 4 lbs. of wheaten bread of household quality in London, and the official average retail price of 4 lbs. of household rye bread in Berlin in the years named will be circulated with the votes.—[See Written Answers this date.]
    Mr. HUNT: Is not the rye-bread loaf made of wheat and rye mixed?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I believe there is a mixture of wheat in it, but it is commonly spoken of as rye bread—the household bread of Berlin.
    Mr. KING: Is there not a very little wheat and a great deal of rye?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I believe that that is so.

    Imports and Exports.
    Sir JOHN BARRANasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the total amount of imports into and exports from the German Empire in the last completed financial year, including both sea-borne and land-borne goods, and what proportion of the totals are sea-borne goods; and if he will give the corresponding figures for the same period for Great Britain?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The value of the imports into Germany for consumption in 1911 was £477,200,000, and the value of the exports of domestic produce £398,600,000. No official information is available with regard to the relative amounts imported by sea and land respectively, but about 79 per cent, of the imports and 64 per cent, of the exports were received from or sent to countries with which trade is said to be carried on wholly or mainly by sea. In the same year the net imports into the United Kingdom (deducting re-exports) were of a declared value of £577,400,000, and the exports of the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom of a declared value of £454,100,000.

    St. David's Gold Mines, Limited.
    Mr. FRED HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the fact that, although the St. David's Gold Mines, Limited, has from time to time paid considerable dividends and thereby attracted fresh capital, no profits appear at any time to have been made; and if it is proposed to take action against the company, which is now practically without assets?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I have no information to the effect stated in the question. The matter is not one in which the Board of Trade have any jurisdiction.
    Mr. FRED HALL: Has not the Board of Trade any jurisdiction in similar cases? Is the chairman of this company Mr. Godfrey Isaacs, of Marconi fame; and is that the reason why no action has been taken?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I have stated that the Board has no jurisdiction.

    Established Church (Wales) Bill.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENasked the right hon. Member for Morpeth, as Chair man of the Public Petitions Committee, if he can state the number of petitions presented for and against the Established Church (Wales) Bill, and also the number of signatures; and whether, in the case of petitioners which have infringed the rule that the prayer must appear on each separate sheet, the names so infringing the rule have not been counted?
    Mr. BURT: Up till and including Monday (27th instant) 8,662 petitions, containing 2,108,631 signatures, have been presented against the Established Church (Wales) Bill, exclusive of those which infringed the rule that the prayer must appear on each separate sheet attached to the petition. Two petitions containing two signatures have been presented in favour of the Bill.
    Mr. KING: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how many of these petitions were signed in churches?
    Mr. BURT: No, Sir.

    Telephone Service.
    Mr. ALAN SYKESasked the Post master-General when he will introduce the system of charging telephone users by zone, which he is now considering?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): This question is being considered in connection with the general revision of rates for telephone service which is now receiving my attention.
    Mr. ALAN SYKES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us no idea as to when this will be decided: it is important?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, I am afraid I cannot at present fix the date. The matter is an extremely complicated and a very important one. I should not like to give a hurried decision.
    Mr. ALAN SYKESasked the Post master-General if he will explain why, in the scale of trunk telephone charges, the rising scale of 3d. for each twenty-five miles changes after 100 miles and is then increased, so that after 100 miles one pays at the rate of 3d. per twenty miles, and in addition one can only advance by forty miles at a time instead of by twenty-five miles?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The difference in the proportionate rates of charge for distances exceeding one hundred miles, as compared with the charges for shorter distances, was based on the relatively high cost of construction of long trunk lines, and on the great risk of interruptions, which increase the cost of maintenance and impair the traffic and earning capacities of the lines.
    Mr. ALAN SYKES: Will that be done away with, may I ask, when the zone system is established?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The whole of the facts will be taken into consideration. I cannot definitely say that it will or will not be done away with. But the technical considerations that I have mentioned in my answer will still apply.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Post master-General whether he will take action with regard to the delay that has occurred in the installation of telephones in private residences in Enfield and New Southgate; and whether he is aware that, on 7th October, 1911, a resident in Beacons-field Road, New Southgate, signed an agreement on the request of a traveller employed by the Post Office authorities, and that since that date, in spite of repeated applications, the authorities have failed to instal the telephone, though a communication has been sent to house holders in the district pointing out how
    1188
    desirable it is that telephones should be installed in their houses?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The delay in installing telephones in the Enfield district has been due to want of accommodation at the local exchange when taken over from the National Telephone Company. An extension, however, is nearly completed and will be available in the course of the next month. I am unable to trace among the applications for telephone service from residents in Beaconsfield Road, New Southgate, one made on the 7th October, 1911. Some general delay has occurred at New Southgate owing to the difficulty in obtaining the concurrence of the Middlesex Councils Association in a general arrangement as to the conditions on which telephone lines should be carried along roads controlled by Middlesex councils. Unfortunately, the association has not accepted the scheme, and each case has now to be settled separately.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    POST OFFICE.
    Mr. PIRIEasked whether the pro visions respecting the Post Office in the Government of Ireland Bill were submitted to the Committee of Imperial Defence?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. PIRIEasked the Postmaster-General whether he has received any com plaints from postal Civil servants in Ireland respecting the Civil Service pro visions of the Government of Ireland Bill?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Certain representations were made to me, which were duly considered at the time.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman has not received any representations since the Bill passed this House?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No; I do not think any representations have been received since.

    Technical Schools (Building Grant).
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary if his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the county Clare committee of agriculture and technical instruction calling attention to the necessity for a building Grant

    1189
    for technical schools; and whether he will take the matter into careful consideration?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): Yes, Sir; the Department has received this and similar resolutions from a great many bodies in various Irish counties. I regret that it has not been possible to arrange for such a Grant as is referred to in the question of the hon. Member.
    Mr. W. REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman continue to endeavour to make progress in this matter?
    Mr. RUSSELL: We have made many applications, but never with any success.

    Crown Jewels (Ireland).
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if any Crown jewels have been received either by gift or purchase in place of those stolen from Dublin Castle in 1907?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): No, Sir.
    Earl WINTERTON: Are we to understand that at the present time, officially speaking, there are no Crown Jewels?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No Crown Jewels that have been stolen have been replaced.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Chief Secretary whether Mr. Kane, at that time inspector in the Criminal Investigation Department of Scotland Yard, who was sent to confer with the Dublin Castle authorities at the time of the theft of the Crown Jewels in 1907, specified to those authorities any person or persons who in his opinion were likely to be concerned in the stealing or receiving of those Crown Jewels; and, if so, have steps been taken to watch the subsequent careers of those persons?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir. As I have already stated Inspector Kane did not indicate to the authorities any person likely to be concerned in the stealing or receiving of the Crown Jewels, and as stated by him in his evidence before the Committee of Inquiry, he has always been in entire agreement with the Dublin Police that the theft was the work of some person or persons with intimate knowledge of the Office of Arms. No evidence on which a criminal charge could be based against any individual has ever been forthcoming.
    Earl WINTERTON: Was Inspector Kane's report withheld from the Committee of Investigation?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know how that could be. I can assure the Noble Lord that the answer I have given is exactly in accordance with the facts.
    Earl WINTERTON: Was the whole of the Inspector's report given to the Committee of Inquiry?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir. The Inspector was there himself to answer all questions asked, and to give a full account of the circumstances.

    Ancient Order of Hibernians.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the resolution of the Fenagh, county Leitrim, branch of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, approving of the action of the United Irish League regarding certain land grabbers, and calling on the branches of the order at Mohill and Carrick-on-Shannon to see that traders in their towns should cease supplying any such people with goods; and whether he will state how many people in this part of county Leitrim are subject to boycott owing to the action of the Ancient Order of Hibernians?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have seen a newspaper report of the resolution referred to. The police inform me that one person in the district has been partially boycotted for some time, and that the passing of the resolution in question does not materially alter the circumstances. The police are watching the matter carefully.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
Colonel WILLIAMS: I beg to put a question to the Prime Minister, of which I have given private notice, if, under the altered conditions which have set free some days of Parliamentary time, he will give facilities for the discussion of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee —as it is one of the few occasions which the House possesses of effective criticism of the way in which the National income is expended.
The PRIME MINISTER: I doubt whether it will be possible to afford the opportunity that the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks for, but I will consider it.
Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every Session since 1906 he has promised a day, and will he not consider, in view of the earlier expected close of the Session, whether a day cannot be given?
The PRIME MINISTER: That suggests we have not had a day; we have.
Earl WINTERTON: Only one in three years.
Mr. WATT: May we take it that the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill has been abandoned by the Government?
The PRIME MINISTER: I should like to have notice of that question.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
  Further considered in Committee.
  ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL.
    SIXTEENTH ALLOTTED DAY.— [Progress, S2nd January.]
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
    FIRST SCHEDULE.

      Part I.—PHOI'EBTY VESTED IN THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS WHICH IS TO BE DEEMED WELSII ECCLESIASTICAL PROPERTY.
      (1) Property which does not belong to and is not appropriated to the use of any ecclesistical office or cathedral corporation, but which is, or is the produce of, or is or has been derived from, property which became vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners before the passing of this Act, and which immediately before becoming so vested belonged to or was appropriated to the use of an ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation in the Church in Wales, or the holder of any such office as such.
      For the purpose of determining what property is property within the meaning of the above provision any property situate in, or issuing out of property situate in, Wales or Monmouthshire which has been purchased by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall be deemed to have been purchased with the proceeds of sale of and so derived from property which immediately before being vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners belonged to an ecclesiastical office in the Church in Wales.
      (2) Property which belongs to, or is appropriated to the use of, any ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation in the Church in Wales, or the holder of any such office as such, and which is or has been derived from sources other than grants made by the Ecclesiastical Com missioners.

      Part II.—ADJUSTMENTS.
      (1) The Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall exchange such property comprised in paragraph (1) of Part I. of this Schedule as is property situate elsewhere than in Wales or Monmouthshire, or is property issuing out of property so situate, for all property vested in them which is situate in, or issues out of property situate in,
      1206
      Wales or Monmouthshire, and which became vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners before the passing of this Act, and which immediately before becoming so vested belonged to or was appropriated to the use of any ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation other than an ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation in the Church in Wales, or the holder of any such office as such, and shall deduct from the property comprised in paragraph (1) of Part I. of this Schedule such sum of money as the Commissioners may ascertain and by order declare to be due by way of equality of exchange.
      (2) There shall be charged on the property mentioned in paragraph (1) of Part I. of this Schedule so far as it is able to bear them, and so long as they continue payable, the sums before the date of Disestablishment payable by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners out of their common fund for ecclesiastical purposes in the Church in Wales other than the augmentation or Endowment of parochial benefices or towards the stipends of assistant clergy, and the common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall be exonerated from the liability to make such payments except so far as such property as aforesaid is not able to bear them.
      Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words: "Provided that, where any such property has been sold and the proceeds of sale have been united with other funds so as to become indistinguishable or has otherwise been applied so as not to be capable of exact identification, it shall not be deemed to be Welsh ecclesiastical property."
      I shall make my ground clear if I call the attention of the Committee to the importance of this Schedule and what it proposes to do. By Clause. 4 of the Bill it is provided:—
      (1) As from the date of Disestablishment, there shall, save as by this Section provided, vest in the Welsh Commissioners hereinafter mentioned—
      (a) All property vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty, which is ascertained as hereinafter mentioned to be Welsh ecclesiastical property.
      Then for the purpose of the ascertainment of that property we have to turn to the First Schedule, and we find that the First Schedule is a little difficult, and I hope the

      1207
      right hon. Gentleman will deal with the numerous points which arise upon it when he comes to speak. We find in Clause 4 that the property vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners is Welsh ecclesiastical property, and for that purpose the First Schedule provides—
      "Property which does not belong to and is not appropriated to the use of any ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation, but which is, or is the produce of, or is or has been derived from property which became vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners before the passing of this Act, and which immediately before becoming so vested, belonged to or was appropriated to, the use of an ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation in the Church in Wales or the holder of any such office as such."
      In passing, perhaps I may give my respectful compliments to the draftsman and call attention to the use of several curious words which he uses for dealing with his meaning. If you look at Clause 4, Subsection (a), you find how you are to ascertain the meaning of property, and you find in your First Schedule it is not a question of "ascertainment," but that certain property is "to be deemed," and in the second portion it is "to be determined to be." You have to follow certain rules. The draftsman, for his own purposes, has used the words "ascertainment," then "deemed" and then "determined." Whether these are the same or different operations it is not easy to see, and when we turn to the First Schedule, it is a question, not whether property is "ascertained," but it is "deemed to be." What is the property that is to be so dealt with? It is property which belongs to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and is purchased or has been derived or property which became vested in the Commissioners before the passing of the Act, and also which immediately before so becoming invested was deemed to be the property of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or people in the Church in Wales. You take all the property of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners which has been appropriated for the purpose and use of ecclesiastical offices or the people in the Church in Wales. I propose to add to this definition these words:—
      "Provided that where any such property has been sold and the proceeds of sale have been united with other funds so as to become indistinguishable, or
      1208
      has otherwise been applied so as not to be capable of exact identification, it shall not be deemed to be Welsh ecclesiastical property."
      The meaning of my Amendment is plain, but I dare say I shall be told by the right hon. Gentleman that he intended to meet the point I am dealing with in the second portion of the Schedule, namely:—
      "For the purpose of determining what property is property within the meaning of the above provision, any property situate in, or issuing out of property situate in, Wales or Monmouthshire which has been purchased by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall be deemed to have been purchased with the proceeds of sale of and so derived from property which immediately before vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners belonged to an ecclesiastical office in the Church in Wales."
      These words are not very clear, but I understand them to mean that if there is any property which is situated in Wales or Monmouthshire and it has been purchased by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whether they purchased it with money which originally came from property which belonged to cathedral corporations or was used for ecclesiastical offices in the Church in Wales or not, it is to be deemed to be Welsh ecclesiastical property. I may be wrong in my interpretation, that you are to look in this special Clause to the geographical position in judging where the property lies, and not to the source by which it is obtained and is in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. You are merely to look at the geographical situation, and, if it lies in Wales, then, whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners bought it with what I may call English money or money belonging to the Welsh Ecclesiastical Corporations, by reason of its geographical situation it is to be deemed to be Welsh property. I confess I do not understand the justice or the equity of that, and until the right hon Gentleman tells me that is what his purpose is, I shall assume that the Clause as it stands is somewhat imperfect, and that at any rate the draftsman has failed to grasp the meaning of the authors of this Bill. I propose to deal with this question in a simpler way.
      4.0 P.M.
      It is quite obvious you have two or three different kinds of property. You may have property situated geographically in Wales or Monmouthshire, and

      1209
      for all time—that is a comprehensive phrase—devoted to cathedral corporations or ecclesiastical offices in Wales; and therefore no particular difficulty arises from the origin from which that land has been derived or the purposes for which it is being used. Then you may have and you do have, in the case of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, a certain amount of accumulation of property which is to be invested. I think under the Statute from time to time when they effect sales, the Statute provides that the proceeds shall be put to what is called the sales account; and from time to time, as opportunity offers, they use the money that stands in the sales account for the purpose of purchasing other investments. So no doubt it happens very frequently that they have made purchases of land not limiting themselves to geographical areas, but also making purchases both of freehold rights and freehold land. Now is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to take what I may call, the investments of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners which happen to be situated in Wales? I cannot believe that. By reason of the fact that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from time to time make sales, all the produce of these sales go to their sales account, and it may well be that from time to time a cheque is drawn and used for the purpose of making any investment in Wales, not only including money which arises from the sale of land or other freehold investments in Wales but also money derived from some sales effected in England. Thus you get in certain eases mixed moneys used for the purpose of being invested. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman means to take all the Endowments in Wales dealt with by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners which could have been derived and paid for by moneys derived from sales in England or in Wales; but if the Clause stands as it is the explanatory Clause which is supposed to elucidate what is meant by Welsh ecclesiastical property would provide that all these sorts of investments would pass and would be deemed to be Welsh ecclesiastical property because the only standard by which you have to determine and the only canon by which you are to decide what is to be deemed Welsh ecclesiastical property is the geographical situation of the property. I want to have a complete explanation of the purpose of the
      1210
      right hon. Gentleman. I suggest that some words such as I have proposed in my Amendment are necessary to avoid what would otherwise be an injustice. My Amendment is brought forward for the purpose of preventing cases of investments where the funds have been united with Welsh funds, and have become indistinguishable, being taken. In those cases although it may be Welsh property I provide that it shall not be deemed to be Welsh ecclesiastical property. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain this point because I feel certain that the Clause as it stands goes far and beyond the purpose which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.
      I feel quite sure that it cannot really be intended that an inquiry should be set on foot into the books of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners over a considerable period of time to see what Church investments have been made, and ascertain the time when a particular purchase was made, whether they have recently and within the past five or ten years made sales of land in England or Wales, and so by a system of appropriation see whether or not this money used for the particular investment could be said to be derived from Welsh ecclesiastical property. That would be a process so inconvenient, prolonged and difficult, and so unsatisfactory to all concerned that I cannot think that that is the right hon. Gentleman's intention. The words I have put down would have the effect of eliminating all cases where there is doubt as to what was the source of the provision which was being used for the purposes of this particular investment; and unless we have some sort of words such as those which I have suggested, a long inquiry will be necessary, not leading to any useful result, but introducing perplexity into a problem which ought to be simple, and the purpose of which is to determine what has always been Welsh ecclesiastical property without going into a long inquiry in regard to property which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners may happen to hold in Wales, and which I hope the right hon. Gentleman has no desire to touch and certainly no desire to make Welsh ecclesiastical property for the purpose of this Bill.
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The hon. and learned Gentleman raises a point of considerable interest, but I think he will agree with me that it arises upon the second paragraph of the first part of

      1211
      the Schedule, rather than at the particular point where he has moved his Amendment. I think I can make the point clear, and I will explain quite briefly what the First Schedule means. The first part is divided into two sections. The first paragraph of the first Section describes the property of which we have constantly spoken under the total amount of £26,700 a year. That is to say, it is property derived from ancient episcopal estates now in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The second paragraph of the first part of the Schedule does not of itself determine what the property is, and the sole purpose for which the second paragraph is inserted is to determine what property is property within the meaning of the first part of the Schedule. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have got a certain amount of land in Wales, and what we propose under this paragraph is to enable them to pay the Welsh Commissioners as part of the capital sum, which amounts to £26,700 a year, the land which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners now hold in Wales, and those Commissioners have got to hand over to the Welsh Commissioners property, including land, to the extent of £26,700 a year. [An HON. MEMBER: "IS that tithe?"] It is tithe, land, stocks, and it includes a variety of investments. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners may hold a certain amount of stocks, but under the second paragraph we say that they shall be enabled to pay the Ecclesiastical Commissioners with the land which they now hold in Wales in order to make up the total of £21,700 a year.
      Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: In lieu of other property.
      Mr. McKENNA: Yes, that is the intention. We mean that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, having to pay over £26,700 a year, they shall be enabled to exchange part of that property for land and property in Wales and Monmouthshire. The amount of this land in Wales and Monmouthshire is very small, and therefore the effect of this paragraph would not be very large. Its sole purpose is to give a specific form in which the transfer of this sum shall be made, and include in that form all the land in Wales and Monmouthshire.
      Mr. POLLOCK: I have an Amendment later on to leave out that Sub-section, but I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has observed it.
      Mr. McKENNA: I will show that the hon. and learned Member's Amendment would not accomplish what he intends, although I see his object. I am not satisfied that the words in the second paragraph are sufficiently limited. The hon. and learned Member has raised a doubt in my mind as to whether they are sufficiently limited, and whether they might not have a wider interpretation than is intended. As a matter of fact, they could not have that wider meaning in the case of the words themselves, but if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners happened to hold a very large quantity of Welsh land, exceeding the total of £26,700, then I think the words of the second paragraph would be too wide. I will consult with my advisers as to whether the limiting words ought not to be introduced into the second paragraph. It might be convenient if I were to explain the purport of the second Sub-section of the first part. Sub-section (2) is necessitated by Clause 5 Sub-section (3) of the Bill, which provides that on the passing of the Act certain property is to be transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to disentangle. This Schedule relates to the date when the Act comes into operation, so that certain property will be invested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from the date of the passing to the date that this first Schedule will begin to operate. Subsection (2) of the first part refers to private benefactions of the balance of property under Clause 5, Sub-clause (3), and the proceeds of the sale of certain ecclesiastical property. A part of this property will be ultimately alienated from the Church, but this Sub-section is necessary as a consequence of the disentangling process which is to be undertaken by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners under Clause 5, Sub-section (3). As regards the Amendment, I think the hon. and learned Member will see that if these words are inserted at the end of the first Sub-section of the Schedule, the effect would be to remove from the category of Welsh ecclesiastical property, property which, in truth, ought to be so regarded because its origin was the same as the origin of all other Welsh ecclesiastical property. The mere fact that it has been sold ought not to alter its title, because ancient tithe and glebe have frequently been sold, and the proceeds invested in stocks, and those stocks ought to be treated as Welsh ecclesiastical property, just the same as the remaining ancient tithes and glebes. It will be seen that only Welsh ecclesiastical

      1213
      property can be alienated at all, and not all Welsh ecclesiastical property, because some of it now enjoyed by the Welsh Church is not to be treated as ecclesiastical property at all, but is to be handed straight back to the Welsh Ecclesiastical Commissioners. It is only the class treated as Welsh ecclesiastical property that may be alienated. If it is not to be so treated at all, then the question whether it ought or ought not to be alienated need not be considered.
      Mr. POLLOCK: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the words of my Amendment are "United with other funds, so as to become indistinguishable or has otherwise been applied so as not to be capable of exact identification." That is a limiting phrase.
      Mr. McKENNA: Although the property cannot be distinguished, the amount of money received as the proceeds of the sale is known, and it stands to the credit of Welsh ecclesiastical property in the books of the Commissioners, and there will be no difficulty in re-transferring the amount of money, although the particular properties on which the money came cannot be separately distinguished. I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman means that property, merely because it has been sold and converted into money, should no longer be treated as Welsh ecclesiastical property. I think I have said enough to justify me in saying if I satisfy him in regard to the second paragraph that our intention is solely payment by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the form of Welsh land I have really covered his purpose Perhaps, however, as the Debate proceeds we shall be able to see if there is some point of agreement between us.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The question is no doubt rather complicated. I am bound to say with regard to the second paragraph that I think some words are certainly needed, because otherwise, taking the words as they stand, it appears to me some of this money would be counted twice over. It looks to me as if under the words in the second paragraph the property now situated in Wales and in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners is an addition to what is ascertained in the first paragraph, and, unless some deduction is made, you will count twice over property which has been derived from the old capitular estates situated in Wales and Monmouthshire and now in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I think
      1214
      the Home Secretary will probably agree there is no intention to count that property twice over. My hon. Friend wants to ascertain the meaning of the words in the first paragraph, "or is the produce of or has been derived from." We must imagine the Ecclesiastical Commissioners owned a piece of land, say a farm, in Wales and sold it. The proceeds are apparently to be dealt with under this Section. What is it that is to be dealt with? Is it the original sale price or is the money to be followed through the whole of its history, so to speak? The money, for instance, may have appreciated in value. Are you going to take its present appreciated value or the original sale price? Again, it may have depreciated. Are you going to take the original sale price or its present depreciated value? These sales may have taken place a good many years ago, and the matter becomes exceedingly difficult when the proceeds of this particular Welsh property have been mixed up in the common fund of the Commissioners with the proceeds of sales of English property and the whole has been reinvested in perhaps one large property. If you do not take the original sale price, you have to ascertain what is the portion of the increment or decrement which can rightly be attributed to this particular property.
      What do you mean by these words, "or is the produce of or has been derived from"? What do they stand for? Do they stand for the original sale price or the present value? If they stand for the present value, I want to know how in such cases as my hon. and learned Friend mentioned, where the property is practically indistinguishable at the present time from other property, English property, with which it has been mixed, you are going to find out what is really the present value? There is the question of interest on the property sold and reinvested. What are you going to do with regard to that? Will the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have to account for every penny of the income? Supposing, in the case of some property, they did not give back all the interest straight away to the Church, but allowed it to accumulate, are you going to take that accumulation, which has probably been added to the original amount realised? That accumulation in strict equity ought to have gone to the Church before. It does not appear fair that you should now take it away from the Church. These are questions we want answered. We really do not know

      1215
      what the words mean, and I hope the Home Secretary will be able to explain them. They are very obscure at the present time, and I certainly think the Schedule requires some Amendment in order to make the position quite clear.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I am sure nobody on this side of the House will complain of the hon. and learned Gentleman having moved this Amendment and having asked for some explanation of this Schedule. Anyone reading it over without full possession of the facts relating to the property with which it is concerned must be puzzled. I rise for the purpose of doing my best to supplement what I thought was the very clear statement made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I am sure, as he said, he would be better able to deal with any drafting, or it may be substantial, points that may arise in the course of the discussion, he will not mind my giving my view, for what it is worth, about it. I had the advantage that I was a member of the Royal Commission which dealt with the property of the Church, and the first thing I did when I began to study the Schedule was to look at the Report of the Commission in order to see what the property described in the Schedule was, and I found exactly what the Home Secretary has said to be the ease, namely, that) it is what we call the £26,000 odd. It is property derived for what we may for convenience of debate call the capitular revenues of the Church in "Wales. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will turn to the Report of the Commissioners, he will find it clearly sets forth what properties come within the meaning of "property vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners which is to be deemed Welsh ecclesiastical property." I find it comes under these heads:—
      "First, Estates of Prebendaries and separate estates of Deans, Canons, and other Cathedral dignitaries and officers, which may have been vested in the Commissioners by virtue of the 3rd and 4th Victoria, chapter 113."
      That was one of the earlier Acts dealing with the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The second head of property vested in the Commissioners is—
      "Estates of Bishops transferred to the Commissioners in exchange for annual payments Out of the Common Fund by virtue of the 23rd and 24th Victoria, chapter 124."
      That is another Statute dealing with the bishops only. The third head is—
      "Estates of Deans and Chapters and minor Cathedral Corporations."
      1216
      That is to say, the corporate estates of deans and chapters as distinguished from property coming under head 1—
      "replaced either by other estates provided by the Ecclesiastical Corporations or by annual payments out of the Common Fund."
      That is done under another Statute, the 31st and 32nd Vic., chap. 114. Now we come to the fourth head, which, as I think, gives rise to the complexity to which reference has been made:—
      "Estates or investments representing the proceeds of sales of parts of the above-mentioned estates."
      The Ecclesiastical Commissioners appear to have had, and to have exercised, the power of sale and of reinvestment of the various properties which came into their hands. One would have thought the operations would not either have been extensive or very difficult, but the moment you come to investigate what the actual proceedings of the Commissioners were you find considerable complexity introduced. I do not say that by way of criticism of what was done by the Commissioners, but in order to explain the difficulty in finding out what exactly is Welsh ecclesiastical property even for the purpose of the Report of the Royal Commission. It becomes still more difficult when dealing with it by this Bill. Sir Lewis Dibdin, who gave valuable evidence, explained to us what took place when the Ecclesiastical Commission was first established and began its operations. The details of the operations extending over the whole of England and Wales, were necessarily numerous, and it is very difficult even for a skilled lawyer like Sir Lewis Dibdin to generalise in a few words the character of the proceedings. He said:—
      "Roughly, I think I am right in saying it is this: The Bishopric Estates were all transferred by a rather complicated process. They were first of all transferred to the Commission, and the Bishops paid salaries, but that was subject to new estates being allotted to the different Bishops instead of those salaries, and in certain cases they were so allotted; but that was a subject of a further condition, that, if the Bishops liked, they could transfer back again a second time their estates for management at the Commission, receiving from them the income which they were calculated to produce when they were originally granted to the Bishops: and all the Bishops that had new estates allotted to them have done so; so that at this moment all the old episcopal estates either belong to the Commission as it were, for their own, or are under their management, which practically comes to the same thing. Then, with regard to the Deans and Chapters, there was a similar commutation made with regard to them; they were transferred at different dates and under different Acts."
      Therefore, what appears to have taken place in regard to the estates of the Bishopric of St. David's, for example, is that, first of all, the bishop transferred the estates to the Commission and they paid

      1217
      his salary. The Commission gave him back the estates, and then a second time the bishop came to the Commission and transferred all his then estates back to the Commission in lieu of a perpetual annuity of, I think, £4,200 a year. I mention these facts, and I call attention to Sir Lewis Dibdin's evidence in order that the Committee may understand the difficulty in carrying out what is, after all, the very simply object of the Bill. There is no desire on our part to take any property other than property which was of Welsh origin, and the whole object of Clause 4 is to see that that object is carried out. These being the facts, let us see what is the definition in the Schedule. The Schedule is really a definition or description of the national property coming under the operation of Clause 4, Sub-section (1) (a). The Committee has determined that the Welsh ecclesiastical property is to be vested in the Commissioners, and the marks of this property are these:—
      "(1) Property which does not belong to and is not appropriated to the use of any ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation, but which is, or is the produce of, or is or has been derived from property which became vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners before the passing of this Act, and which immediately before becoming so vested belonged to or was appropriated to the use of an ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation in the Church in Wales, or the holder of any such office as such."
      The property to which that description applies is the property of cathedral corporations and the property of the Deans and Chapters of the Welsh dioceses. The moment you take into account what the actual facts are as to the operations of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the moment, you take into consideration the terms of Clause 4, you will find that some such definition as is contained in the Schedule is absolutely necessary from a business point of view, in order to carry out the object of the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for Dudley has referred to the words "or has been derived from." He wants to know what is the meaning of those words. He also wants to know what is the meaning of the words "or is the produce of." I think the answer is plain. If you take out the words the meaning of which he is asking about, the Schedule would read—
      "Property which does not belong to and is not appropriated to the use of any
      1218
      ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation, but which is property which became vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners before the passing of this Act,"
      and so on. There is no doubt as to what property is there referred to. I think the hon. and gallant Member will find an answer to his question as to what is meant by "is the produce of" or "is or has been derived from," in the fourth category of property, the existence of which is indicated—that is, estates representing the proceeds of sales as so derived from property which immediately before being vested in Ecclesiastical Commissioners belonged to an ecclesiastical office in the Church of Wales. These include the estates of prebendaries and the separate estates of the deans and chapters. That is clear. That is one class of property now vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners which is to be transferred to the Commission in exchange for a permanent annuity. The whole thing is a matter of account. Sir Lewis Dibdin told us of the methods of the Commissioners. The third category includes the estates of deans and chapters and minor deans and corporations, and the fourth category is one which you could not have a better form of words to describe it, "estates representing the proceeds of sales of part of the above-mentioned property."
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: At their present value?
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I am now dealing with the categories of property and with the method of determining what is Welsh ecclesiastical property under Clause 4. It would have been a very simple process if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had never interfered in these matters. But no doubt, by taking these estates from bishops, deans, and chapters, they have made it a matter of account, and the difficulty of making out what is Welsh ecclesiastical property comes under that fourth category. It is that fact which has made it difficult for us to get a better form of words than that contained in the Schedule.
      Mr. POLLOCK: What we want to know is from what, date these estates, representing investments, will count, and at what price?
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: Let me just show how difficult the matter is. It has not been relevant to our Debates, so far,

      1219
      for us to explain the details relating to these transactions with the Welsh bishoprics and the deans and chapters. As a matter of fact, there is quite an interesting history connected with these very corporations we are now dealing with. I do not think it would be in order for me to go into that history, but, as strictly relevant to this Schedule, there is one Statute I must refer to, and that is 6 and 7 Victoria, cap. 77, which is an Act for Regulating the Cathedral Churches of Wales. There it will be found what the existing arrangements are, and if the hon. Member cares to read the details and go back and inquire into the history of these things in the various dioceses he will find it a very interesting matter, and he will quite understand the difficulties which face the Ecclesiastical Commission in carrying out the distinctions they had to draw in regard to Welsh property. I quite agree that the Schedule is worded in a way which makes it very difficult to understand, but I really do not see how it can be improved. I am quite agreeable that, if any possible injustice is embodied in the words, and if the second paragraph in this Schedule is too extensive, that it should be remedied. That is the view of all hon. Members on this side. We have not the slightest desire to take advantage of obscurity of phrasing in order to obtain one single penny which we ought not to obtain under this Bill.
      Sir A. CRIPPS: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for calling attention to undoubtedly complicated Statutes. But what we really want at the present time is to understand what the Schedule really means as it is drafted. I understood the Home Secretary to say that the first part of it deals with what we know in the White Paper as the £26,700. I do not think there is any difficulty in identifying that sum, because it includes really everything held in the nature of Endowments, either by the bishop or the capitular bodies in Wales. It would leave them practically without a farthing. They are only to get the additional £3,000 voluntarily granted by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and which those Commissioners may, in the future, continue if they think well to do so. But as far as Endowments are concerned the £26,700 includes everything. This is obviously a matter of drafting. The Home Secretary used the words "ecclesiastical offices or cathedral corporations." "Ecclesiastical offices" would, of course, include all the benefices
      1220
      within the definition of the Act, and it would include incumbencies. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not mean that the words "ecclesiastical offices" shall include all that is derived from the various incumbencies. This is, of course, a technical point. I had to read the words over many times before I could understand what they really meant, and I had come to the conclusion that it was a capitular sum. I think the words "ecclesiastical offices" are much too wide. The definition is the same as in the Act of 1840, and it was there drawn in the widest form possible. But it goes much beyond the extinct prebendaries. As I understand the phrase, "ecclesiastical offices" would include every incumbency, and I want to ask the Home Secretary what he really does mean by it.
      Then I want to raise my second point, which is a very important one. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with the second paragraph of Sub-section (2) of Schedule 1, and seemed to think that it simply gave facilities for exchanging any property in Wales for any other property. Surely there he must be wrong. I think he must have been dealing with the wrong subhead, because everything which he said as regards exchange was that property in Wales might be exchanged against property in England, and that is what would come under the head of "Adjustments" in Part II. of Schedule 1. This sub-paragraph has really nothing to do with it at all, and it was in reference to this point that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington raised his Amendment. The sub-paragraph deals with a totally different thing, and it would be wholly inconsistent with any construction that has been put forward by the Home Secretary. It says that:—
      "For the purpose of determining what property is property within the meaning of the above provision, any property situate in or issuing out of property situate in Wales or Monmouthshire which has been purchased by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall be deemed to have been purchased with the proceeds of sale of and so derived from property which immediately before being invested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners belonged to an ecclesiastical office in the Church in Wales."
      It says that wherever the property is situated it is to be assumed it is property which belongs to the Church in Wales. The Home Secretary did not deal with this

      1221
      point in his explanation. It is not a question of exchange, for that is dealt with in another part of the Bill. The point is, Are you going to assume that property which is geographically situated in Wales or Monmouthshire is property which has been derived, before it came into the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, from Welsh sources, and is, therefore, to be despoiled so far as the Church is concerned. That is the point which was raised by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Pollock). What is the answer to it? I do not want to raise difficulties, but I have read this very carefully several times in order to understand it, and it appears to me, according to the view put forward by the Home Secretary, that the second paragraph ought to be omitted. That is the real answer to what he says. It is not wanted for adjustment purposes or for exchange. If it is not wanted for exchange, you are going to assume it is Welsh property because it is in Wales or Monmouthshire, although it might have been derived from English income, or have been part of old Endowments for English dioceses, although situated in Wales or Monmouthshire. That is quite wrong.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: If paragraph 2 stands, it will be subject to adjustment. It is really only a matter of account.
      Sir A. CRIPPS: I think the right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. You take account, of course, of property situated in Wales, and of the property situated in England, but it is an entirely different thing to say that because property is situated in Wales it is to be taken for the purposes of this Bill as Welsh property, and is to be taken away from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners as an ecclesiastical body and vested in the Welsh Commissioners for secular purposes. The paragraph reads:
      "For the purpose of determining what property is property within the meaning of the above provision any property situate in, or issuing out of property situate in, Wales or Monmouthshire which has been purchased by the Ecclestiastical Commissioners shall be deemed…"
      and so forth. That is wrong. I am sure the Home Secretary does not mean that.
      Mr. McKENNA: I did not say that.
      Sir A. CRIPPS: The Schedule says it in terms. Really this part of the Schedule
      1222
      has nothing to do with adjustment or exchange. I think the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate what I am saying. I can see no explanation whatever for this Schedule except a direction that certain property which otherwise would stay with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners because it was derived from Endowments, not in connection with Wales or Monmouthshire, but with other dioceses in England—it is a direction that although that property would naturally be English property, yet, if it is geographically situated in Wales or Monmouthshire, it is to be taken out of the control of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and vested, for secular purposes, in the Welsh Commissioners. I say quite frankly to my hon. and learned Friend that what we really want, even more than his Amendment, is the deletion of this second paragraph. It is a matter of importance that we should know what other purpose it can serve than that I have indicated. I do not want to be put off with anything except a direct answer to my question. If it stands as it is without Amendment, surely the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend is well justified, because it would mean that you get property which you could not distinguish as regards its object, because it is so inextricably mixed up. In that case the assumption ought not to apply.
      There is one other point the Home Secretary did not answer. That is with regard to the question of the date and price, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen), both of them very important points. If you are going to have adjustments as between properties and exchanges between properties, how are you going to adjust them without reference to the date at which they were purchased and the price at which they were bought? On any other basis you might get the most unfair conditions possible; you might get one property which was well purchased and which has appreciated in value, and another property which, for various reasons, has depreciated, and you might have those two properties set one against the other. We are considering this matter for the first time. It is a very important point, and I ask whoever replies for the Government to tell us whether this middle paragraph, when it is read through carefully, can have any other meaning, and I think it is a wrong meaning, than to divert property from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners into the hands of the Welsh

      1223
      Commissioners, whatever its origin may be, if it happens to be geographically situated in Wales or Monmouthshire.
      Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. and learned Member will be so good as to read the second paragraph and compare it with Part II. of the Schedule, which deals with adjustments, he will really discover that his criticism is without point. The second paragraph deals with property in Wales or Monmouthshire which has been "purchased." That is the governing word of the second paragraph, and the word to which he must direct his attention. That word does not occur in Part II. of the Schedule dealing with adjustments. The property now situate in Wales or Monmouthshire having been purchased presumably out of the purchase account, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, for whose benefit alone this paragraph is inserted, desired that that property shall be deemed to have been bought out of the Welsh money which has been paid into that account. You have got a Welsh property, a piece of land in Wales which has been bought by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners out of the fund, part of which has been contributed to by Welsh money and part of which has been contributed to by English money. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners, for the sake of simplicity, desire that this property shall be deemed to have been bought with Welsh money. To the extent that English money for this purpose is assumed to have been Welsh money, to a like extent the total of £26,700 a year will be diminished, and the balance transferred to the English account.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: That does not appear in the first or the second paragraphs of the Schedule. So far as I can make out the money will be otherwise accounted for.
      Mr. McKENNA: I am coming to the hon. Gentleman's point. I am, I think, dealing with the first point put by the hon. and learned Member, and I think I have satisfied him that it is not a case of adjustment.
      Sir A. CRIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman's reasons do not satisfy me. He has shown, up to this point, that although property has been purchased with English money, it is to be deemed, if it is in Wales or Monmouthshire, to have been purchased with Welsh money.
      Mr. McKENNA: I am coming to that. The hon. and learned Member's first assertion was that I had been reading from the wrong note, and had been referring to Part II. dealing with adjustments instead of the first part. I think I have satisfied him on that point. Now I will come to the meaning of the actual words, not to the intention of this paragraph, which is the intention put before me by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners themselves, but how far we carry out that intention by these words. In order to make that point quite clear, I propose to move to leave out the words—
      "For the purpose of determining what property is property within the meaning of the above provision. …"
      I propose later on to accept the Amendment standing in the names of the hon. Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) and the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare), to insert the words—
      "and a sum equal to the amount applied by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in such purchases shall be deducted from the produce of the property coming within the preceding paragraph of this Schedule accordingly."
      I will not undertake to accept that Amendment in the form of those words, because I must first consult my advisers, but I do undertake to insert, at the end of this paragraph, an Amendment which will carry out the purpose contained in those words and strictly limit the second paragraph to that meaning. I hope I have satisfied the hon and learned Member on both those points. There remains only the point of the interpretation of the words—
      "or is the produce of."
      The point raised by the hon. Member for Dudley was that he desired to know what date and what price would be taken. Date and price and the meaning of the words—
      "is the produce of,"
      will be the date, and the price and the interpretation which have been taken by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners when they made up their account and gave as a result of that account the sum which they now hold on account of the English Church in Wales, namely, £26,700 a year. All that we have done in this Bill; all that we have done so far and what we propose

      1225
      to do unless we are pressed to do the contrary, is to take the accounts furnished independently by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the year 1906 and accept those accounts as accurate. What we have done in this paragraph is to put into language the figures £26,700 a year. We propose to go upon the figures furnished by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. If the Commissioners tell us, which they have not, that these words are inaccurate in describing the amount they have given to us as the true amount, of course we should have to alter the words, but we should still adhere to the figure £26,700 a year. We are quite satisfied that the first paragraph does, in somewhat difficult, although I will not say obscure, language accurately describe that sum of money. It is upon that basis we are proceeding, and upon that basis we propose to proceed throughout in the construction of the Financial Clauses of this Bill. We have taken the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' figures, and we do not propose to depart from them.
      5.0 P.M.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not wish to say anything about the first two points with which the right hon. Gentleman has dealt, because I do not think that either of them really arises, strictly speaking, upon this Amendment. The point which I think does arise is the third one. I must admit that I am not satisfied with the words ho has chosen. I am quite satisfied with his intention, as he has expressed it here. This is a very technical matter and a difficult one to discuss in Committee of the Whole House, but this is the argument I desire to present to the right hon. Gentleman. The words are—
      "property which…is, or is the produce of, or is or has been derived from property. …"
      which came from ancient Endowments. Those words seem to me to mean this, and can only mean this: That you are to take whatever now represents the original Welsh ecclesiastical property, that is to say, supposing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners some time back sold land in Wales and invested the proceeds in urban property, you are to take the full value at the present moment of that urban property. It may be very much more valuable than the property they originally sold, but you are to follow that because that, would be the produce of or derived from the original property. It seems to me, although I am not familiar with Chancery practice, the kind of words which accurately describe a
      1226
      proceeding known as following trust funds. You have got to pursue the original property, find out what now represents it, and take that property as Welsh ecclesiastical property. I do not understand from the Home Secretary that that is what he intends, but it shows the complexity of the matter. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Brynmor Jones) also understood these words in the same sense as I understand them, because he thought they were covered by the words he read out, "investments representing the sale of parts of the above property," that is to say, in whatever form you now find the proceeds of these sales you are to take that. That is quite a different proposition, and you will entirely upset your £26,700, or any other sum, because you cannot tell what it may be until you have made calculations and found exactly what now represents the proceeds of ancient property. That is a very important matter.
      I am not quite satisfied that the words of the Amendment meet the difficulty, yet they meet this part of it at any rate, that you are not to take property which has been partly bought with what I will call Welsh money and partly with English money, and then, since you cannot make any accurate division as to which part of the new investment represents Welsh money and which represents English money, take the whole of it for Welsh property. That is the danger my hon. and learned Friend aims at, and it is a serious danger which ought to be guarded against. These words seem to me much too wide, and likely to lead to very serious difficulty, and the matter is made much more difficult by the existence of the second paragraph. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in his account of the second paragraph, but it really says that where the Ecclesiastical Commissioners find themselves in possession of Welsh real property that is to be deemed to have been derived from Welsh ecclesiastical property; that is to say, that you are in that case to take the existing Welsh real property as the produce of the ancient Endowments which by hypothesis have been sold. You are directed in the second paragraph to follow to that extent, and you are given an artificial method by which you are to follow in that particular case the proceeds of the ancient Welsh property. There may be some excellent technical answer to the argument I have presented, but if there is not, I am sure the Government

      1227
      must see that that is a point which ought to be guarded against. The Home Secretary and I both agree to accept these words as carrying out our intentions. I do not wish on this occasion to impugn the good faith of the Home Secretary or the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I accept that as an accurate statement of what really are the facts of the case. But that is not really a complete answer, because it may not be the present Home Secretary and the present Ecclesiastical Commissioners who will have to decide it, and it may have to come before a Court of Law. Therefore, I ask that the Government will take this part of the Clause very carefully into consideration, and if, on consideration, they or their advisers think these words are not satisfactory for carrying out our wishes, they will bring up other words on Report. I admit it is not easy to suggest words on the spur of the moment which will meet the difficulty.
      Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: When this discussion started I thought I understood what the Schedule was about and I thought I understood the Amendment, but after hearing the discussion I am very doubtful whether I understand either the Schedule or the Amendment. Let me say what I thought was the meaning of the Schedule. There are certain episcopal and capitular estates which were handed over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners after the Act of 1836, and those of them which are still in the possession of the Commissioners are to be deemed to be ancient property. So far there is no difficulty at all. But there is a portion—how much one cannot say—of those estates which have been sold. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Guest) asked, last May, what the net revenue of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the year ending March, 1911, was in Wales and Monmouthshire originally belonging to the Welsh bishoprics, chapter, and other ecclesiastical offices, and the answer was that the total was £23,504. Then the Ecclesiastical Commissioners went on to say that the Commissioners had not got separate accounts, and it was not therefore possible, without investigation of transactions of that nature and the application of the proceeds thereof during the last sixty years to state what part of the income of the Commissioners is derived from the proceeds of the sale of such estates. Therefore the position last May, as I take it, was that the Commissioners knew that the
      1228
      revenue of the old episcopal and capitular estates still in their possession amounted to £23,504, but there was some more income derived from Welsh ecclesiastical property originally which had been sold. Another question was put a few days ago and the answer agreed precisely with the figure given in the White Paper which was distributed by the Home Secretary some two months ago. That is the figure which the Home Secretary has given us to-day. He says that the total income of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from these episcopal and capitular estates, including the income from the proceeds of the sales, amount to £26,700. If that be so, and if the answer in May last be correct, the revenues derived from the proceeds of the sales are the difference between £23,500 and £26,700.
      Mr. McKENNAmade an observation which was not heard in the Gallery.
      Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I do not know the whole facts. At all events it seems to me that there is a sum of £3,000 or £4,000 a year derived, in part at all events, from the proceeds of these sales, and the only caveat I wish to enter is that the Home Secretary should not assume too readily that the £26,700 represents the total revenue derived by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from existing ecclesiastical revenue or from sales or the proceeds of the sale of those ecclesiastical revenues during the last sixty years.
      Mr. McKENNAmade an observation which was inaudible.
      Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I am in the dark in the matter, and my right hon. Friend is well informed, but I should like him to tell us exactly how we stand. The effect of the Amendment would be this. To take a concrete case, suppose that certain ecclesiastical property in Wales had been sold by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for £1,000, which had been added to another £1,000 derived from English sources and that £2,000 worth of stock had been bought. In that case the Welsh £1,000 would become indistinguishable from the English £1,000, therefore no part of the property could ever any more be looked upon as Welsh property. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that that is hardly fair to Wales. If the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have dealt properly, as I have no doubt they have, with these funds, and have used these two

      1229
      funds as one, and it is impossible to ascertain how much was derived from Welsh and how much from English sources, I do not see why there should be a presumption in favour of England any more than a presumption in favour of Wales, and I appeal for once to the generosity of hon. Members opposite, if there is any doubt, to let the Ecclesiastical Commissioners discharge the onus and show that the property which became indistinguishable in this way is English property and not require the Welsh Commissioners to prove the contrary.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: In view of the statement of the Home Secretary that if the words of the first paragraph of the Schedule are not considered by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to be satisfactory he will consider an Amendment, I ought to say we quite accept what I understand is the doctrine underlying these words, that the figure of £26,700 a year should be taken as the sum representing what is, or has been derived from, or is the proceeds of the sale of these old estates. But I am informed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that they are not satisfied that these words will necessarily carry that interpretation. Their view is that they may or they may not, and that other interpretations are possible. Clause 5, Sub-section (4), says that any order made under this Schedule has to be made with the concurrence of the Welsh Commissioners. The Welsh Commissioners may be a very hostile body. We do not know. At all events, they may take a totally different view from that taken by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and in view of that the sum of £26,700 may not, in their view, be the proper sum. If it is the intention of the Government, as I understand it is, to take that sum, we may rightly claim that words should be introduced which will satisfy the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that that intention will be carried out. Therefore I want to ask the Home Secretary if he would be willing, on Report, if pressed to do so by the representatives of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to insert other words which will make it perfectly clear that the £26,000 and nothing else would be taken as the amount to be handed over under the first paragraph of the Schedule?
      Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: An hon. Member opposite raised the question as to what will become of the accumulation of income in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I should like to know from
      1230
      the Home Secretary what is the sum, if any, in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners which represents the accumulated income of the capitular estates in Wales? I go further than that. We are not to assume that the figures supplied by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners so far are correct. On one occasion in Committee I had very considerable difficulty in extracting any information as to the real position of affairs. I asked, for instance, what property was represented by the £26,700 of net income. On a later occasion I put down a question to the hon. Member for Doncaster (Sir Charles Nicholson), who represents the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in this House. In reply he said:—
      "The sum of £26,700 is the net annual income of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from property or the proceeds of property, or the proceeds of sales of property, or interests in property formerly belonging to bishoprics, chapters and cathedral dignitaries of the Church in Wales, or bought with the proceeds of sales of other property, excluding income from property in Wales and Monmouthshire derived from English Church preferments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1912 col. 1734.]
      Under these circumstances I do not quite understand whence arises the difficulty suggested by the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member. Surely, if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners know what is the precise income received from this property, they must have full knowledge of what these funds are. I pointed out that the real income is not £26,700, but £28,700. I think it is rather material to point out that from the sum of £28,700 which is received from these estates in Wales there is going to be deducted a sum of £l,500 for the college at Lampeter and £450 towards, the maintenance of Welsh Church, services in London. That brings the sum to £26,750. On this point I understood, and I think others understood, that the amount coming to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was going to be a matter of inquiry, not alone by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but also by the Welsh Commissioners, and that, failing agreement on that point, there was to be an appeal, if necessary, to the Privy Council. I would appeal to the Home Secretary to say again that that is the object of the Government, and that it is the provision in the Bill. The answers given by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners so far have been neither full nor, in my opinion, fair. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] I say they have been neither fair nor full. I say so because my hon. Friend the Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs (Mr. W. G. Gladstone) quoted

      1231
      a statement by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to the effect that they could give no information as to the amount realised for the various sales of property, while six months later they gave definite information as to the nature of the property which is now vested in them. I say to the Home Secretary that it should be distinctly understood that inquiry is to be made as to the amount and value of the property, not alone by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but also by the Welsh Commissioners.
      Sir A. CRIPPS: In dealing with a matter of drafting I hope we shall not be led away by the speech of the hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Ellis Davies) as to what he calls the unfairness of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I thought if there was a fair body in this country it was the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
      Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: What I said was that their answers have been neither full nor fair.
      Sir A. CRIPPS: I think that is a reflection which ought not to be made on that body, or the representative in this House. I am not going to follow it. What I was going to point out was this: I am dealing with the White Paper. The Home Secretary told us in regard to this complicated Schedule that the £29,700 is the figure taken in 1906. That was the basis of the White Paper. On this side we all accept entirely what he has said. Might I suggest to him as a matter of drafting that, taking this figure as the basis, a far more simple form of Schedule could obviously have been produced than we have here. I would ask him to look into the matter of drafting in order to carry out as early as possible what his view is. I should think that would be a satisfactory termination. I do not think we should carry it further at the present time. Once you get the figure you want, I do not think the drafting ought to be difficult.
      Mr. McKENNA: I am very unwilling that there should be any misunderstanding on this matter. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners in 1906 arrived at the amount, namely, £26,700 a year, as the result of certain calculations. We propose in this Bill to go through the same calculations. I do not say that the figure is now necessarily £26,700. In 1911 it might be £l,000 or £2,000 more or less, but whatever the method adopted by them
      1232
      in 1906 I propose that in this Bill we shall adopt the same method. I would say to my hon. Friend (Mr. Ellis Davies) that really there is no course open to him, unless he wishes to embark on litigation which could have no ending, except to accept the figures of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. They have been the trustees of this property for upwards of eighty years, and they alone have, or can have, the necessary information. I would submit that they have conducted their work admirably. Their statements have been made in public, and they are implicitly to be trusted. In 1006 the calculations were made for entirely independent purposes, and the Commissioners have reported certain statements of accounts. I think we may fairly accept these statements, particularly as we have no alternative. I think there can be no objection to accepting them publicly now.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I understand you to mean the new calculations which are to be made?
      Mr. McKENNA: In drafting a Bill we have to provide for all contingencies. I am not without hope that in regard to many of the controversial points, such as the sums to be paid under the Commutation Clause, the particular application of the Schedules, the accounts which are to be taken as final between parties as estimating the total of the proposals, in the final stage of this Bill we may come to an agreement upon a figure which will be satisfactory to both sides, so that we may get rid of these very difficult problems, which are almost impossible to settle except by agreement. No accountant could go through the books of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and give any independent report unless he was assisted by the Commissioners, and consequently in all matters of this sort in the last stages of the Bill I hope we will come to agreed figures which have been publicly applied for.
      Mr. POLLOCK: I desire to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, but before it is withdrawn I would like to say a word or two. I confess that if the Bill is to go through, I think the hope expressed by the Home Secretary is one which will be welcomed on both sides, provided that the hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Ellis Davies) does not make any more speeches such as that he has made this afternoon. It was the only unfortunate speech which has been made to-day. He has made a

      1233
      sort of speech which almost prevents one withdrawing the Amendment or doing anything reasonable. We have a return presented, not only by the Welsh Commissioners, who are far too important a body to take any notice of the observations of the hon. Member for Carnarvon, but presented also by the Under-Secretary for the Home Department, and at least in this House we may trust him not to put his name to and take the responsibility for figures he disbelieves, or which were obtained from any but a trustworthy source. It is a return showing in detail the amount of endowed revenue of the Church of England in Wales, and its proposed allocation under the Established Church (Wales) Bill. The hon. Member will find that at page 5, the figure £26,700 does appear, and that the Home Secretary is right in giving it to the House as the figure which it is proposed shall be dealt with and allocated under this Bill. I hope we may not only accept the figure of the Home Secretary, but the statement of the Under-Secretary, that this is the sum he proposes to deal with in the Clause. I hope the Home Secretary may be able to make the Clause clearer on the Report stage. I would make a suggestion to him. Part I. deals with the property to be vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and deemed to be Welsh ecclesiastical property. It really would be very simple to add a little to that title. I understand from his last answer that he would be prepared to accept some words like these: "Such sums being the annual value of £26,700." I think that was the ascertained figure as shown in the White Paper.
      Mr. McKENNA: In 1906.
      Mr. POLLOCK: I agree. The Home Secretary knows what this sum is. It can be rendered certain by the process which he knows will be followed. Therefore, it would really not be very dim cult to add a word or two to the name or title of this property dealt with in Part I. I hope the right hon. Gentleman or the draftsman may think of a phrase which would identify the sum of £26,700 with the property to be dealt with. Having elicited that reply from the Home Secretary, who has fairly met us and explained what the Clause means, and inasmuch as he is prepared to move an Amendment on Part I., and to accept the Amendment which stands in the names of my hon. Friends the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare) and the
      1234
      Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen), I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: In a Debate, of this kind dealing with funds of such magnitude, I wish to know whether it is the suggestion of the, hon. Member that nobody on this side of the House is to be permitted to say if they will accept the-accounts of this public body as supplied by themselves.
      Mr. POLLOCK: I did not say that.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: The hon. and learned Gentleman certainly, I thought, was a little severe on my hon. Friend, but if we do look a little critically upon the answers given by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, they have themselves alone to blame. When Sir Lewis Dibdin, in answer to the request of the Royal Commission on the Welsh Church came before us to give evidence, we felt greatly obliged to him for the trouble which he and those working with him had taken about the matter. But I ventured to ask him—
      Mr. POLLOCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman in order, on a question asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, in going into what was said at the Commission?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): Yes, quite in order. The effect is that the Amendment cannot be by leave withdrawn.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I am only explaining why we are not going to receive every answer given by the Ecclesiastical Commission as necessarily true. I asked, on the Welsh Commission, whether they would give particulars of the estates transferred by the four Welsh bishops to the Ecclesiastical Commission, and the answer that Sir Lewis Dibdin gave was—
      "If you mean farm by farm, the answer I have already given is the answer I give again, that the Commissioners never give particulars of that, kind."
      Then I went on—
      "But yon have got the information?—Yes.
      "Then it follows that, it does not matter in what form the Order in Council was. …An account of these parcels of the estates must be kept somewhere? —Yes.
      "And you know what the estates consist in?—Yes, certainly.
      "Is there any objection to the Commission being furnished with particulars of parcels of the episcopal estates of the four bishoprics?—Yes? think there is a general objection against the Ecclesiastical Commission giving-information of the kind except, of course, under some statutory authority where they are bound to do so."

      1235
      We had no authority to compel him to say any more, and the matter stopped there. I mention this to explain why we should not be inclined to accept as a matter of course anything that comes from the Commission. I believe that they are doing their best, but I do object to any remarks being made in regard to my hon. Friends who think on an occasion of this kind that it is perfectly relevant to ask questions as to whether the answers-of the Commission are or are not correct. Having made this explanation, I have no objection to the withdrawal of this Amendment.
      Sir C. NICHOLSON: Perhaps it would be well if I just read the exact figures, so far as it is possible for them to be obtained. The net income of the episcopal estates naturally varies from time to time, but so far as it can be ascertained if is approximately £36,150 a year. From that has to be deducted £1,950, which has been alluded to by the hon. Member, consisting of £1,550, a charge for Lampeter College, and £400 for the benefit of certain Welsh Churches in London. That leaves £34,200. From that has to be deducted -a sum of £7,500 a year, which is put down -as the value of English preferments in Wales. This leaves £26,700, which was the actual sum I gave in answer to a question in the House some time ago.
      Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: There is no mention of the sum of £2,000, which is deducted. One might really gather from the White Paper that the £26,700 is the total income. The net income which is going to be banded over now, is the sum after the deduction of £2,000, £l,500 going to Lampeter College and £500 to the Welsh Church extra for the maintenance of the Welsh Church.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. HOARE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "such" ["or the holder of any such office as such"], to insert the words
      "subject to a deduction from the produce of such property of the value of any property which has been annexed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners by way of grant in specie to an ecclesiastical office or corporation of the Church in Wales or the holder of any such office as such, and which immediately before becoming vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners belonged to or was
      1236
      appropriated to the use of an ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation of the Church of England in England or the holder of any such office, as such."
      This Amendment raises a point which is somewhat less complicated than that which we have been discussing, but is none the less an important point. It deals with a sum of gross revenue of £3,373 a year, which I hope to show that the Church in Wales is entitled to keep, under the principle which underlies the Bill. The Committee will remember that there are two kinds of English property in Wales. First, there is property which belongs to English sees and English chapters. It amounts in gross value to £9,152 of corn-mutated tithe rent-charge, and brings in a net income of between £2,000 and £3,000 a year. Against that there is a small sum, property which belongs to the Welsh chapter and bishoprics which is situated in England. In the second portion of this Schedule a readjustment is to be made between these two sums. The one is to be set against the other, and any balance or deficit there may be is to be made up. My Amendment does not touch that kind of property. It touches the second kind of English property in Wales which I hope to show was just as much English property as the property which still actually remains in the names of the English corporations, and is situated in Wales; and that on that account it should be retained by the Church. I refer to certain property which until quite recently belonged to various English chapters and English bishoprics.
      I take two examples—a certain amount of property which belonged to the chapter of Gloucester, and also some property which belonged to the Dean and Chapter of Westminster. The property, as a whole, amounts to about £3,373 a year. What has happened to this property is this: Under the arrangement made at the time the property was transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commission in 1836 and subsequent years, but since then it has been annexed to various benefices and other ecclesiastical purposes in Wales. The point to which I wish to draw the attention of the Committee is that this property technically and by all reasons of justice should still be regarded as English property. No one maintains that it is Welsh in its origin. Until quite recently it was the property of the Dean and Chapter of Gloucester and of Westminster, and other English corporations, and under every I canon by which you have tested this Bill,

      1237
      that property should now be retained to the Church in Wales and not secularised, as it would be under this Schedule in its present form. There is this further point. It would have been quite possible for the Ecclesiastical Commission not to have annexed this English property to Welsh benefices at all, but to have left it on their books and to have paid the proceeds year by year to various purposes in Wales. If the Ecclesiastical Commission had adopted that system of making the grants, the property could not under this Schedule be secularised at all.
      In other words, it conies to this, that you are penalising the Ecclesiastical Commission because it has annexed certain property to Welsh churches instead of leaving it on its books in another way which it might equally have done. Surely it is very unfair to take a technical point of that kind and, because the Ecclesiastical Commission has made its grant from English funds to Welsh purposes in a particular way say that the property should on that account be confiscated. That is altogether in contravention to the principle which has been adopted under this Bill in dealing with the other Ecclesiastical Commission grants and Queen Anne's Bounty. The Committee will remember the distinction which has been drawn between money which comes from English sources and money which comes from Welsh sources, and because a sum of £50,000 a year comes from English proceeds on that account the Welsh Church is to retain it. Certainly I cannot see any reason that would justify the taking of this £3,000 a year, which until thirty or forty years ago was English property appropriated to English chapters and bishoprics, and secularising it. I cannot help thinking that here, again, it must be a ease of careless drafting of the Schedule and that the Government could not intend to deprive the Welsh Church of this small sum, which by every test should be regarded as coming from English sources, and, therefore, should not be secularised, but should be left for the enjoyment of the Welsh Church.
      The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY (Mr. Hobhouse): The hon. and learned Gentleman who has moved this Amendment has truly said that there are in question two kinds of property, that which particularly belongs to English dioceses being situated in Wales, and that which is situated in England and belongs to Welsh dioceses, and there is to be a set-off be-
      1238
      tween these two kinds of property. The hon. Member has told us that the sum to which his Amendment particularly refers is one of about £2,000 a year net, or between £3,000 or £4,000 a year gross. In regard to the origin of this property, it might be said to be derived from English benefices, and, more particularly, the property of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster. This matter was only brought to our notice within the last three or four days—in fact, the communication is dated the 27th of this month. So far as this particular sum, is concerned, I think there should be no difficulty about a set-off of one against the other, though the matter has come as something of a novelty and surprise. But if you are going to examine what has been assessed as the value in one case, it is quite clear that you may compare what may be the assessed value in the other case. We are not going to find out now what may be the loss to the English Church or to Wales, but if you do bare the roots of all these transactions, they may be found to be very numerous or very few, very complicated or very simple.
      On this point we have really no information. I do not know whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners might have given us that information, but they have not done so, and we do not know what extent of property or values are involved in the acceptance or rejection of this Amendment. At all events, it is quite clear that we cannot accept the Amendment for the purpose of dealing only with this particular part of the subject; the inquiry would have to extend to all possibilities involved. That being so, it seemed to us that it would be very much better to stand by my right hon. Friend's figures, which were practically agreed upon by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. If there is any disagreement about what ought to be transferred you have Clause 5, Sub-section (4):—
      "Orders of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty under this Section. …shall be made with the concurrence of the Welsh Commissioners, or, in default of such concurrence, with the approval of His Majesty the King in Council given on the advice of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council."
      This property cannot be transferred without an order of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. That order having been received, if the two authorities differ as to what

      1239
      values ought to be transferred, there is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The proposal of the Amendment would entail not only a discussion of this question, but of a great number of other questions, and we should have to go into the whole matter. For all these reasons I think the Bill had better stand as originally drawn.
      Sir A. CRIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman has really given no answer in any way to the argument put forward very forcibly by the hon. Member for Chelsea. The argument is that this cannot be Welsh national property, because it was property dedicated originally not to Welsh but to English purposes. In all our argument here it has always been assumed that the property which is to be secularised and taken away from religious purposes is property to which Wales, as a nation, has some national right. That is the basis of the whole position. But what the hon. Member for Chelsea pointed out was that this never could have been national property in that sense at all; it was never given to Wales or the Welsh people; it was given to English religious corporations, either at Westminster or Gloucester, and given, therefore, for purposes of religion in England, if we are to draw a distinction, as we do for this purpose, between England and Wales. The case, therefore, is completely made out. It has been pointed out that this sum is £2,000 net, or £3,373 gross, and that it is a sum to which the Welsh Commissioners ought not to have any title. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman dealt with that point at all. What he says is, "It may be quite true that you are entitled to this sum and to keep it, but just think if you open up matters of this kind you may be worse off." We do not mind these matters being opened up; we want a just determination. It may be that if these matters were opened up that the result would be in favour of Wales, but if Welsh Members can bring forward any case which is the least analogous to this, and which ought to inure to Wales under the general principles of this Bill, well and good. They will have my support in the matter. If we are right in saying that the property dedicated under these circumstances for religious purposes in England and given to religious corporations, cannot be national property in Wales, and if it can be shown there is an analogous case to this, let them bring it forward.
      1240
      It is no answer to say that if these matters were gone into there might possibly be found something to set off on the other side. We do not believe that there is, yet you are deliberately taking property devoted to religious purposes in England and making the impossible and absurd claim that it is national property in Wales, without showing in any form that it is. The right hon. Gentleman referred to Clause 5, Sub-section (4), as giving an appeal under these circumstances: You, first of all, want to know the special circumstances and to lay down the principle, and when the principle has been laid down, then, of course, an appeal may be valuable, but until you have done that what is the good of an appeal? We cannot succeed in an appeal against the plain terms of the Act as it stands. That is really a mockery of the idea of appeal. We must, first of all, make it on appealable points which can be discussed and capable of being brought before a tribunal. I am perfectly certain that the Under-Secretary of State will advise the Chancellor of the Duchy that this is not a matter which could be brought on appeal to the Privy Council; it is not a matter which can be discussed as between the Welsh Commissioners and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; it is a matter which we have to determine now as a definite question of right, whether property devoted to religious purposes is to be secularised and used for purposes on the basis of its being Welsh national property, which is denied. You have only to set that up to show that it is a monstrous absurdity, and that it would be confiscation, without the least excuse, of property dedicated to religious purposes in England.
      Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down said there was no ground for our claim that this was Welsh national property, but I distinctly say that we have every claim on the ground of nationality. What is the history of these funds which have been appropriated to the English ecclesiastical corporation of Gloucester? How did these Welsh moneys become devoted to the service of religion in England? The story is this: Robert of Gloucester, the half-brother of the Empress Matilda, having conquered Wales, robbed the Welsh people of these moneys, and transferred them to English purposes, and they have been used for English purposes ever since. I cannot understand how the hon. and learned

      1241
      Gentleman who has just sat down, the protagonist of anti-confiscation, can stand up in this House for all that robbery of 700 or 800 years ago. If ever there was a robbery, Wales was robbed by those people who transferred Welsh money to English purses. I confess, if we were to argue this question merely on the ground of Welsh nationality, I should say the right of Wales is such that this property ought to be retransferred to her as property of which she was deprived by force centuries ago. But I agree that we cannot now argue this question on that basis; there are other considerations that are involved, but while I quite accept the hon. Gentleman's bona fides in the matter, I cannot accept the figures he gives without investigation. How can any of us, when these figures are hurled at our heads for the first time to-night, accept them as correct?
      Mr. HOARE: Will the hon. Member accept the principle of my Amendment, the figures to be ascertained afterwards?
      6.0 P.M.
      Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I must ask the hon. Member to allow me to develop my argument in my own way. I will come to the point. I have never shirked any real question put to me, and I am not going to shirk this question. What is the proposition which the hon. and learned Gentleman makes? Because the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the last eighty years or sixty years have returned to Wales Welsh money, therefore we must not take advantage of their action, but we must stand by the illegitimate action of the old Norman invaders of Wales instead of accepting what the Ecclesiastical Commissioners themselves accept, namely, that these are really in essence Welsh moneys which ought to be devoted to Welsh religious purposes. There are, of course, I agree, other questions involved. I wish to make this condition. I am speaking only for myself and I have no right to speak for anyone else, but I agree that there should be a thorough investigation not only into those moneys, but a thorough investigation into the whole of the conduct of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners with regard to Ecclesiastical revenue derived from Wales. I am not prepared to accept the figure of £26,700 which they put forward in 1906 as the amount of the ecclesiastical revenue derived from Wales. I am not prepared to accept the figure of £3,000 which they say has been devoted by them during the last sixty years to Welsh re-
      1242
      ligious purposes without inquiry. It is an ordinary precaution. You do not accept figures without inquiry, which are given to you, even after the most particular care from the other side.

      I wish to know how the Welsh people stand in regard to these Ecclesiastical Commissioners' funds, and the reason why I insist upon that is this. As my right hon. Friend pointed out just now, when Sir Lewis Dibdin came to give evidence before the Welsh Church Commission in 1906 or 1907, he refused to give details. I am not prepared to accept general statements without particulars. I want to know the names of the farmers in Wales, their annual rent and so on, and after a full, fair, impartial investigation I, for one, am perfectly satisfied to. accept the result. I do not believe a single Welsh Member wishes to take a penny-piece more than is their fair and absolute right under the terms of this Bill, as we understand them. I am willing to accept this Bill as presented, and if the facts are borne out as presented by the hon. Member for Chelsea after a full and fair investigation not a single person in Wales would want to touch a penny of these funds. We want only our fair rights, and if, according to the principle upon which this Bill is based, those funds are held not to be ours, then we have no right to them. I am perfectly willing to abide by that full and fair invesitgation.
      Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: I do not think the Government can possibly maintain the position they have taken up after the speech we have just heard and after which it is unnecessary to say more than a few sentences. The hon. Member whom we have confronted throughout these long Debates cannot possibly be accused either by us or by the Government of not being an energetic supporter of the rights of the Welsh people through out these long discussions. He has perfectly, fairly, and fully admitted the principle which underlies the Amendment of my hon. Friend. He has said if we can establish before any impartial tribunal, after any impartial ascertainment of the figures, he himself would not oppose or in any sense—
      Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I quite agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I adhere to that, but it must not be one-sided. It must be an investigation which may add to the Welsh funds as well as take from them.
      Mr. A. LYTTELTON: I never intended to attribute any other opinion to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The investigation must be a fair one, and to be a fair one obviously, of course, it must be an investigation in which both sides approach it with an open mind. If that is so, I call on the right hon. Gentleman who opposed this Amendment, in the name of justice and of principle, to accept the principle of the Amendment and withdraw his opposition. I do this with the more strength, because I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said as to his ignorance on this question. This has been on the Paper for some time, and there must be many of those who are advising him on this matter who must have been perfectly well aware that this question was raised months ago, and it is surprising that they should have kept him in ignorance on so important a matter, and should have placed him in the position in which he is to-day against the opinion of one of the most intransigeant of his supporters to maintain an argument against my hon. Friend's Amendment. I certainly would appeal to anybody, after the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, whether the Government can possibly maintain that attitude?
      Viscount WOLMER: I think that the difficulty and the quandary into which the Government have fallen is due to the fact that in considering their course through the Committee stage of this Bill they have not based their actions on principle, but they have regarded the whole question as a matter of driving a bargain between their Welsh supporters on the one hand and their English supporters' conscientious qualms on the other hand. The reason why they have refused to agree to this Amendment is not because they are able to withstand the principle on which it is based, but because they feel that they have given enough concessions already to the Church party in the House in order to get their Bill through. That is why they have not acceded to the requst. I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has returned to this Debate. He has told us frequently, in the course of the Committee stage of this Bill, that the Bill does not propose to confiscate a single penny of property which belongs to the Church in England. That is the basis upon which the Bill has been presented, not only in this House, but in the country. We have been told that this is a question for Wales, which affects the Welsh people alone, and that that is why so much value
      1244
      is attached to the so-called mandate from Wales. We are told that the English Church in England is not to be affected except in dismemberment, but here we point to an instance where about £3,000 worth of property per year of the Church in England is going to be confiscated by the terms of this Bill. We ask the Government by what principle on which they have hitherto defended this Bill can they justify such treatment of the Church of England. Our case is so unanswerable that even the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. Llewelyn Williams) is found, with qualifications, upon our side. I think if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had been aware of that before there would have been very little difficulty about accepting this Amendment. I wish that the relations between the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Home Secretary were sufficiently cordial to allow them to have communicated a little before this Amendment was discussed. I am sure it would have had an important effect upon the attitude which the Government have taken up.
      I should like to challenge the Home Secretary, if the Government refuse to accept this Amendment, whether he can still continue to say that this Bill does not confiscate property of the Church of England in England. This is a matter of over £3,000 per year, and of really very great importance, in so far as financial matters can be important. I should like to point out if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had simply kept this property in their hands, and given the money they derived from it to the Church this property would never have been confiscated. It is simply because they gave over this property to the Church in Wales that it is now going to be taken from the Church. I do not believe personally when the Government were drafting the Bill that they had this class of property in their minds. I believe that this effect of the Bill is, as a matter of fact, an oversight, and an unforeseen result of the manner in which the Government have sought to divide up the property of the Church in Wales by the drafting of the Bill. Therefore, why on earth can they not agree to accepting this Amendment which we submit is thoroughly in accord with the principle1 on which the Bill is based, and in accord with the principles on which the Home Secretary has defended the Bill? This Amendment would never have been necessary if it had not been for

      1245
      the mere accident of the manner in which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have managed their property. On every principle of simple justice and common sense, if the Government refuse this Amendment they stand convicted of the fact that they have thrown principle overboard and have come to the conclusion that the Church has saved enough money from the wreck and is to be allowed no more.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES (very indistinctly heard): The Noble Lord has mentioned a sum of £.3,000, and I would ask him to what exactly does he refer. There are two kinds of property mentioned in the Amendment: "property annexed by way of grants in specie," and "property which immediately before becoming vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners belonged to or was appropriated to the use of an ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation of the Church of England in England or the holder of any such office."
      Viscount WOLMER: I understand that it is tithe redeemed. I do not know for certain; I have only been informed so.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I was waiting to get the information from the Noble Lord. "In specie" suggested money. It may be that it means tithe rent-charge. What property is that? The Amendment refers, not only to property which has been annexed by way of a grant in specie, but also certain property which immediately before becoming vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners belonged to, or was appropriated to the use of, an ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation of the Church of England in England. What property is that?
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: What does it matter what the property is? The question is whether or not property which answers to that description ought to be taken.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: That is just the point. We are not dealing with voluntary grants made by the Ecclesiastical Corporation out of a common fund. We are dealing with property which belonged to some corporation or other just before it became vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and which they have used in the way suggested by this Amendment. Why should there be a deduction? We have passed the Schedule, and without this Amendment the meaning of the words "Welsh ecclesiastical property" is defined. Now comes this Amendment. What
      1246
      is the propriety or what is the justice of the Amendment as limited to the property with which it is concerned? That is what I have been waiting in vain to hear. None-of us want to do anything unjust; but on what principle is this deduction to be made? If you are to have a deduction you must also think whether there may not be additions, and then you have the problem suggested by the Chancellor of the Duchy. It seems to me a very small matter. If you are to enter upon the sort of topic suggested by the Amendment there are various other matters that ought also to be taken into account. I think the Noble Lord (Viscount Wolmer) and the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare) might have given us more details.
      Mr. BALFOUR: I cannot help thinking; that the Committee is quarrelling over nothing, in the sense that in principle it seems that we are all absolutely agreed. Even the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy, who might be thought to be an exception, is not really an exception at all, because he himself admitted that in principle the Amendment was right. All he said was, "There might be something on the other side. Had you not better let sleeping dogs lie? It may not turn out so much better for the Church in England that this Amendment should be carried. It must be bi-lateral. If you take away property in Wales because it really now belongs to the English Church and must no doubt be given to the English Church, it may be that there is property in England which belongs to the Church in Wales, and, therefore, must be taken away from England. Had you not better leave the matter alone as it may turn out worse for the English Church?" Therefore, he also, on the question of principle, absolutely agreed with my hon. Friend. The hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Llewelyn Williams) also agreed to the principle of the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Brynmor Jones), who really involved himself in questions of figures which are quite irrelevant to the justice of the case, also admitted the principle. The Home Secretary, I presume, does not differ in theory. I think we are all of one mind. What is that one mind? It is not that everything should be given to the English Church and nothing to the Welsh Church. It is not, in other words, that this principle should be uni-lateral in its application. We are all agreed that it should be bi-lateral, that precisely the same measure should be meted out to the

      1247
      Church in Wales as to the Church in England, and to the Church in England as to the Church in Wales. It is impossible to resist the proposition; it has commended itself to every Member who has spoken, and I am certain it will commend itself to the Home Secretary. That being so, all that is required is the addition of a few words to the Amendment, making it perfectly clear that no claim or demand is made upon the property of the Church in Wales which is not also made upon the property of the Church in England, and vice versâ. Surely, if we are all agreed upon that point, it should not be beyond the power of the occupants of the Treasury Bench and their advisers to enable us, before we leave the matter, to embody what is obvious justice within the four corners of the Bill.
      Mr. McKENNA: I think the Committee ought to understand how this matter has arisen at all. We inquired, when framing the Bill, what was the amount now held by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, or which they had held at any time arising from the original Welsh episcopal estates. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners informed us that their property, present and past, consisted so far as the present was concerned of a sum of £26,700 a year, and that the property which they had formerly held, derived from Welsh episcopal estates, but now vested by them in certain English benefices, amounted to £14,800 a year. It is quite obvious that if we accepted those figures the total of the Welsh capitular estates would have to include not only the £26,700 a year, but the £14,800 a year which is now appropriated to Welsh benefices. Quite recently the Commissioners informed me, as they have evidently informed hon. Members opposite—I make no complaint about that; they are perfectly entitled to do so; I simply say that it is a matter of common knowledge between us—that in these figures which they prepared for the Commission in 1906, either at the time or immediately afterwards, they did not take into account, as they should have done, that a certain proportion of this £14,800 a year which they have appropriated to Welsh benefices had really been derived from English episcopal estates. The total amount is about £3.000. I believe the net amount is about £2.000. This was brought to my knowledge quite recently, and Amendments "have been put down in order to correct this mistake.
      Mr. HOARE: Five months ago.
      Mr. McKENNA: Then I am afraid it was brought to the notice of hon. Members opposite before it was brought to my notice.
      Mr. HOARE: It was on the Paper.
      Mr. McKENNA: It may be that it was brought to the notice of my advisers, but it did not reach me. So far as I am concerned, I did not become aware of it until quite recently. However, my right hon. Friend tells me that my original statement was accurate. Now the Ecclesiastical Commissioners say that they want to correct this mistake, which, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite says, must be done with perfect fairness. Yes; but before I agree to put any words into the Bill to correct that mistake, or if I put in any words at all, I must consider the question whether we must not go behind the Commissioner's accounts. That is why I somewhat demur to the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the figures are irrelevant to the question of justice. I agree that they would be irrelevant to the question of justice if I had not been proceeding throughout in this inquiry upon the basis of accepting the Commissioners' 1906 figures as absolutely binding on both parties. I cannot proceed upon the basis of accepting them as binding upon Wales and not binding upon the Commissioners so far as regards England. I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite would agree to that. If the Commissioners have discovered here a mistake of £3,000 which tells against England, and they are quite willing to hold an inquiry so far as this item was concerned, I should have to consider whether I should not be bound to accept the recommendation of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. Llewelyn Williams) and reopen the figures in toto.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: Why not?
      Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord says, "Why not?" That would be a very long and difficult inquiry, and, for my part, I do not wish it. I think it would be most undesirable to get into any relation of hostility to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: Does the right hon. Gentleman know whether they object to any inquiry?
      Mr. McKENNA: It is very difficult for me to know to what they do or do not

      1249
      object. I have been informed in this House of what the Commissioners desired, and then, when I have inquired of the Commissioners, I have found that hon. Members really did not know their views. My relations with the Commissioners—I am no longer one myself—are of the most cordial kind, and I would beg the Committee to leave this matter to be settled between them and me. The question must all foe discussed again. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] If on inquiry before the Report stage I find that this matter stands alone, and that no investigation on either side would alter the figures so far as England is concerned, I shall be quite prepared to act upon the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen Boroughs. But I must have a full investigation with the Commissioners before I accept this Amendment. The Noble Lord is anxious that the whole of the accounts should be reopened. I really do not think that he speaks on behalf of the Commissioners.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not. I speak as a Member of Parliament.
      Mr. McKENNA: In a large matter of this kind, is it worth while again going through the accounts of nearly a century in a hostile spirit?
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: Why hostile?
      Mr. McKENNA: Because if you are to investigate the accounts of the Commissioners it must be, I will not say in a hostile, but in a critical sense. If you are to suppose that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners represent the Church party, and that somebody else representing the party in Wales is to examine their accounts in a critical spirit, it almost necessarily becomes acutely critical. Is that desired? For my part I am perfectly satisfied that the Commissioners have given us, so far as they have been able to do so, accurate and fair figures. Is it worth while going over the accounts of the whole century in order to reopen a question in which there cannot be a balance on either side of more than £2,000 or £3,000 a year at the most? Is it worth while staking far more than the money involved?
      Mr. HOARE: It is £3,000 a year.
      Mr. McKENNA: This item has been disclosed for the protection of England. But we have to consider the accounts on the other side, and to ask how it was that
      1250
      this error was made at all. I put forward the suggestion, purely and simply in the spirit of peace, that I should go into this question further with the Commissioners. If we come to a conclusion as to what the net figures should be—as I have said before—I would far rather in the last stage of the Bill incorporate the figures instead of words purporting to describe figures; I would rather put the totals instead of the process of arriving at the totals, if we can agree about these totals. This, I think, would be infinitely better than quarrelling about a few pounds here and there, and opening accounts that have been closed for so long. It would be, for reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, impossible to accept this Amendment in its present form. I would ask the Committee to leave the matter as it stands at the present time upon the basis of the figures of 1906, and not to press for any change in the figures until the Commissioners and I have had the opportunity of agreeing upon what, if any, change is necessary.
      Mr. A. LYTTELTON: I desire to acknowledge the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has met us in this matter. I confess I do not wish, speaking without authority, to embark the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or the Government in an expensive inquiry. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that if two distinguished accountants met over the figures disclosed in the books that they need at all approach each other in a hostile spirit. It is a mere matter of business which might be done perfectly well without the slightest friction on either side. At the same time, as the right hon. Gentleman said, he himself will approach the Commissioners and will ascertain concerning the matter. Having ascertained, he is willing to make it right on Report. I do not myself think that his offer ought to be refused, provided that the right hon. Gentleman will give us, so far as it is possible for him so to do, a definite pledge, that if the matter is not arranged in the way he expects, he will give us full opportunity on Report to deal with it. I admit that under the guillotine a pledge cannot be wholly satisfactory, but if the right hon. Gentleman says that in the event of his not being able to come to this arrangement with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—as we all anticipate he will be able to do—he will give us the full opportunity, and will give the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen the

      1251
      full opportunity also, of dealing again with the matter, that will meet the case. All we want is that there shall be an impartial inquiry and the result embodied in the Bill.
      Mr. CHARLES NICHOLSON: I am rather in an anomalous position at this particular stage, and I could have wished that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield had been here to hear what perhaps I had better say now. We all regret his absence. I may say on behalf of the Commissioners that we shall be perfectly willing to adopt the suggestion of the Home Secretary and discuss the matter with him. I have no doubt that we will arrive at what is the proper amount that should be allocated in this rather complicated question. I certainly think it would be far better to deal with figures in the Bill than to try to arrive at the matter by the Amendment suggested by the other side.
      Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I only intervene because I think the Home Secretary has misunderstood what I have said. I am for an ordinary, full, free, and impartial investigation into the books of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I thought I had made it perfectly clear that my acceptance—of whatever value it may be—of the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chelsea, was conditioned by that full, free, impartial investigation by experts. I am not prepared in any other way to accept that Amendment itself.
      Mr. KING: I have followed the discussion this afternoon with some surprise. It has been very technical, and it ranged over a very narrow field. I also have been observing a sort of outward agreement between the two sides of the House, rather by way of profession I believe, rather than of actual agreement. I always view such seeming or outward agreement with some suspicion, especially when it is made in a somewhat thin House by lawyers on both sides. I begin to think there is "something up," and that we must be careful. I therefore hope that this Amendment will be rejected and that no pledge of any time will be given. Too many pledges have already been made.
      Mr. STANLEY WILSON: And broken.
      Mr. KING: Then that is another good reason why this one should not be made.
      1252
      Perhaps after I sit down the hon. Member for Holderness will be kind enough to get up and explain on behalf of those who are not legal Gentlemen, and "in the know," his concurrence in my views. There is this point that has not been sufficiently brought out: The very curious fact that this matter was inquired into before the Royal Commission. The figures there were refused definitely and point-blank. The most interesting quotation read out by the hon. Member for Swansea showed very clearly that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners not only refused the information, but refused under any circumstances to give it. Why have they given it to hon. Members on the opposite side? Having allowed these figures to get into the Report of the Royal Commission, having for years allowed us to suppose that the Bill would be framed upon the figures therein given, at the eleventh hour they have gone and given certain figures to hon. Gentlemen opposite and apparently to the Government. Why have not these figures been given publicly? I view this matter with some legitimate suspicion when I see the way that we have been treated. I am not a Member of the Opposition. I am not a Member of the Government. Therefore, I suppose, I am not worth being informed. At any rate, I take a good deal of interest in this Bill. I have tried to study it. I consider I have as much right to official information as anyone.
      The hon. Member for Doncaster, who I admit is the soul of courtesy and straightforwardness, so far as I have had anything to do with him, has made two speeches this afternoon. I have listened to both of them. They were very short. They gave us no information on this point, which is the only point I want to know about. I wanted to know from him why he gives figures to the Opposition and does not give them to me. Perhaps he will give an answer to these questions. There is one more point in connection with this matter which ought to be remembered. If the whole of these accounts are to be gone into de novo to gather from them apparently for hundreds of years back—at any rate, for 250 years—so far as I can understand—what money has been taken from England and transferred to Wales, and what money has been transferred from Wales to England, both by way of investment and by way of benefits given, you are going into a very large and expensive, and to my mind unnecessary, inquiry. The

      1253
      probable result will be found to be that neither side gains anything. I suppose the reason the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen wants this inquiry is that he thinks that "gallant little Wales" will come well out of it. I hope it will. I hope that he is right. But he may be mistaken, and I think he had better go upon the principle of "a bird in the hand being worth two in the bush." For these reasons, which I think are quite enough to show it, I think we had better reject the Amendment and allow the Home Secretary, if he likes to go to the other side and see whether he can come to an agreement, to do so. Let us, however, not bind him—let him be free.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I do not intend to answer the last speech except to say that it may be the best course to withdraw this particular Amendment. Before doing so I want to be perfectly certain, so that there may be no doubt about it where we stand. Am I right— for I do not want to misinterpret the Home Secretary—in understanding that if this particular Amendment is withdrawn, it is the Home Secretary's intention between now and Report to investigate these figures on this point which are dealt with under this First Schedule with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and instead of inserting words, as we now have, describing the effect, he will put in the actual figures? That is what a good many on this side understand. Certainly we want to be perfectly certain what the position is. May I point out to the Home Secretary that, according to the Bill, it really is not a matter between him and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; it is a matter between the Welsh Commissioners and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 5, Sub-section (4), to which I have already drawn attention, he will see that the words are very clear. It says:—
      "(4) Orders of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty under this Section and the Schedules therein referred to shall be made with the concurrence of the Welsh Commissioners, or in default of such occurrence with the approval of His Majesty the King and Council, given on the advice of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council."
      Therefore, if that Sub-section stands, the matter is one to be settled not between the Home Secretary and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but between the Welsh
      1254
      Commissioners and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. As I understand the plan suggested by the Home Secretary, it would be necessary, if adopted, also to alter on Report that particular Sub-section of Clause 5. For my part we are quite prepared for a thoroughly impartial investigation on both sides, recognising that it is possible that it might be to add something to national property instead of something to the Church. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London said, the investigation must be one of finality. We want to know precisely where we stand, and whether it is the intention of the Home Secretary to investigate the matter before Report—which is a very short time—and to put in the figures on the Report stage. If it is not done, under the conditions in which we are acting under the Parliament Act, I should like to know when the figures can be put in? We know quite well that if we have Amendments proposed to which both Houses agree, they can be made in the Bill, but it may be possible that no Amendments will be made in the Bill in the other House, or the Bill may be rejected on Second Reading.
      Mr. McKENNA: What I stated was that before the final stage I should hope, instead of putting in the Schedules the process by which we arrive at certain totals, to insert the totals themselves. We certainly could not attempt to do it before the Report stage. It is quite obvious if any such totals were inserted in the Bill it could only be done by agreement. I said I would do my best to come to an agreement as to what were the true accounts between the Welsh and the English Churches; that is all I said. Of course, as to the method by which that is to be done, hon. Members must remember that under the Parliament Act, supposing that the worst happened and that this Bill was rejected on Second Reading, it is always possible to send up the new Bill with proposals for Amendment which at the last stage might, for the convenience of all parties, be accepted in another place. Therefore, I do not think there would be any practical difficulty under the Parliament Act. For the present we are content so long as the figures are not accurate to put the process into the Bill and the reason I ask that no change should be made in the process is that the process so far is founded upon the figures given by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. If I go behind their figures I must go behind more

      1255
      than these particular figures. I asked them to assist me, and I ought not therefore to put in a unilateral Amendment of this kind, but I will do my best before Report stage to satisfy myself if there is any other ground for criticising the process on which I am proceeding, and if I cannot do so before Report stage I shall certainly do so before the final stages of the Bill. As hon. Gentlemen know the Report stage comes on very soon, and it might not be possible for the Commissioners and myself to definitely come to terms before then.
      Mr. HOARE: I understand an Amendment of this kind is very complicated, and I do not wish to bind the right hon. Gentleman down to any specific figure. What I was anxious to do was to leave the question open, so that if, as I believe, a case is made out we shall not be deprived of certain sums which we believe belong to us and which as my hon. Friend pointed out, we should have lost, in spite of Clause 5 and what the Chancellor of the Duchy said. But having heard what the Home Secretary has just said, and understanding from that that he would consult the Ecclesiastical Commissioners immediately, and if they are satisfied that the case as made out is a substantial one he will in some shape or form embody the principle of the Amendment in the Bill, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. HOARE: The next Amendment on the Paper in my name is at the end of the first Sub-section, after the words "office, as such," to insert the words
      "subject to a deduction from the produce of such property of a sum equal to the amount applied by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in purchases of property conveyed to, or subsequently vested in, any ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation of the Church in Wales or the holder of any such office, as such."
      If the right hon. Gentleman will include it with the other I will not move it.
      Mr. MCKENNA: Yes.
      The CHAIRMAN: That also applies to the next Amendment.
      Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, in the second paragraph, to leave out the words, "For the purpose of determining what property is property within the meaning of the above provision."
      Mr. KING: Can we have some explanation of this? How do we know that another concession is not being made here? I ask for an explanation.
      The CHAIRMAN: It was explained earlier in the afternoon.
      Mr. KING: Yes, I know it was. I was here, but a great number of Members now present were not here, and I think it ought to be explained again.
      Mr. McKENNA: Perhaps I may say briefly, for the information of my hon. Friend, that I only propose to leave out these words in order to make the purpose of this paragraph perfectly clear, and that other words are proposed to be added at the end. This paragraph does not affect the amount of money to be taken; it only affects the form in which the money is to be taken—whether it is to be taken in the form of cash, or stocks, or land situated in Wales. It is in order to make sure that land now situated in Wales shall be transferred to the Welsh Commissioners that this paragraph is necessary.
      Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule," put, and agreed to.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to move, at the end of the first Sub-section ["the Church in Wales"], to add the words
      "and a sum equal to the amount applied by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in such purchases shall be deducted from the produce of the property coming within the preceding paragraph of this Schedule accordingly."
      I think the Home Secretary will accept this, as it makes more clear the intention of the Amendment he has moved.
      Mr. McKENNA: Subject to verbal alteration which I may have to make hereafter.
      Mr. KING: I object to the Amendment being accepted subject to subsequent verbal alteration. This is a question between the two sides of the House above the Gangway. On behalf of all Members on both sides of the House below the Gangway, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be much fairer to give the exact words which are to be inserted on Report stage and not in this way to accept an Amendment subject to some verbal alteration. It is most unbusinesslike.
      Mr. McKENNA: It is purely a matter of form. If I accepted the Amendment as it stands I might have to alter the form of it hereafter, and I should not be justified on Report in altering the exact words. Consequently, in order to keep myself perfectly open to consider it on Report and to see whether the words are suitable, I simply make the statement that I reserve the right to accept the Amendment on Report, subject to verbal alteration. That is the perfectly correct form.
      Mr. POLLOCK: I hope the Home Secretary will accept these words as they are. I have tried to see whether any better words could be adopted, but as I understand it, these words do really carry out the intention effectively of what is meant. It is because there may be some contra account which will stand in favour of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that you have to have some words of this sort. Therefore, it seems to me that these words are apt in spite of the criticism offered by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and having regard to the very great difficulty there is in finding words, I confess I am very grateful to the Home Secretary for having accepted these.
      Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
      Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, in Part II. (Adjustments), at end of Subsection (1), to add the following words: "Provided that if the money and securities comprised in paragraph (1) of Part I. of this Schedule are less than the sum to be deducted, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall be entitled to a charge on the property transferred for the balance with interest at the rate of 4 per cent, per annum."
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I should like to ask what these words mean, and what will be the effect of this Amendment?
      Mr. McKENNA: In transferring English land belonging to the Welsh Church and Welsh land belonging to the English Church it may occur that there is a sum of £7,000 a year from land in Wales and £700 a year from land in England belonging to the Welsh Church, and it is quite obvious that one cannot be exchanged for the other without leaving a considerable balance to be paid. It may be that the balance in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would not be sufficient to satisfy the amount of £6,300 which is the difference. Therefore, it is proposed to give them a charge upon the property and to allow interest at the rate of 4 per cent. The proposal is a fair one; it is solely in the interest of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners who ought to be entitled to a charge upon the property in these circumstances.
      Mr. KING: I object to this, because the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are treating me very badly, and why I should treat them well I do not know. It may be virtue, but it is not politic.
      Lord HUGH CECIL: I do not quite understand who is to pay the charge. Out of what fund is it to come?
      Mr. McKENNA: The property being transferred, they will have a charge upon it, and will retain that charge until they are paid off.
      Government Amendment made: In Subjection (2), after the word "Schedule" ["Part I. of this Schedule, so far as it is able to bear them"], insert the words "subject to such adjustment as aforesaid."
      Question put, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the First Schedule of the Bill."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 303; Noes, 195.

      Division No. 561.]

      AYES.

      [7.0 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Barnes, G. N.

      Brace, William

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

      Brady, Patrick Joseph

      Adamson, William

      Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Addison, Dr. C.

      Barton, William

      Bryce, J. Annan

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

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Agnew, Sir George William

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

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

      Bentham, G. J.

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Alden, Percy

      Bethell, Sir J. H.

      Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

      Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

      Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

      Arnold, Sydney

      Black, Arthur W.

      Byles, Sir William Pollard

      Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

      Boland, John Plus

      Carr-Gomm, H. W.

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

      Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

      Bowerman, C. W.

      Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

      Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

      Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

      Chancellor, Henry George

      Chapple, Dr. William Allen

      Hodge, John

      Parry, Thomas H.

      Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

      Hogge, James Myles

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Clancy, John Joseph

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      Pearce, William (Limehouse)

      Clough, William

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

      Clynes, John R.

      Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

      Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

      Phillips, J. (Longford, S.)

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Hudson, Walter

      Pointer, Joseph

      Cotton, William Francis

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

      Pollard, Sir George H.

      Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

      John, Edward Thomas

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

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

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Crooks, William

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

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

      Crumley, Patrick

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

      Cullinan, John

      Jones, Lelf Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

      Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

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

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Primrose, Hon. Neil James

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Joyce, Michael

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

      Keating, Matthew

      Radford, G. H.

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

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

      Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

      Dawes, J. A.

      Kilbride, Denis

      Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

      De Forest, Baron

      King, J. (Somerset, North)

      Reddy, M.

      Delany, Wiliam

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

      Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

      Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Crickla.le)

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Devlin, Joseph

      Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

      Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      Dickinson, W. H.

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

      Rendall, Athelstan

      Dillon, John

      Leach, Charles

      Richards, Thomas

      Doneian, Captain A.

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Doris, William

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Duffy, William J.

      Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      Lundon, Thomas

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

      Lyell, Charles Henry

      Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Lynch, A. A.

      Robinson, Sidney

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

      Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

      Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      McGhee, Richard

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Maclean, Donald

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

      Rowlands, James

      Essex, Sir Richard Walter

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Rowntree, Arnold

      Farrell, James Patrick

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      M'Kean, John

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

      Ffrencn, Peter

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Field, William

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

      Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

      Fitzgibbon, John

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

      Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      M'Micking, Major Gilbert

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

      Furness, Stephen

      Manfield, Harry

      Sheeny, David

      George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

      Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Gill, A. H.

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Shortt, Edward

      Ginnell, Laurence

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

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

      Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

      Glanville, H. J.

      Meagher, Michael

      Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

      Goldstone, Frank

      Millar, James Duncan

      Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

      Molloy, Michael

      Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

      Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

      Greig, Col. J. W.

      Mond, Sir Alfred M.

      Sutherland, J. E.

      Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Sutton, John E.

      Griffith, Ellis J.

      Mooney, John J.

      Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

      Morgan, George Hay

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

      Morison, Hector

      Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Muldoon, John

      Tennant, Harold John

      Hackett, John

      Munro, R.

      Thomas, J. H.

      Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

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

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Hancock, J. G.

      Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

      Neilson, Francis

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

      Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

      Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

      Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

      Nolan, Joseph

      Verney, Sir Harry

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Norman, Sir Henry

      Wadsworth, J.

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      Norton, Captain Cecil W.

      Walters, Sir John Tudor

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

      Nuttall, Harry

      Walton, Sir Joseph

      Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      O'Brien, William (Cork)

      Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

      Hayden, John Patrick

      O'Connor. John (Kildare, N.)

      Wardle, George J.

      Hayward, Evan

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

      Waring, Walter

      Hazleton, Richard

      O'Dowd, John

      Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

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

      O'Grady, James

      Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

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

      Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

      Hemmerde, Edward George

      O'Malley, William

      Watt, Henry Anderson

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

      Webb, H.

      Henry, Sir Charles

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

      O'Shee, James John

      White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

      Higham, John Sharp

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

      Hinds, John

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      whitehouse, John Howard

      1260

      1261

      Wiles, Thomas

      Winfrey, Richard

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Williams, John (Glamorgan)

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

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

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

      Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

      Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

      Mount, William Arthur

      Aitken, Sir William Max

      Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

      Neville, Reginald J. N.

      Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

      Fleming, Valentine

      Newdegate, F. A.

      Ashley, Wilfrid W.

      Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

      Newman, John R. P.

      Baird, John Lawrence

      Forster, Henry William

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

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

      Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

      Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

      Balcarres, Lord

      Gibbs, George Abraham

      Nield, Herbert

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

      Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

      O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

      Banbury, Sir Frederick George

      Goldsmith, Frank

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

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

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

      Barnston, Harry

      Grant, J. A.

      Parkes, Ebenezer

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

      Greene, Walter Raymond

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

      Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

      Gretton, John

      Peel, Captain R. F.

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

      Perkins, Walter F.

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

      Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

      Haddock, George Bahr

      Pretyman, Ernest George

      Beresford, Lord Charles

      Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

      Quilter, Sir William Eley C.

      Bigland, Alfred

      Hamersley, Alfred St. George

      Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

      Bird, Alfred

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

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Blair, Reginald

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

      Remnant, James Farquharson

      Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Rolleston, Sir John

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

      Royds, Edmund

      Boyton, James

      Hewins, William Herbert Samuel

      Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen)

      Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

      Hickman, Col. Thomas E.

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

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Hill, Sir Clement L.

      Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

      Bull, Sir William James

      Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

      Sanders, Robert Arthur

      Burdett-Coutts, W.

      Hope, Harry (Bute)

      Sanderson, Lancelot

      Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Sandys, G. J.

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

      Sassoon, Sir Philip

      Butcher, John George

      Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

      Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

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

      Horner, Andrew Long *

      Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

      Campion, W. R.

      Houston, Robert Paterson

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

      Carille, Sir Edward Hildred

      Hunt, Rowland

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Cassel, Felix

      Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

      Stanier, Beville

      Castlereagh, Viscount

      Ingleby, Holcombe

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Cator, John

      Jessel, Captain H. M.

      Starkey, John Ralph

      Cautley, Henry Strother

      Joynson-Hicks, William

      Stewart, Gershom

      Cave, George

      Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

      Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

      Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

      Kerry, Earl of

      Sykes. Mark (Hull, Central)

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Talbot, Lord E.

      Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

      Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r)

      Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

      Thynne, Lord A.

      Chambers, James

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Touche, George Alexander

      Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Tryon, Captain George Clement

      Clyde, J. Avon

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

      Valentia, Viscount

      Coates, Sir Edward Feetham

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

      Walker, Col. William Hall

      Cooper, Richard Ashmole

      Lee, Arthur Hamilton

      Walrond, Hon. Lionel

      Courthope, George Loyd

      Lewisham, Viscount

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

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Lloyd, G. A.

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

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

      Wills, Sir Gilbert

      Cralk, Sir Henry

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

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

      Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

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

      Winterton, Earl

      Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred

      Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo.,Han.S.)

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Croft, H. P.

      Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

      Wood; Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

      Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

      MacCaw, Wm. J MacGeagh

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      Du Cros, Arthur Philip

      Mackinder, Halford J.

      Worthington-Evans, L.

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

      Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

      Yate, Colonel C. E.

      Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

      Mildmay, Francis Bingham

      Falle, Bertram Godfray

      Moore, William

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hoare and Mr. Hume-Williams.

      Fell, Arthur

      Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

      Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.

    SECOND SCHEDULE.

      PROPERTY VESTED IN QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY WHICH IS TO BE DEEMED WELSH ECCLESIASTICAL PROPERTY.
      Property which belongs to or is appropriated to the use of any ecclesiastical
      1262
      office or cathedral corporation in the Church in Wales, or the holder of any such office as such, except, in the case of any such property which—

      (a) consists of, or is the produce of, or is or has been derived from grants

      1263
      made by Queen Anne's Bounty out of the Royal Bounty Fund; and

      (b) does not consist of money arising from the sale of parsonage houses in Wales or Monmouthshire, or the securities in which any such money is for the time being invested;

      such part thereof as has been derived from sources other than Welsh sources.
      For the purpose of determining what property is derived from sources other than Welsh sources, Queen Anne's Bounty shall ascertain and by order declare the amount by which grants made out of the Royal Bounty Fund for the purposes of the Chuch in Wales have exceeded the sums received by them by way of first fruits and tenths in respect of ecclesiastical offices in the Church in Wales, and such part of any grant so made by them as is proportionate to such excess shall be deemed to have been derived from sources other than Welsh sources.
      Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (b.).
      We are now coming to the Schedule which deals with property which belongs to or is appropriated to the use of any ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation in the Church in Wales which is deemed to be ecclesiastical property. I presume the Home Secretary will say that, having regard to the alteration which he has made so far in the Bill, it will be necessary to alter this Schedule in a very marked degree. Perhaps I may be allowed to call attention to the form of the Schedule, and indicate why I propose to leave out this paragraph, and also what I think it will be necessary to do to the Schedule if it is really to be an effective portion of the Bill. The property vested in Queen Anne's Bounty is to be deemed Welsh ecclesiastical property, but certain of that property is to be exempted. The Clause is drawn in a somewhat cumbrous fashion. In the opening words we have got the very widest possible definition, because ecclesiastical office, as defined in the Bill, excludes all the offices which are in the Church Discipline Act of 1840, and also "cathedral corporation in the Church in Wales, or the holder of any such office as such." According to the Interpretation Clause, the term "ecclesiastical office" means "any bishopric, ecclesiastical dignity, or preferment." I doubt whether there is any meaning in the words "appropriated to the use of any ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation in the
      1264
      Church in Wales." That seems to me to be covered by the Interpretation Clause. Then there is the phrase "or the holder of any such office as such." Those words are undoubtedly covered by the Interpretation Clause. Next we have the words, "except, in the case of any such property which," and then follow paragraphs (a) and (b), and the concluding words are, "such part thereof as has been derived from sources other than Welsh sources." I suppose that means that where certain accumulations have been derived from English sources the fact that they have been appropriated in some measure to the Church in Wales is not to prevent those appropriated from English sources remaining English property, and not being handed over to the Welsh Commissioners. Then we come to the paragraphs-which more closely define that property which is not to become Welsh property. It provides that—
      "except in the case of any such property which—

      (a) consists of, or is the produce of, or is or has been derived from grants made by Queen Anne's Bounty out of the Royal Bounty Fund; and

      (b) does not consist of money arising from the sale of parsonage houses in Wales or Monmouthshire, or the securities in which any such money is for the time being invested."

      I have really great difficulty in finding what is the meaning of those words, and that is why I propose to leave them out in the hope that we may have some explanation. Do they mean that where there has been a sale of benefices, or in some way there has been a sale of parsonage houses, and the securities have been invested with the Commissioners, they are, so to speak, to follow those securities and to take them in the place of what is standing in the place of parsonage houses. I hope the Home Secretary will explain the meaning of that term. It is not very easy to construe either paragraph (a) or (b) without looking at the subsequent portion of the Clause. I ask the Home Secretary to give his attention to this last portion of this Schedule, because I have read and re-read it, and, save and except in a marine insurance policy, I never saw a Clause which was so difficult to find its meaning. It seems to follow the principle of marine insurance, because it introduces not a real liability or indemnity, but a proportional liability or indemnity according to the proportion the insurer insures of the whole

      1265
      amount, which is the subject of the risk. I can conceive no other reason for framing these words in that way, except a rooted admiration for the principles of marine insurance. I have read the words, and tried to make something of them. The concluding paragraph of the Schedule reads as follows:—
      "For the purpose of determining what property is derived from sources other than Welsh sources, Queen Anne's Bounty shall ascertain and by order declare the amount by which grants made out of the Royal Bounty Fund for the purposes of the Church in Wales have exceeded the sums received by them by way of first fruits and tenths in respect of ecclesiastical offices in the Church in Wales, and such part of any grant so made by them as is proportionate to such excess shall be deemed to have been derived from sources other than Welsh sources."
      One remembers the old rule of three sum; you have got to get some proportion, but surely there is a simpler way of doing it. When you have by recent alterations already made in the Bill, got a point at which Sub-clause (a) is otiose entirely and Sub-clause (b) very difficult to construe and not very explicit, surely we might ask for a simpler Clause than the last paragraph in the Schedule and one less difficult to work out than one based on a system of proportion between two sums when ultimately found. I would urge the Home Secretary to withdraw this Schedule and make a simpler one. We want to get something more or less easily understood, and it seems to me the original framework of the Schedule is unfortunate. It is never very easy to begin with a negative sentence and afterwards have an affirmative, and you have both in this Clause. Then you have a curious method of proportion between first fruits and tenths and what has been derived from sources other than Welsh sources, which it is almost impossible to construe. Having given this criticism on the Schedule, riot in a hostile spirit, but rather with a view to learning what it means, I do ask the Home Secretary, having regard to the necessity for a very considerable alteration in the Schedule, to undertake to make a different Schedule altogether and one which might be more simply and easily understood.
      Mr. McKENNA: I am sure every one reading this Schedule for the first time
      1266
      must concur with the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is undoubtedly extremely difficult to construe. He will, however, upon examination—I am not sure he does not already appreciate the matter—find the Schedule is necessary and that it does carry out the required purpose. It is quite true it will hereafter, owing to the promises of the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty be quite immaterial what property is declared to be Welsh ecclesiastical property, inasmuch as whether, directly or by a subsequent gift, the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty are going to devote the whole of their properly to the purposes of the representative body. So far I am entirely with the hon. and learned Gentleman, but we do not and ought not to compel Queen Anne's Bounty to transfer by Act of Parliament what the Governors may quite legitimately hand over as a matter of gift. Consequently, we are bound in this Schedule to distinguish between the property which passes necessarily to the representative body and the property which, first of all being re-transferred to Queen Anne's Bounty, is subsequently to be handed over by the bounty to the Welsh Church. Paragraph (a) must be read in connection with the last words:—
      "(a)consists of, or is the produce of, or is or has been derived from grants made by Queen Anne's Bounty out of the Royal Bounty Fund; and … such part thereof as has been derived from sources other than Welsh sources."
      We except that part of the property from the Welsh ecclesiastical property upon the ground that it is not derived from Welsh sources and should therefore be retransferred to Queen Anne's Bounty. Paragraph (b) relates to certain property which although originally derived from English sources has been devoted by Queen Anne's Bounty to the purpose of building parsonage houses. Under the Bill parsonage houses are transferred to the representative body. Parsonage houses therefore, whether they were derived from English or Welsh sources, are treated as Welsh ecclesiastical property. We hold that inasmuch as the Bill transfers all parsonage houses to the representative body, we ought not to inquire whence they were derived, whether from English or Welsh sources. Therefore-paragraph (b) is necessary in order to secure directly to the representative body the proceeds of the sale of parsonage houses, whether they were built out of English or Welsh money.
      Mr. POLLOCK: If I follow the right hon. Gentleman correctly, and I hope I am right, both paragraphs (a) and (b) are cumulative. They are two conditions which the property has to fulfil. I am not quite certain. The words "such property which" may mean (a) so and so, and an additional class of property (b), or they may mean property which fulfils two conditions—namely (a) and (b). I want to be quite clear what they do mean. "Such property" may be divided into two classes, (a) or (b), or it may be "such property" which fulfils both conditions.
      Mr. McKENNA: That is quite right; the hon. and learned Gentleman has appreciated the meaning. The sentence could really run without the interposition of (a) and (b). I think it would perhaps be clear if the sentence runs continuously. You do not require (a) and (b). It might read:—
      "Such property which consists of or is the produce of…but does not consist of. …"
      as one continuous sentence. On examination the meaning is quite clear, but whether the point is clear or not is of no material consequence, inasmuch as, whether this property is or is not declared to be Welsh ecclesiastical property, it is all to be transferred to the representative body, and errors in this part of the Bill will have no effect.
      Mr. POLLOCK: What about the last paragraph?
      Mr. McKENNA: There is more meaning in the last paragraph than the hon. and learned Member, unless he was aware of the history, could anticipate. The total amount of Queen Anne's Bounty, which now consists of a capital sum—that is an accumulated income over all the years—is estimated to have been derived as to two-thirds from English sources, and as to one-third from Welsh sources. It cannot be said year after year the accounts have been accurate, although in the sum total the conclusion is correct. These words in the last paragraph are therefore simply to convey the meaning that Queen Anne's Bounty shall be deemed to be as to two-thirds derived from English sources, and as to one-third from Welsh sources. It is merely a statement of the process of calculation by which that result is obtained.
      Mr. CAVE: The right hon. Gentleman has carefully considered the Amendments
      1268
      on the Schedule, and I am sure we are very much obliged to him. I am rather encouraged to think he will reconsider this Amendment. I quite agree it is worth while distinguishing in the Schedule property which the Bounty must give up. If you look at the end, both will probably be given up, but in one case it is compulsory and in the other optional, so it is worth while making the distinction. I understand the effect of the particular paragraph to which the Amendment is directed to be this: Money in the hands of the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty derived from the sale of Welsh parsonages built out of English money shall be confiscated.
      Mr. McKENNA: No; shall be treated as Welsh ecclesiastical property. The proceeds of the sale of parsonages are transferred to the representative body. Therefore, if we do not treat this as Welsh ecclesiastical property it would not necessarily be transferred to the representative body; it would go back, first of all, to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty.
      Mr. CAVE: Then the effect of paragraph (b) is not to render the property liable to be confiscated?
      Mr. McKENNA: No; on the contrary.
      Mr. CAVE: But to bring it within the category of property which is exempted from confiscation?
      Mr. McKENNA: Yes.
      Mr. CAVE: And transfer it to the representative body?
      Mr. McKENNA: Yes.
      Mr. CAVE: If we are quite sure about that, it seems to me to meet the point; but it is an extremely cumbrous way of doing it. My hon. and learned Friend suggests that the whole Schedule might be reconsidered before Report to see if something much simpler cannot be done, especially in view of the changes made in the Bill. I am not complaining at all on behalf of Queen Anne's Bounty. I think matters affecting them have been considered, but one knows obscure Statutes lead to that undesirable thing, litigation, and possibly a good deal of difficulty, dispute, and litigation might be avoided if the whole of the Schedules were reconsidered before Report and some attempt made to put them in a much simpler form.
      Mr. McKENNA: I will look into it.
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I had some idea I understood this Schedule, but now I have heard the explanation of the Home Secretary it is quite clear I did not understand it in the least. Paragraph (a) and (b), so far as I can understand them, are exceptions to a rule. The Schedule defines property which is deemed to be ecclesiastical property—property now in the possession of Queen Anne's Bounty—and then it says, "except in the case of any such property which." Then come "(a)" and "(b)." As far as I could understand the Home Secretary, "(b)" is an exception drafted upon an exception "(a)" Surely the resources of the draftsmen of this Bill are not so far exhausted that we are obliged to put in first the rule, then an exception, and then an exception to the exception, making the whole thing read like a policy of marine insurance.
      Mr. McKENNA: I will consider the question before the Report stage.
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: I hope it will be put in some form that we can understand before the Report stage, so that we may have some vague idea of what is intended.
      Mr. CAVE: In which Sub-section are these words given effect to?
      Mr. McKENNA: In Clause 8. We deal with the proceeds of sales and we say, that where the estate has been sold or otherwise converted—
      "such moneys as aforesaid, or the securities in which such proceeds or moneys are for the time being vested, shall be dealt with in like manner as if they were property of that class."
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think, that in view that possibly fresh inquiries may have to be made by the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, and that they may have to reopen some accounts, provisions should be made that it should not be done at their expense. We moved an Amendment that the expenses should not be borne by the Commissioners, and it was resisted on the ground that the main work they would have to do would be so small. Yet it has been daily added to, and as fresh work has now been put upon them, they certainly ought to be relieved of the expense.
      Mr. McKENNA: There will be no fresh work thrown upon the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty. They will transfer the whole of the property.
      Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: There may be some inquiries involving a very considerable amount of work, and I hope that that will be provided for at a later stage.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: These are questions for the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty to consider.
      The CHAIRMAN: They do not arise upon this Amendment.
      Mr. POLLOCK: May I appeal to the Home Secretary in regard to the last words in this Schedule. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman there are moments when a wayfarer has to try and wander through the Schedules without a glimmer of light to guide him. The right hon. Gentleman has no doubt given us some instruction, but there are many people who will not have such an opportunity. I understand the Home Secretary to say that the words—
      "such part thereof as has been derived from sources other than Welsh sources. For the purpose of determining what property is derived from sources other than Welsh sources, Queen Anne's Bounty shall ascertain and by order declare the amount by which grants made out of the Royal Bounty Fund for the purposes of the Church in Wales have exceeded the sums received by them by way of first fruits and tenths in respect of ecclesiastical offices in the Church in Wales, and such part of any grant so made by them as is proportionate to such excess shall be deemed to have been derived from sources other than Welsh sources."
      I understand the Home Secretary to say that these words really mean two-thirds and one-third, and that somehow or other that has been ascertained. Is it very important for us to really ascertain whether it shall be five-twelfths and seven-twelfths or two-thirds and one-third? If the latter proportion had been found to be the proportion, as between English and Welsh savings under Queen Anne's Bounty, is it really necessary for us to keep in these words when the whole thing might be simplified by putting in the figures two-thirds and one-third, and thus avoid a prolonged examination and careful scrutiny of the accounts? I beg the Home Secretary to cut the words I have quoted out of the Bill and put in something simpler in their place. Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman say two-thirds and one-third?
      Mr. McKENNA: We have not introduced proportions in working figures into the Bill. The whole money will go to the representative body, so that it really does not very much matter. The drafting of the Schedule is in accordance with accepted ideas.
      Mr. POLLOCK: Not my ideas.
      Mr. McKENNA: I have already undertaken to consider if we can bring up the Schedule in a simpler form.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: What has induced the right hon. Gentleman to have the Schedule at all? It is pretty certain the whole of the amount in Queen Anne's Bounty will go to the Church. The Welsh portion is to go and the English part may go. Is it really worth while to put the Governors of the Bounty to the trouble of making these declarations? I suggest that the simplest way out of the difficulty would be to withdraw the Schedule altogether, to consider whether it is necessary to have a Schedule at all, and, if it is, to bring a new one in an amended form on the lines suggested by my hon. and learned Friend. It seems to me that under the concession made on Clause 8 such a Schedule is really putting the Governors of the Bounty to a great deal of unnecessary trouble.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: According to the evidence given before the Welsh Church Commission, the work has already been done. Sir Lewis Dibdin put in most elaborate accounts showing what was the work contemplated by the section. Nobody wants to impose unnecessary labour on the Governors of the Bounty, neither do we want a Schedule so obscure as to be difficult to work.
      Mr. POLLOCK: Does Sir Lewis Dibdin give the proportions two-thirds and one-third?
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: The figures are embodied in the report of the Commissioners. The whole matter was brought up, I think, in 1906. Of course there may be a little trouble involved in bringing it up to the date of Disestablishment, but it should not be a troublesome task.
      Mr. POLLOCK: After the explanation of the Home Secretary I do not desire to press my Amendment, but I do trust that, in mercy to mankind generally and to those interested in this Bill, he will try and produce a better Schedule.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Motion made and Question proposed, "That this be the Second Schedule of the Bill."
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite said that this work had already been done, and he quoted the evidence given by Sir Lewis Dibdin before the Welsh Church Commission. I am informed that those figures are only approximate, that they were put in for the purposes of the Welsh Church Commission and have not been gone into in thorough detail. If this Bill passes, you will have to go very much more closely into the matter. I am sure I am right in saying that if this Schedule is passed you will put upon the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty a great deal of additional detailed work, and I consider it unnecessary to do that, having regard to the changes made in Clause 8. The only distinction between the property is as regards the future treatment of property derived from Welsh sources and that derived from English sources. That derived from Welsh sources will be immediately handed over to the representative body. The property derived from English sources may be so handed over by the Governors of the Bounty. There is not the slightest doubt that it will go to the representative body, and, that being so, I ask why put the Governors to the trouble of these elaborate calculations? I cannot agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite that the work has been done. It has not been done with the thoroughness necessary for the purposes of this Bill. It was done sufficiently accurately to give the Commission a bird's eye view of the situation. The matter will have to be gone into afresh in much greater detail. That, at any rate, it the information placed at my disposal. Again I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman to drop this Schedule and, if necessary, bring in another, not quite so obscure as this one, which would entail less work on the Governors of the Bounty. But the right hon. Gentleman might put in rough figures which would settle the thing once and for all, and that is the course he ought to adopt.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: I understood the Home Secretary to explain that in the case of the First Schedule he proposed to put in definite figures. Why not adopt the same course in regard to the Second Schedule? If it is possible to arrive at definite figures with the Ecclesiastical

      1273
      Commissioners, it surely is also possible to arrive at an agreement with the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty.
      Mr. McKENNA: All these figures are known. The total capital sum is £576,000, and inasmuch as the whole of the property is going to the Welsh Church, there is no complication. I would deprecate inserting figures into the Bill at this stage. It is undesirable. But I hope to be able eventually to insert agreed figures. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not been correctly informed as to the difficulty. Throughout the Commissioners have had to deal with one principle and through one source. They have had a single principal from the first, with the result that their accounts are very easy to disentangle. I do not think hon. Members need really trouble about the work which will be given to Queen Anne's Bounty under this Schedule. I have promised to consider whether the purpose of the Schedule cannot be brought before the House on Report stage in a simpler form.
      Mr. EVELYN CECIL: Is it not possible to omit the Schedule altogether?
      Mr. McKENNA: You cannot omit it, because we cannot impose on Queen Anne's Bounty the duty under an Act of Parliament of transferring English money to the Welsh Church. They are empowered in the Bill to do it as a matter of gift. We have already passed that in Committee, consequently we must provide in the Schedule means by which Queen Anne's Bounty can make the gift. We cannot in the Schedule go back on what we have already done in the Bill.
      Mr. EVELYN CECIL: Could you not alter the Bill, because that would simplify the matter? Every Member of the Committee is extremely hazy as to what the Schedule really means, and I am not surprised. Speaking for myself, I cannot pretend that I wholly grasp its meaning. It is something that the Home Secretary should say he will try to produce a simplified Schedule on Report. Is it not possible by altering the Clause in the Bill to get rid of the Schedule altogether?
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I desire to point out to the Home Secretary that I do not think the omission of the Schedule would impose a duty on Queen Anne's Bounty to hand all the money over to the representative body. As the Bill stands, they have to hand over the money
      1274
      from Welsh sources, and, if they wish it, to hand over the money from English sources. If they do it, they would not have to make any division. The Welsh money would go anyhow, and the English money would go if they choose; therefore no Schedule is necessary. If, on the other hand, they do not choose, they can make the division without the Schedule. What is to stop them? Therefore I say the Schedule is practically useless. I cannot accept the view that if the Schedule is omitted any duty is imposed on Queen Anne's Bounty to hand over the money.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: I will point out that the Schedule is necessary because of Clause 4, Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), which says:—
      "all property vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty which is ascertained as hereinafter mentioned to be Welsh ecclesiastical property."
      Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman also look at Clause 5, Sub-section (2), which says:—
      "Queen Anne's Bounty shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, and before the date of Disestablishment, ascertain and by order declare what property vested in them at the passing of this Act, or under the provisions hereinafter in this Section contained, is property of the class or description mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act, and all property so ascertained and declared shall be Welsh ecclesiastical property within the meaning of this Act."
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: You can leave those particular Sub-sections out on Report. My view is that they are no longer necessary in consequence of the change made in the Bill in Clause 8.
      Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: For the purposes of the Committee stage we still must have the Schedule, in order to carry out the purposes of Clause 4 and Clause 5. What the hon. and gallant Member says is true, that if there is going to be a recasting the Second Schedule is not necessary, and the Clauses may have to be amended in that respect. I was only answering the question as to how we should deal with the matter now. It is far better, from his point of view, to leave the Second Schedule in its present form than to have the Clauses amended.
      Question put, "That the Second Schedule stand part of the Bill."
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 114.

      Division No. 562.]

      AYES.

      [7.52 p.m.

      Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

      Goldstone, Frank

      O'Grady, James

      Acland, Francis Dyke

      Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

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

      Adamson, William

      Greig, Colonel J. W.

      O'Malley, William

      Addison, Dr. C.

      Griffith. Ellis J.

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

      Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

      O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

      Alden, Percy

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

      O'Shee, James John

      Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

      Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

      Outhwaite, R. L.

      Arnold, Sydney

      Hacked, John

      Palmer, Godfrey Mark

      Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

      Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

      Parker, James (Halifax)

      Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

      Hancock, J. G.

      Parry, Thomas H.

      Barnes, G. N.

      Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

      Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

      Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

      Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

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

      Beale, Sir William Phipson

      Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

      Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

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

      Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

      Pirie, Duncan V.

      Bentham. G. J.

      Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

      Pointer, Joseph

      Bethell, Sir J. H.

      Hayden, John Patrick

      Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

      Black, Arthur W.

      Hayward, Evan

      Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

      Boland, John Pius

      Hazleton, Richard

      Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)

      Booth, Frederick Handel

      Helme, Sir Norval Watson

      Primrose, Hon. Nell James

      Bowerman, C. W,

      Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

      Pringle, William M. R.

      Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

      Henry, Sir Charles

      Radford, G. H.

      Brace, William

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

      Raffan, Peter Wilson

      Brady, Patrick Joseph

      Higham, John Sharp

      Reddy, M.

      Brocklehurst, W. B.

      Hinds, John

      Redmond, John E. (Watertord)

      Bryce, J. Annan

      Hobhouse. Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

      Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

      Burke, E. Haviland-

      Hodge, John

      Redmond. William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

      Burns, Rt. Hon. John

      Hogge, James Myles

      Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

      Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

      Holmes, Daniel Turner

      Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

      Byles, Sir William

      Holt, Richard Durning

      Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

      Cair-Gomm, H. W.

      Horne, Charles Siivester (Ipswich)

      Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

      Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

      Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

      Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

      Chancellor, Henry George

      Hudson, Walter

      Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

      Chapple, Dr. William Allen

      John, Edward Thomas

      Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

      Clancy, John Joseph

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

      Robinson, Sidney

      Clough, William

      Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

      Roche, Augustine (Louth)

      Clynes, John R.

      Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

      Roe, Sir Thomas

      Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

      Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

      Rowlands, James

      Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

      Joyce, Michael

      Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

      Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

      Keating, Matthew

      Scanlan, Thomas

      Cotton, William Francis

      Kellaway, Frederick George

      Sheeny, David

      Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

      Kennedy, Vincent Paul

      Sherwell, Arthur James

      Crooks, William

      Kilbride, Denis

      Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Alisebrook

      Crumley, Patrick

      King, J. (Somerset, North)

      Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

      Cullinan, John

      Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

      Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)

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

      Leach, Charles

      Smyth. Thomas F. (Leitrim)

      Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

      Levy, Sir Maurice

      Spicer, Rt, Hon. Sir Albert

      Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

      Lewis, John Herbert

      Sutherland, J. E.

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

      Lundon, Thomas

      Taylor, John W (Durham)

      Dawes, J. A.

      Lynch, A. A.

      Taylor, Theodore C. (Radclifte)

      Delany, William

      Macdonald J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

      Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)

      Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

      McGhee, Richard

      Tennant, Harold John

      Devlin, Joseph

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

      Thomas, James Henry

      Dillon, John

      Macpherson, James Ian

      Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

      Donelan, Captain A.

      MacVeagh, Jeremiah

      Toulmin, Sir George

      Doris, William

      M'Callum, Sir John M.

      Trevelyan, Charles Philips

      Duffy, William J.

      M'Kean, John

      Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

      Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

      McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

      Verney, Sir Harry

      Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)

      M'Micking, Major Gilbert

      Wadsworth, J.

      Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

      Marks, Sir George Croydon

      Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

      Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

      Marshall, Arthur Harold

      Watt, Henry Anderson

      Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

      Webb, H.

      Elverston, Sir Harold

      Meagher, Michael

      Wedgwood, J. C.

      Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

      Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

      White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

      Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

      Millar, James Duncan

      White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

      Essex, Sir Richard Walter

      Molloy, Michael

      White, Patrick (Meath, North)

      Farrell, James Patrick

      Molteno, Percy Alport

      Whitehouse, John Howard

      Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

      Money, L. G. Chiozza

      Wiles, Thomas

      Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

      Mooney, John J.

      Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

      Ffrench, Peter

      Morgan, George Hay

      Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

      Field, William

      Morison, Hector

      Winfrey, Richard

      Fitzglbbon, John

      Muldoon, John

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

      Flavin, Michael Joseph

      Munro, R.

      Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

      Gill, A. H.

      Nolan, Joseph

      Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

      Ginnell, Laurence

      O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

      Yoxall, Sir James Henry

      Gladstone, W. G. C.

      O'Connor. John (Kildare, N.)

      Glanville, H. J.

      O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

      Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

      O'Dowd, John

      NOES.

      Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

      Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

      Malcolm, Ian

      Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.

      Fleming, Varentine

      Mason, James F. (Windsor)

      Baird, John Lawrence

      Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

      Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

      Forster, Henry William

      Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

      Balcarres, Lord

      Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

      Moore, William

      Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

      Goulding, Edward Alfred

      Mount, William Arthur

      Barnston, Harry

      Greene, Walter Raymond

      Newton, Harry Kottingham

      Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

      Gretton, John

      Nield, Herbert

      Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

      Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

      Beresford, Lord Charles

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

      Perkins, Walter F.

      Bigland, Alfred

      Gwynn, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

      Peto, Basil Edward

      Bird, Alfred

      Hamersley, Alfred St. George

      Pollock, Ernest Murray

      Blair, Reginald

      Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

      Pryce-Jones, Col. E,

      Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

      Harris, Henry Percy

      Rees, Sir J. D.

      Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

      Helmsley, Viscount

      Remnant, James Farquharsort

      Boyton, James

      Henderson, Major H. (Berks)

      Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesail)

      Bridgeman, W. Clive

      Hewins, William Albert Samuel

      Royds, Edmund

      Bull, Sir William James

      Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

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

      Burn, Colonel C. R.

      Hoare, Sir J. G.

      Sanders, Robert Arthur

      Butcher, John George

      Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

      Sanderson, Lancelot

      Campion, W. R.

      Hope, Harry (Bute)

      Smith, Harold (Warrington)

      Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

      Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

      Spear, Sir John Ward

      Cassel, Felix

      Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

      Stanler, Beville

      Cave, George

      Horner, Andrew Long

      Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

      Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

      Houston, Robert Paterson

      Stewart, Gershom

      Cecil, Lord R. (Herts., Hitchin)

      Hume-Williams, W. E.

      Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

      Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

      Joynson-Hicks, William

      Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

      Cooper, Richard Ashmole

      Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

      Talbot, Lord E.

      Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

      Kimber, Sir Henry

      Thynne, Lord Alexander

      Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Touche, George Alexander

      Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

      Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

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

      Craik, Sir Henry

      Lane-Fox, G. R.

      Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

      Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

      Larmor, Sir J.

      Winterton, Earl

      Croft, H. P.

      Lewisham, Viscount

      Wolmer, Viscount

      Doughty, Sir George

      Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

      Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

      Duke, Henry Edward

      Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo.,Han.S.)

      Wood, John (Stalybridge)

      Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

      Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)

      Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

      MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Rawlinson and Major Gastrell.

      Fell, Arthur

      Magnus, Sir Philip

      Question put and agreed to.

    THIRD SCHEDULE.
      Part I.—PROPERTY WHICH MAY BE TRANSFERRED BY THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS TO THE REPRESENTATIVE BODY.
      Property vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners which has by them been before the 25th day of April, 1912, annexed or appropriated to any ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation in the Church in Wales by way of grant, or is the produce of, or is or has been derived from, property so annexed or appropriated and which is not Welsh ecclesiastical property within the meaning of this Act.
      Part II.—PROPERTY WHICH MAY BE TRANSFERRED BY QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY TO THE REPRESENTATIVE BODY.
      Property vested in Queen Anne's Bounty which has by them been before the 25th day of April, 1912, annexed or appropriated to any ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation in the Church in Wales by way of grant, or is the produce of, or is or has been derived from, property so annexed or appropriated, and which is not Welsh ecclesiastical property within the meaning of this Act.

      Part III.—PROPERTY A PERPFTUAL ANNUITY OF THE ANNUAL VALUE OF WHICH MAY BE CHARGED ON THE COMMON FUND OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS.
      1. Charges on the common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners made before the 25th day of April, 1912, by way of grant for any ecclesiastical purpose in the Church in Wales, not being charges in respect of the property mentioned in Part I. of this Schedule and not being Welsh ecclesiastical property within the meaning of this Act.

      2. The average amount granted by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners out of the annual appropriations from the surplus income of their common fund during the seven years ending the 31st day of October, 1911, by way of augmentation or Endowment of benefices or towards the stipends of assistant clergy in Wales and Monmouthshire.

      Part IV.—PROPERTY A PERPETUAL ANNUITY OF TUE ANNUAL VALUE OF WHICH MAY BE CHARGED ON THE ROYAL BOUNTY FUND.
      The average amount by which the grants made out of the Royal Bounty Fund for the purposes of the Church in Wales in

      1279
      the seven years ending the 31st day of December, 1911, have exceeded the average annual amounts received by Queen Anne's Bounty in those years by way of first fruits and tenths in respect of ecclesiastical offices in the Church in Wales.
      Viscount WOLMER: I beg to move, in Part 1, after the word "before" I "before the twenty-fifth day of April"], to insert the words—
      "the date of Disestablishment annexed or appropriated to any ecclesiastical office or cathedral corporation in the Church in Wales by way of grant, or is the produce of, or is or has been derived from, property so annexed or appropriated, and which is not Welsh ecclesiastical property within the meaning of this Act; but the amount of property so transferred shall not be less than the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had up to."
      The Amendment which stands in my name has the appearance of being a rather complicated one, but in fact it is nothing of the sort. It is simply an alteration in the date from which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty may calculate the amount of property which they are to be allowed to hand over to the Church in Wales. The reason it starts in this elaborate fashion is that if the date which I suggested was rejected by the Government it would still be in order to propose some alternative date, but all that I propose is that the date in the Bill should not be the 25th day of April, but the date of Disestablishment. The Home Secretary has already gone some way to meet us in proposing that it should be the passing of this Act. Therefore the issue between us is whether it should be the passing of the Act or the date of Disestablishment. This, of course, is not a -very important point. The question of whether it should be the 25th of April, 1912, or some date after the provisions of the Bill were made known was the really important question. What particular date after the provision of this Bill becomes known should be selected is, in my opinion, comparatively an unimportant question, but I should like to argue in favour of the principle that the later the date can be the "better it will be for the interests of the Church, and I am sure in a matter of this sort the Government and hon. Members opposite would not desire that any arrangement should be inserted in the Bill -which can in any way be injurious to the
      1280
      Church without carrying out the primary object of this measure. The reason why I should prefer the date of Disestablishment instead of the passing of the Act is simply the question of time. I want the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty to have plenty of time to go through their accounts, to examine their resources and calculate how much money they think they will be able to give to the Church in her disestablished state—how much money they can afford from their English resources—so that they can appreciate exactly what the needs of the Church will be and what opportunities they will have of giving and what amount they will have to give. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty will have to think of the future as well as the present. They will have to consider in what danger their funds and their revenues stand in the future.
      We have been told by the President of the Board of Agriculture that this Bill is only a preliminary to a Bill for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church of England, and therefore, in handing over to the Church in Wales moneys which are really the property of the Church of England, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will have to take into consideration the question of the possible Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in England as well as the question of the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales, and it is because they will have to look into the future in regard to their revenues that I desire to give them as much time as possible before they make this final allocation of the money to the Church in Wales. Then it is not only a question of the possible future Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church of England that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will have to bear in mind. They derive their revenues from certain forms of property which are at present the target for a great deal of abuse and challenge from hon. Members opposite, such as mining royalties and rents from urban properties, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will have to go carefully into the whole question of the source of their revenue and how far future legislation will be likely to invade upon their property in these respects. Therefore, this question of allocating property will be a very momentous and a very difficult one for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, and therefore they should be

      1281
      given the maximum amount of time that is possible to make up their minds and to fix the salary, and that there should be no attempt to hurry them in any way.
      Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord has really built a huge superstructure on a very slender basis. His Amendment would not have the effect he desires, nor would it in the least matter to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in making up their minds whether I put in this date or any other date. The date in the Clause is only for the purpose of calculation. It is not the date upon which they have got to decide. It is nothing to do with the length of time they will have, but only the date which is to be taken for the purpose of calculation. I quite agree that the date of 25th April, 1912, is not as good a date as the date of the passing of the Act, but I think for the purpose of calculation we ought to have the passing of the Act. In regard to his other point, the Noble Lord must remember that this only relates to property which has already been appropriated by the Commissioners to the Welsh Church with the intention that the property shall be permanently appropriated to the Welsh Church. They have already arrived at their decision on the point, and they have informed me that, although the property is handed back to them for the purpose of this Bill, they intend to reappropriate it for the purposes of the Welsh Church. I think, therefore, we might agree without further discussion that the passing of the Act is the best date, and to accept that as the date for this purpose.
      Viscount WOLMER: I have not made my point quite clear. What the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have given in times past to the Church in Wales is not really relevant to what the property of the Church ought to be after she has been Disestablished and Disendowed. It may quite well be that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will say, "When the Church in Wales has been Disestablished and has had two-thirds of her property taken away, it would be only fair and right that we should give to the Church in Wales more money and more property than we have hitherto given in years past," and that is why I objected so strongly to the date, 25th April, because it really took away all initiative from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the matter. The only issue between us is whether it should be the passing of this Act or the date of Disestablishment, and I think the opinion of
      1282
      the Ecclesiastical Commissioners might be very materially influenced by the business they will have to go through between the passing of this Act and the date of Disestablishment. They will have to go through a great deal of business in clearing up the mess which will have resulted from the passing of this Act, and they will, by the time the date of Disestablishment comes, be in a far better position to know what the funds of the Church in Wales are and how far every particular parish and church has been robbed and despoiled than they would foe at the time of the passing of the Act; therefore I make a very particular point that they should be given as long a time as possible to make up their minds, and, if necessary, to make a further increased grant to the Church in Wales. Surely the right hon. Gentleman has no objection to that.
      Mr. McKENNA: Not the slightest.
      Viscount WOLMER: Then why not facilitate—
      Mr. McKENNA: Because the Noble Lord's Amendment does not do it. It gives them no longer opportunity to make up their minds.
      Viscount WOLMER: The date of Disestablishment is after the time of the passing of the Act, perhaps a year, or perhaps six months—it all depends on the political situation as to when the Government think an election is coming—but, at any rate, at a later date, and in that interval between the passing of the Act and the date of Disestablishment the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will have had occasion to go through the accounts of practically every parish in Wales, and they will know, in a way in which they cannot know at the passing of the Act, what the detailed facts of the ravages of this Bill will be on the individual parishes, and, therefore, they will be in a much better position to know, if it is necessary, and if they can afford, and if it is wise and right for them to make an increased grant to the Church in Wales.
      Mr. CAWLEY: May I point out that this matter is in no way affected by the Schedules, but by paragraph (c) of Clause 6—
      "It shall be lawful for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty, if they think fit, within one year after the date of Disestablishment…"

      1283
      That is the date. They can fix any date up to that time one year after the date of Disestablishment to make up their minds, and no alteration of the Schedule will affect that.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Member, I think, is mistaken, and so, I think, is the Home Secretary. It is quite true that paragraph (c) begins in the way the hon. Member read, but they cannot transfer more than the whole of that specified in Part I. of the Third Schedule. The whole must be that which exists in Part I. of the Schedule. Part I. is the property vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners which has at a particular date been appropriated by them to the purposes of the Church in Wales, therefore not more than was appropriated by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners at that date.
      Mr. McKENNAdissented.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: "Property vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or has by them been before the passing of this Act annexed or appropriated to any ecclesiastical office." That is the amount which is specified in Part I.—the amount which has been appropriated before that date. They cannot transfer to the Church in Wales more than would have been appropriated at that date, therefore it is true to say that the discretion of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners is limited to this. They may transfer everything which was appropriated at that date. They cannot transfer more, though they may transfer less, than was appropriated at the passing of this Act, if we assume that the Amendment is put in. If, therefore, you extend that time you give them the opportunity of appropriating more up to the date of Disestablishment, and then they can transfer more. That is the argument of my Noble Friend and, as far as I can see, that argument is right. Assuming that it is right, what is the substantial reason for it? I think it is a strong one. It is quite right that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should have the opportunity of considering the position of the Church as soon as they see the form in which this Bill finally passes Parliament. It seems to me they have a right to a little time for consideration after that to see the effect of the Bill. Once they see the final form—and that would be provided for by the Amendment of my Noble Friend—they would be able to say
      1284
      whether the Church in Wales is to receive more than has hitherto been appropriated under Part I. of the Third Schedule. I think it is right that they should be able to say that, but the question whether the whole policy is right is a different matter, and a good deal may be said upon it. The question whether it is right that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should be required finally to fix a certain sum which is to be transferred from English purposes to Welsh purposes without any possibility of going back upon it, and whether it is right to provide for the Re-endowment of the Church in Wales from English sources is a very serious question. But that is not the question raised by the Amendment proposed by my Noble Friend. I observe that "the date of Disestablishment" is referred to in paragraph (c), Clause 6, and it is within one year after that date that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are to decide whether they will transfer the whole or part of what they have appropriated. That seems to me to indicate that the date contemplated is the date of Disestablishment. I think it would have been more symmetrical to put it in the Schedule as well.
      Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord has not shown how the Amendment would extend the time for the Commissioners to make up their minds. All the knowledge would be in their possession at the date of Disestablishment. They have a year after Disestablishment to make up their minds whether the Noble Lord's Amendment is accepted or not. It cannot extend the time which the Commissioners will have at their disposal for making up their minds. At the date of Disestablishment all the materials and facts will be known to the Commissioners, so that they will have all the information necessary to make up their minds. The only conceivable difference which the acceptance of the Amendment might make is that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners might, six months or a year after the passing of the Act, pay slightly more than at the passing of the Act. That is the sole object of the Amendment.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: They might appropriate more.
      Mr. McKENNA: Oh, no, they could not really do that. The Noble Lord did not complete the reading of paragraph (c), Clause 6. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners are only entitled to appropriate to

      1285
      the Welsh Church what they have given in the past, but they are allowed to take into account what might have been given to the Church in the future. I have offered to give them unfetterd discretion as to how much they should give if they ask me for it. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is for the House to decide."] I am willing to give the Commissioners power to give as much as they like if they ask me for it. As a matter of fact, I do not think they will ask me for it, and I think they are quite right not to ask it. But that is neither here nor there. So far as I am concerned, I do not mind inserting "the date of Disestablishment," but these arrangements have been made with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and I do not think I ought to be pressed to put in conditions which would enable them to give more money to the Welsh Church unless I am asked by them to do so.
      Lord ROBERT CECIL: Why?
      Mr. McKENNA: Everybody who has spoken has expressed grave doubt as to the propriety of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners being allowed to use English money for the purpose, as they call it, of re-endowing the Disestablished Church in Wales, and yet at the same time efforts are made by hon. Members opposite to enlarge the latitude of the Commissioners in the exercise of that policy about which they have such grave doubts. If we are to adopt the policy of perfect freedom for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, I think that ought only to be done on the request of the Commissioners themselves. If, on the other hand, we are to enter into arrangements with the Commissioners, and to treat them as trustees for this property who ought to be consulted, then I say the Bill carries out the arrangements, so far as I have been able to understand them. If, however, the Commissioners prefer, not the Noble Lord's Amendment, but the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Kingston, I would be willing to put in "the date of Disestablishment." I do not think the Commissioners would prefer that.
      Viscount HELMSLEY: On a point of Order. I desire to ask whether the Amendment of the Noble Lord is in order as proposed, or whether it ought to be divided into two? It seems to me to incorporate words already in the Schedule, and also at the end to introduce some fresh ones. It seems to me that the first part of the
      1286
      Amendment should be put as a separate Amendment, and that subsequently the words—
      "but the amount of property so transferred shall not be less than the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had up to"—
      should also be put as a separate Amendment.
      Viscount WOLMER: Is the Noble Lord in order in asking whether the Amendment is in order after it has been called by the Chairman, and debated for a considerable time?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: When I called the Amendment I considered it in order, and I see no reason to change my mind even after the Noble Lord's appeal to me.
      Viscount HELMSLEY: Is it in order to move an Amendment which inserts certain words and then goes on to insert further words which are already in the Schedule?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not see anything inconsistent in the original Amendment as it stands on the Paper.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I think the argument of the Home Secretary is an extraordinary one. He says he cannot do what is asked without first consulting the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I have a great respect for them, but they are not the Church, and certainly they are not Parliament. Parliament is now legislating for the Church in Wales. It is enacting that certain funds should be taken away and giving power that other funds should remain. It is a matter for Parliament to decide what is to be done, and in no sense is it a matter for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and I protest against the suggestion of the Home Secretary that before he can make an Amendment desired by any section of the House of Commons, he must first consult an outside body, it is quite clear that the Amendment of the Noble Lord is not necessary if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners exercise the widest possible option, or if, in fact, the Home Secretary had incorporated the Amendment which I think I moved on Clause 6 to allow them to give an unlimited amount out of English resources to the Church in Wales. That has not been incorporated in the Bill. All we know is that the Home Secretary says he cannot incorporate it unless he is asked by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I think that the position is a very ridiculous one. At the same time,

      1287
      having regard to what the Home Secretary has said, I think we had better leave the matter as it is. I understand that he is quite prepared to consider it and that he will consult the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and will take an opportunity later on either of giving the Ecclesiastical Commissioners the full option to give as much as ever they could out of English resources or else take the minor course of putting in the date of Disestablishment instead of the date of the passing of the Bill. In those circumstances I suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn, and we can further consider the matter on Report or whatever opportunity may arise.
      Mr. KING: I have got very deep sympathy with hon. Gentlemen opposite who cannot possibly occupy the time profitably until half-past ten when we conclude the Committee stage. So I offer one remark which is of importance. It is that we ought to have one of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners here; two of them are Members of this House; they are the chief people to whom this Schedule refers. One of them, I am very sorry to hear, is unwell, but the other is here in the House, and has been constantly within the precincts during the whole of the proceedings on this Bill. Why cannot he be here at the very time when the Schedule which affects him more than anybody else is under discussion. I call the attention of the Committee to this because it is a very remarkable circumstance which ought to be explained.
      Amendment put, and negatived.
      Government Amendments made:—
      In Part I., leave out the words "twenty-fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and twelve," and insert instead thereof the words "passing of this Act."
      In Part II., leave out the words "twenty-fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and twelve," and insert instead thereof the words "passing of this Act."
      In Part III., first paragraph, leave out the words "twenty-fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and twelve," and insert instead thereof the words "passing of this Act."
      In Part III., first paragraph, after the word "grant," insert the words "or provision."—[Mr. MeKenna.]
      Government Amendment proposed: In Part III., after the word "Schedule," insert the words
      "or charges transferred to the property mentioned in paragraph (1) of the First Schedule to this Act, except so far as that property is not able to bear them."—[Mr. MeKenna.]
      Mr. CAVE: What is the effect of this Amendment?
      Mr. McKENNA: It is simply to correct a double negative, but I had not followed the Amendment to its last stage, and if the Committee will allow me to consider the matter for a few minutes I shall be very happy.
      Mr. BOOTH: It seems to me that the object is to deal with that property which is not able to bear the burden. No one wants to put any burden on property which cannot bear it. Even the most extreme single-taxer never suggests putting on more than property can bear, and the object of this Amendment is specially to protect that property from having to bear an unfair share of the burden.
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: All we want to know is what does it mean? Do you know?
      Mr. BOOTH: I am endeavouring to explain it. I have been listening the whole evening to hon. Members opposite to find out what they meant and have utterly failed. I submit that my explanation is far superior to anything I have heard from them.
      Mr. POLLOCK: Is not the point that under the First Schedule of the Act they provide for mortgages—that is to say, that it should be possible for the Commissioners to allow certain charges to stand? Then, when we get to this Third Schedule, it is necessary to safeguard the rights which are given by the First Schedule and to secure that Part III. of the Third Schedule and Part I. of the First Schedule should stand together. Therefore, they have got to put in these words to prevent them putting too large a mortgage or burden upon any particular property. Subject that the two Clauses can be read together.
      Mr. McKENNA: The Amendment should read
      "or charges transferred to the property mentioned in paragraph (1) of the First Schedule to this Act, so far as that property is able to bear them."

      1289
      I confess that I was so full of the other Amendment that it was not so easy at first sight to follow this. The charge on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the bishops and chaplains in Wales now amount to £29,000. The amount, of property which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners hold to meet these charges is £26,700. There is consequently a balance of £3,000 a year which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners now pay, but which does not spring from Welsh money. Part of the payment of bishops and chaplains in Wales does not spring from episcopal estates, and it is in order to dispose of this £3,000 a year that these words are added. Otherwise there would be a balance of £3,000 a year which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would not have been able to pay to the Welsh Church, although they have paid it hitherto, and, on the principle of the Bill, we propose to allow them full liberty to go on paying whatever they paid in the past.
      Mr. CAVE: I am not quite sure the effect of the Amendment is to enlarge the amount which the Commissioners give, and I am rather disposed to think that it limits it. The words we are dealing with are charges in respect of the property mentioned in Part I. of this Schedule, "not being Welsh ecclesiastical property within the meaning of this Act."
      Mr. McKENNA: It leaves the £3,000.
      Mr. CAVE: But the effect is to reduce the amount of the grant.
      Mr. McKENNA: To increase it. The words "so far as the property is able to bear them" would limit the amount of the reduction to £26,700. The total amount of the property is £29,000, so that this limitation upon the reduction does produce an increase.
      Mr. CAVE: I quite understand that the final words limit the reduction, but the Amendment as a whole limits the grant. That is my point. The effect of the whole Amendment is to limit the maximum grant, and therefore to reduce the grant. I am not at all satisfied that this is not done.
      Mr. McKENNA: I have stated the purport of the Amendment, but I will reconsider the language employed. I was satisfied that the language was right, but in these very complicated matters it is not always very easy to see what effect language has. I will, however, go care-
      1290
      fully into the matter again. The object is to secure that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall go on paying the additional £3,000 a year which is derived from English sources.
      Mr. CAVE: Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the Amendment now and deal with it on Report? I am really very doubtful about the effect of the Amendment, and I am afraid it does limit the grant.
      Mr. McKENNA: It is immaterial to me. I will put it down on the Report stage, if the hon. and learned Gentleman feels seriously about it. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment that the words may be reconsidered. Undoubtedly we have got a restriction upon the limitation, and both the limitation and the restriction upon the limitation will be considered in relation to the original grant. I quite admit that it becomes an extremely complicated question, but it is merely one as to the language to be used.
      Mr. CAVE: That is all.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. CAVE: I beg to move, in Part III., second paragraph, to leave out the word "eleven" ["October nineteen hundred and eleven "], and insert instead thereof, the word "twelve."
      The effect is that the average amount to be calculated by an interval of seven years, shall be reckoned as in 1912.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: In Part IV., leave out the word "eleven" ["December nineteen hundred and eleven"], and insert-instead thereof, the word "twelve."—[Mr. Cave.]
      Question proposed, "That this Schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
      Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I do not wish to keep the Committee more than a moment in discussing this Schedule, although there is a very great deal which could be said about it. It is a very curious proposal, and really the result of the Schedule is that the Church of Wales may be subject to a second Disendowment if at any time the Church of England should be Disendowed. I merely wish to ask permission to say that we do protest very strongly against the most unskilful and absurd allocation of time made in connection with the Committee stage of this Bill under the

      1291
      guillotine. The result has been that big Clauses like Clause 1 and Clause 8 were insufficiently discussed, and to-night and other nights we really have had more time than is necessary. I do think that if the Government choose to deal by means of the guillotine with important Bills like this a little more care ought to be exercised in the allocation of time. As it is, great and important parts of the Bill have been insufficiently discussed or not discussed at all because of this faulty allocation. I think we have very just ground for complaint of the manner in which we have been treated in regard to this Bill.
      Mr. KING: I must just offer a word in reply to what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman opposite. In my view, the Debate has broken down now because the Opposition have been completely outclassed on every point. They have been answered again and again. We have convinced many on their own side that they are in the wrong, and we have so completely triumphed over them in the course of this long discussion that they have nothing more to say.
      Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, 3rd February.
      The Orders for the remaining Government business were read, and postponed.
      Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

  UNDERGROUND TELEGRAPH CABLES, SCOTLAND.
  Mr. PIRIE: Certainly, it is true that it is the unexpected that happens in this House, and one can never be certain of what is going to happen; otherwise I know I should have been supported now, as I hope to be later, by several of my Scottish colleagues who wish to take part in the discussion of a matter which is not before the House for the first time, namely, the neglect of the commercial interests of Scotland by cutting it off from the advantage of enjoying the underground system of telegraphs in that part of the country north of Falkirk. In the miserable remnants of time which unfortunately are left to us Scottish Members to discuss this
  1292
  question, the question was raised as regards the action of the Postmaster-General as to the very unjust proportion in the money expended in this country and in Scotland on this service. Let it suffice for me to point out that 1,200 miles of underground telegraph lines have been laid in England and 130 in Scotland. That is not all. By a series of questions I elicited the fact that over and above those 1,200 miles of telegraph lines in England there are also an additional number of shorter underground cable communications not taken into account in those 1,200 miles, and I hope by still more questioning I shall find out the exact mileage. Thus the proportion of mileage between the two countries is even greater than the figures I have given. However, it is not my purpose to dwell on this matter as regards the Postmaster-General, because I know that some of my colleagues, especially the Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson), were going to take part in the discussion. We Scottish Members are determined to raise this question on another adjournment, when I hope my hon. Friend will be able to be present and give us the benefit of his great business knowledge on this question as regards the action of the Postmaster-General.
  To-night my purpose is to call attention to the action, or rather inaction, of the Secretary for Scotland as regards this matter in defence of Scottish interests. I say at once that, as far as possible, I do not intend to make any criticism or attack on either the Secretary for Scotland personally or on his office, but more on the system which prevails in his office. I say, however tied down that office may be by Parliamentary usages, yet when you come to unprecedented cases you are justified in taking unprecedented action. We live in more ways than one in an era of unprecedented action and unprecedented events, and as far as unequal treatment between Scotland and England are concerned, I do not think there has ever been a blacker case of injustice than in this apportionment of money devoted to underground telegraphic extension. I therefore say that it is time, and more than time, not only in the case of the present holder of the office, but also in that of his predecessor, for representations to be made on behalf of Scotland generally that more justice should be done. The Secretary for Scotland tries to ride off by saying that that is not his province, but the province of the Scottish Members. I will

  1293
  ask any fair-minded man to put himself in the place of the Scottish Members, and think what opportunities they have either of taking time by the forelock and getting beforehand, or even, when details of injustice are known, of taking any action. The Scottish Member cannot be aware of the intentions of the Government, and his opportunities for criticism or debate in this House are limited as far as his own affairs are concerned to a miserable half-dozen hours in the year, and that even sometimes is overstating the facts of the case. Then, again, if he brings up a grievance such as this on the Estimates he is naturally voted down by his more numerous English colleagues.
  What is the unfortunate Scottish Member to do, if he cannot look to the right hon. or hon. Gentleman who occupies the post of Secretary for Scotland, and more than ever when, as in this case, I am happy to say the Secretary for Scotland is not in another place, but here with us in the House of Commons. It was a great enough scandal, and I say that now, after all these years, when the Secretary for Scotland was allowed to be in the other place. Many of my Scottish colleagues at the time of the appointment of the late Secretary to another place spoke out more strongly even than I am speaking now. I held my tongue, hoping his appointment was only temporary. It ran its course despite the many attempts to secure other conditions, and it was not until his appointment to the Governorship of Madras that we got rid of being separated from our Secretary in this House. Now we have him here, and I venture to say that the A B C of his position would be this: to endeavour to constitute himself the leader of the Scottish Members on both sides of the House to defend Scottish interests. This ought not to be a party question. I recall what happened a few weeks ago as regards Ireland when there was a just grievance felt by all Irish Members as regards the treatment by the Board of Agriculture. I allude to the attack of foot-and-mouth disease in which there were Regulations proposed which were considered very unfair by the Irish Members. There both parties of Irish representatives united at once to make re presentations in defence of their national interests. Here at the present moment apart from party—
  Mr. MACPHERSON: On a point of Order. I see two Members (Mr. MacVeagh and Mr. Pringle) who are not Members of
  1294
  the Privy Council sitting on the Front Opposition Bench.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): Hon Members are entitled to sit in any part of the House which is open to them.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. PIRIE: I do not mind the hon. Member from Ireland occupying a seat there, but I must say the hon. Member from Scotland ought to show a greater sense of seriousness, although some of these matters may be objects of ridicule, but really they are not, and I think they deserve the serious consideration of the House. I wish now to call attention to the nature of the answers which the Secretary for Scotland thinks it his duty to give to questions on such paints as these. His main object seems to be to endeavour to hide the true facts. I ask the Secretary for Scotland whether any representations had been made either by his predecessor or by himself to the Postmaster-General with regard to the frequent breakdowns of telegraphic communications in the North-East of Scotland, and the consequent great financial loss which had been incurred. If he had given me a straight answer his answer would have been "No, I do not know what my predecessor has done, and I have made no representations." That really is what his answer amounted to. Instead of that, he desired to mislead the Scottish newspaper readers. I say that plainly to the right hon. Gentleman's face. He said:—
  "I am not able to say what representations my predecessor may have made at the time referred to."
  He might have taken the trouble to find out. He said further:—
  "On a recent occasion representations were properly made directly to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General."
  That was not my question. My question was whether he himself had made any representations. Any straightforward man would at once have given me the answer, "No, I have not made any representations." That is the plain and blunt truth, which the right hon. Gentleman did not want the Scottish electors to know. I asked him then if he had taken the trouble to find out what representations, if any, his predecessor had made. He then gave me a straight answer, because it was a. supplementary question, and he had not time to prepare the reply. He said, "No, I have not." Last week I asked him, in view of the statement of the Postmaster-General, what steps he was prepared to I take to safeguard Scottish interests. He

  1295
  made another evasive answer. He began by saying:—
  "The first part of the question asking for postal statistics should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General."
  I had not asked for any statistics; on the contrary, I had given some statistics and asked him if he was aware of them. He then rides off on the old excuse that it is not in accordance with Parliamentary practice for a Minister to make communications on a matter which is entirely in a colleague's province. That may be; but if it is the Parliamentary practice, and if he holds office on those terms, it is time that he changed the practice. I openly say that under present conditions no self-respecting Liberal ought to hold the office of Secretary for Scotland unless he is prepared to get justice done to his country. It is time the people of Scotland knew the actual state of affairs in regard to the way in which the right hon. Gentleman treats representations from Scotland and Scottish interests. As long as they are not in his Department he treats them with absolute indifference, apathy, and neglect. It is a monstrous thing that the whole of the North-East of Scotland and important centres of commerce like Dundee and Aberdeen should not receive proper treatment, whilst small town in the suburbs of London are treated to underground communication. Not only as regards postal matters, but also as regards larger questions affecting the national development of Scotland, Scottish interests are treated with indifference, contempt, and neglect. We Scottish Members are unduly handicapped in this House at present, and the least the Secretary for Scotland could do is to take up a decided line of action, and say that there must be a change—such, for instance, as perhaps federalism would give. On that point, during the passage of the Home Rule Bill, whom would one have expected to speak on the federal scheme but the Secretary for Scotland? But not once did the right hon. Gentleman open his lips. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because he is half-hearted in the matter, as some others are. Luckily, we know that important Members of the Cabinet favour the federal scheme, and the minor Members will have to follow their lead. We Scottish Members are absolutely entitled to have heard during these last few weeks some outline of the policy of the Secretary
  1296
  for Scotland for the country which he misrepresents.
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The matter upon which my hon. and gallant Friend has made so vivacious a speech is one of great simplicity. I do not know what authority he has for saying that I have treated it with indifference, apathy, or neglect; because he has not the least idea how I have treated it, and I have not the least intention of telling him. He finds fault with me for not inquiring what line my predecessor took, not in regard to anything which happened in Scotland, but in regard to the laying of a telegraphic cable at Penzance. My predecessor is in India, and I say quite frankly that I did not feel called upon to expend sums of public money on cablegrams for the purpose of dealing with a matter which was really not in the province of my Noble Friend, namely, the question of laying telegraphic lines in England. I believe, as a matter of fact they were laid to connect with oceanic cables. As for myself, the position is perfectly clear. What my hon. Friend invites me to do is to take up a question that has never been brought to my notice by the representatives who came here expressly to deal with it—representatives of trade and commerce in the municipalities interested. They understood a great deal more about the procedure of Parliament and the duties of Ministers than my hon. and gallant Friend seems to do. They came directly to the Postmaster-General, and put their case before him. This House, in course of time, has laid a vast number of duties on the Secretary for Scotland, but the duty of running the postal system of this country is not included in them. It is perfectly true that it is a matter upon which the Secretary for Scotland would naturally take a personal interest, but that is not what my hon. and gallant Friend is asking me to do. What he is really inviting me to do is to criticise my colleague the Postmaster-General. I think I am entitled to say that is not only contrary to Parliamentary practice, but that it is not a course of action which will promote harmony in the Cabinet, or serve the interest of any person who really desires to see work accomplished. What my hon. and gallant Friend wants is not work, but grounds for complaint. He finds them in the most trivial causes, and searches for them in the most obscure corners. He has no right at all to expect anything of the kind. If I make representations to my colleagues about

  1297
  Scottish business, I intend to do it in the way I think most effective, and that is, to speak to my colleagues in private and try to convince them of the justice of any claim that I think right. I have no notion of getting up and being made a sort of stalking horse for an attack upon one of my colleagues. If that is all the complaint the hon. and gallant Gentleman has against me, I am not afraid to meet it in Scotland or anywhere else, and I cannot help regretting that the time of the House should have been taken up by a matter so trivial and so absurd.
  Mr. HOGGE: I did not intend to speak, but I think it is the duty of a colleague of any Scotsman who brings up a question to support him in the main point that he puts. I do not think that the Secretary for Scotland has such reason to complain of the attitude that the hon. and gallant Member has taken up that he makes things better by taking up the attitude he himself has taken up in the speech which he has just delivered. He says deliberately in this House that he has not the least intention of telling hon. Members what he has done. I submit that that is not the attitude that the Secretary for Scotland ought to take up towards one of his colleagues. However much I may differ from my colleague, and however much the right hon. Gentleman may think that my colleague searches obscure corners for trivial cases to criticise his conduct in the House, I take it that the Secretary for Scotland ought to take Members from Scotland—at any rate Members from Scotland who sit on this side of the House—into his confidence on matters of the kind. I must frankly say that the action of the Scottish Secretary is not always above criticism any more than the suggestions we make on occasions of this sort may be above criticism from him. For example, I myself raised a question which is a very acute question so far as a large part of one of the counties of Scotland is concerned. No less than some eight or nine months ago I drew attention to the fact that owing to the want of telegraphic communication—and this does not involve the overhead or underground cables at all—but for want of reasonable telegraphic communication the Island of St. Kilda was shut off for six months of the year from communication with the mainland. An offer was made to the Post Office by an outside individual to supply a wireless telegraphic installation between that island and the mainland. The only thing that prevented
  1298
  it being erected at once was the procuring of a licence from the Post Office. Owing to some cause which I have never been able yet to understand, that licence was delayed to such an extent that although the installation was ready and was offered for nothing to the Post Office, St. Kilda is again shut off from the mainland this winter and will be for some six months. Advantage was not taken of this offer to the nation. One would have thought that here was a question upon which the Secretary for Scotland might have spoken privately to his colleague, the Postmaster-General, and have seen that the thing did not lapse for so many months. I think that is fair criticism.
  Mr. McKINNON WOODmade an observation which was inaudible.
  Mr. HOGGE: I asked a question in the House and got no information. If communications were made by the Secretary of Scotland will he stand up and say so?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Certainly, there were communications on the subject.
  Mr. HOGGE: Did the Secretary for Scotland take the trouble to see that that installation was erected in time to prevent the island being shut off for six months?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The hon. Member entirely changes his ground. He asks one moment if communications have been made, and he next asks if I have done the work of the Postmaster-General. Of course I have not!
  Mr. HOGGE: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand my question. The point I put is this: That it may be quite true that the right hon. Gentleman has spoken to his colleague upon the matter, but it does not matter whether he has spoken or not so long as he has not spoken effectively enough to procure the installation being erected before the island is shut off for six months. Speaking is nothing.
  Mr. BOOTH: Hear, hear.
  Mr. HOGGE: Quite so, and that is quite possibly one reason why the Scottish Members are given so few opportunities of speaking. Action is very much better than speaking. The point I am putting is this: The right hon. Gentleman says that my hon. and gallant colleague for North Aberdeen wants him to get up and practically to abuse his colleagues on that bench. He says that is a thing subversive

  1299
  of discipline in the Cabinet of which he is a member. It is an experience we might all relish, as witness what happened only a few days ago, the result of which no one seemed to be very much struck about. The whole point seems to me to be this, that the Secretary for Scotland seems to have some kind of idea that he alone is competent to know all the business that exists in Scotland, that all the interests that require to be satisfied, and petitions, and other matters should be brought within his province. I am perfectly certain that the question which has been raised now is quite legitimate. You have in Scotland, owing to the absence of underground cables, continuous telegraphic breakdowns. You have in England underground cables all over the country. {An HON. MEMBER: "NO."] Well, to a much larger extent than in Scotland. Our point of view is that our Post Office in Scotland earns a very large profit, and that we are entitled out of that profit therefore to have served those towns in Scotland which are now cut off on account of the telegraphic delays which occur at intervals. Why, I say, it should be resented as an impertinence by the Secretary for Scotland that a Scottish Member should bring this matter up on the Adjournment passes my wit to understand. Because of the absolutely irrelevant and impertinent answer of the right hon. Gentleman I have taken a part in the Debate.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: I have no quarrel whatever with the Secretary for Scotland. He has always shown to me extreme courtesy and consideration in anything I laid before him. At the same time, I think he enunciated a principle the other day which might lead to a certain amount of barrenness in Scottish administration. It appears to me that if there is to be a scramble for public funds by the Celtic fringe, Scotland might suffer considerably in the presence of such rapacious demands as are made by the other component parts
  1300
  of the United Kingdom. It seems to me that the Secretary for Scotland would require to take a stand in favour of a fair allocation of public funds for Scotland. I want to call attention to one thing in Scotland that I think in the past has been very seriously neglected not by the present occupant of the high office of Secretary for Scotland alone, but quite as much by his predecessors. For many years in Scotland there has been an attempt to carry on an experimental investigation of a mid-Scotland canal joining up the east and west coasts. For want of a very small sum of money, that investigation has been retarded notwithstanding the fact that in very recent times the disposition of the fleet in the North Sea, the creation of a naval base at Rosyth, and "Dreadnought" docks at Renfrew make a canal a necessity.
  Mr. BOOTH: I beg to call attention to the fact that forty Members are not present.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): Perhaps the hon. Member would not persist in view of the fact that the Debate will automatically stand adjourned in a minute and a half.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: I want to appeal to the Secretary for Scotland to give some encouragement for the further investigation of this scheme, because of its strategic advantages to this country and because of the great commercial advantage that would accrue by the joining up of the east and west coast ports of Britain and by making that canal a great thoroughfare for European traffic. It would afford a short and safe route between the North Sea and the Atlantic, and between North European ports and America.
  It being half an hour after the conclusion of Government business, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen minutes after Nine o'clock.