Part II.—ADJUSTMENTS.

HC Deb 28 January 1913 vol 47 cc1205-61

(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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. McKENNA

made 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. McKENNA

made 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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, 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- 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 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.

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 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- 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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

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.