HC Deb 01 July 1913 vol 54 cc1689-731

Order for Committee read.


I beg to move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee, notwithstanding anything in the Order of the House of the 16th day of June, that they have power to divide the Bill into two Bills, the first dealing with the Disestablishment and the second with the Disendowment of the Church in Wales."

4.0 P.M.

The object of this Instruction is to give the House an opportunity even at this somewhat late hour of registering a separate opinion upon the two questions, distinct as they are, which have hitherto been involved in the one Bill. It is perhaps one of the consequences of the procedure of this House that, however deep one's objections may be to a Bill, to its form and its contents, when it is first introduced, if only it receives sufficient detailed examination, in time one begins to overlook the principal objections which one had to it So perhaps, during the course of the Debates on this Bill, one has got rather into the habit of treating it as if the schemes of Disestablishment and Disendowment necessarily held together and were properly included in the one Bill. As a matter of fact, it has emerged beyond controversy from the Debates which we have had in this House that the questions of Disestablishment and Disendowment can be, and I submit should be, treated entirely separately, the one from the other. After all, the connection of the Church with the State involves no financial burden upon any man, it keeps no man out of his property, and it would be possible to consider, and indeed to pass, a scheme for severing the connection between the Church and the State without even considering the question of Disendowment. I think I speak accurately as the result of what I have heard in the Debates when I say that the alleged grievance, the grievance which hon. Members on the other side of the House feel with reference to Establishment, is one of sentiment, and that the grievance they feel with reference to Endowment is one of finance. If that is so, it is abundantly clear that you can remedy the one grievance without touching the other. You could at any time Disestablish the Church without touching the funds which she enjoys. But there is high authority for the proposition which I am advancing that these two integral parts of this Bill not only can be but should be considered separately in an utterance coming from the Treasury Bench, because I find that on the Second Reading of this Bill, when it was before the House in its earliest stages, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Hobhouse) said:—

This Bill deals both with the aspect of Disestablishment and Disendownment, and, as there are different values attached to those questions by hon. Members on that side as well as on this, we are bound to present each case separately, distinguishing the case of Disestablishment from the case of Disendowment. If the right hon. Gentleman is still of that opinion, now is his opportunity of putting into practical effect the obiter dictum he laid down at that stage. If it is easy to treat the question of Disestablishment apart from the question of Disendowment, it is obviously equally easy to treat the question of Disendowment apart from the question of Disestablishment. You could perfectly well, if you thought fit, leave the existing connection between the Church and the State and take from the Church, so connected, the funds which she enjoys at the present time. Therefore, it is almost beyond question that those two questions not only could have been, but in the opinion of a great number of thinking men ought to have been, treated separately in this House. I venture to hope that this Motion will receive more sympathetic consideration at the hands of the Government than was accorded to a somewhat similar suggestion made yesterday afternoon, because the essential facts are different from beginning to end. What was the chief objection that was urged then, and which I suppose will be urged now? It will be said that the House has already considered this question and has already registered its vote on it when a somewhat similar Motion came before it some time ago. Yes, but at what stage was that done? The Motion to separate the Bill came forward for consideration after the Second Reading, and before the House had entered on the detailed consideration of the Bill in Committee. The House had approved the general principle involved in the Bill, but it had given no consideration to the details of the schemes, either for Disestablishment or Disendowment, and it is beyond question that as the Debate proceeded and the salient points and the details of the scheme of Disendowment were laid bare, it became daily, indeed hourly, obvious what a sharp distinction there was between the two schemes which the Government had thought fit to include in one and the same Bill.

I believe I am stating the proposition with absolute accuracy when I say that the discussion which took place in Committee on the Disendowment proposal brought home to a considerable number of hon. Members on that side of the House that, passionately and conscientiously attached as they may be to the scheme of Disestablishment, they are ashamed in their hearts of the Disendowment scheme. I believe that there is a considerable number of Members on that side of the House who would welcome the opportunity—and who would welcome it as the result of the detailed discussions we have had in this House, but which we had not had when this question last came up for determination—of voting, if party exigencies would allow, for once according to their consciences! If it is true, as I think it is, that there is a considerable body of opinion on that side of the House who feel considerably more strongly on the question of Disestablishment than they do on the question of Disendowment. I am bound to admit that there is a section of opinion in the country who, while passionately objecting to a scheme of Disendowment, regard with much less animosity a scheme of Disestablishment, as to which they are still in doubt what the effect upon the Church will be. These differences of opinion do exist; they exist in this House, and they exist in the country, and therefore, not only the House itself, but the country which sends us to this House, should I submit be given the opportunity of considering these two questions apart. There is a further reason why our constituents should be given an opportunity of communicating with us and asking us to register by our votes, separately, given, on these two questions what they feel. At the General Election the question of Disestablishment may have been, in part at any rate, understood by the electors. The scheme is almost involved in the sentence which proclaims it. Disestablishment speaks for itself; Disendowment, for its justice or for its injustice, depends upon the details of the scheme. While Disestablishment may have been put by some of us before our constituents as an issue which they were called upon to determine, no man can stand up, either on that side of the House or on this, and pretend that one single scheme of Disendowment was laid before those who have returned us to represent them in this House. If that is so, surely it is an additional reason why even at this time of day we should be given, on behalf of those constituents, an opportunity of registering a separate vote upon these two vitally and fundamentally separate and distinct questions.

Lastly, this objection was taken, and I suppose it will be renewed, to an application of this kind. It was said that an Instruction at this time of day was not in accordance with the Parliament Act. I am unable to follow that argument. The Parliament Act could have been framed in such a way as to make the passage through this House of Bills coming under it purely automatic. They could have been presented to this House and have gone through it without any opportunity of consideration or discussion of any sort. The same Bill might have been presented to this House and have been automatically passed through on its way to another House, but that was not the scheme adopted by those who were responsible for that Act. They have chosen to provide that a Bill introduced under the Parliament Act shall pass through all the stages of an ordinary Act of Parliament, and, indeed, so careful were they that the ordinary procedure should be preserved, that you, Mr. Speaker, have even to certify that the Bill has passed through its normal stages before it is returned to the House of Lords. If that is so, how can they object when we adopt the normal and legitimate procedure of this House and ask for an Instruction even at this period of the Bill, in order that now we may consider the questions of Disestablishment and Disendowment apart from one another? It surely is no answer—the answer which I understand was given yesterday by the Government—for the right hon. Gentleman to come down and say, "We have stifled discussion in the Committee stage; you are not to discuss the Bill in that stage at all, and, therefore, you waste your time and ours by bringing forward this Instruction." That is no answer. If we are to give a silent vote, the proceedings under this Parliament Act having reduced our discussions on these Bills to a mere farce—if we are to give a silent vote, at any rate let us be given an opportunity to record a vote on these questions one apart from the other, in the light of the experience we got from the Debates in this House, and in the light and guidance we have obtained from expressions of opinion in the country. If we are to give our vote silently, let us give at any rate an intelligent vote on the separate questions which are indicated in the Motion I have the honour to propose.


I rise to second this Instruction.

I am very glad we have again got an opportunity of stating what, I believe, to be an extremely strong case. In my opinion a very strong case was made out six months ago, when we had a Debate of a similar character, and that case has been considerably strengthened by what has since happened. In the first place, we have had the experience of the Debates in Committee, and I shall hope to show that the lesson which must be drawn from the course of those Debates is that the case for dividing the Bill into two is strengthened by what then happened. Only yesterday we had another experience which strengthens our case for dividing the two Bills. The Prime Minister made a speech in opposition to the Instruction which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope), dividing the Home Rule Bill into two. What were the grounds the right hon. Gentleman then took? In the first place, he said that if that Instruction were carried with reference to Home Rule, there would still be a gap left which would not be covered at all by the two Bills into which it was proposed to divide the Home Rule Bill. I venture to urge that, if this Instruction is carried, no such contingency can arise. If this Bill is divided into two, in accordance with the Instruction which my hon. Friend has moved, every single detail of it can be dealt with in one or other of the two Bills. Secondly, the Prime Minister urged as a ground for the refusal of the division of the Home Rule Bill the assumption that it was not possible to divide the Home Rule Bill as the ground which was suggested by my hon. Friend. He urged that the arguments which had to be used for either of the two projected Bills were so interdependent that it was impossible to distinguish the one from the other. That does not apply to this Instruction. The issues are quite distinct, and there is no reason why in arguing the case for the one the arguments should be confused with those applicable to the other. The two issues are distinct, and, on that account, it would be much wiser to deal with them by two separate Bills, rather than run the risk of that confusion from which we undoubtedly suffered during the Committee stage of this Bill in consequence of attempting to deal with these two questions in a single measure.

On the general proposition laid down in the Debate, with practically no opposition, it is quite possible, as admitted by the hon. Member for Carmarthen Boroughs (Mr. Llewelyn Williams), to divide the Bill into two. The hon. Member said:— No one disputes the point that it is practicable to have Disestablishment without Disendowntent. That statement was supported by the Home Secretary, who said:— There is no connection between Disestablishment and Disendowment. The right hon. Gentleman was quite right in that. We quoted several examples where Disestablishment had taken place without Disendowment and where Disendowment had taken place without Disestablishment. I will not quote those cases again at any length, but let me, in passing, allude to three. In the first place, there was the case of Canada, in which, when the Roman Catholic Church was Disestablished in 1759, she was still left in possession of her Endowments to this extent, that, at the present moment, in the province of Quebec, where the Roman Church is Disestablished, tithes are still collected for the support of its schools and for other work in connection with it. I further quoted the French case, where, in the Napoleonic settlement after the Revolution, the Church was Re-established but was not completely Re-endowed. If a further case is needed from our own experience in modern time, it is sufficient to point to the case of the Scottish Free Church which was endowed with a very large sum by the action of Parliament. Generally speaking, it cannot be questioned that there is no reason whatever for confusing Disestablishment with Disendowment, and in fact there is every reason for treating them separately.

The Home Secretary went on in the course of the Debate to urge that whatever was true of the distinction between these two issues as a general proposition it did not apply to the case of Wales. I venture to dispute that contention. If we look at the position of the Church in Wales I do not see how we can came to any other conclusion than that there is no connection between Disestablishment and Disendowment. Take the outward and visible features of the Establishment in Wales? What can the Endowments have to do, for instance, with the presence of the four Welsh bishops in the House of Lords? What have they to do with the disqualification of the Welsh clergy to sit in this House? What can they have to do with the coercive jurisdiction of the four Welsh Diocesan Courts? What can they have to do with the power which the Archbishops' Provincial Court still has even as a final Court of Appeal? I think no one who follows the Debate closely can come to any other conclusion than that a totally different set of arguments were used in support of Disestablishment to those which were used in support of Disendowment. I will go even further and say that many of the arguments which were used in support of the one were contradictory when applied to the other. Let me give two examples. The main body of argument which was used in support of Disestablishment was the demand for religious equality. Apply that argument to Disendowment. Surely if you do that it can only lead to one conclusion. If you are to have religious equality in Endowments and if you are to take 14s. in the £ from one denomination, you will take 14s. in the £ from every other denomination. The same must be said as to other arguments used in support of Disendowment. The main backbone of these arguments as urged by hon. Gentlemen opposite was that the nation has a right to resume possession of its national property. Apply that argument to the Establishment. Apply it, for instance, to the Establishment as illustrated by the Clauses with reference to the action of the Established Church in England after the Church in Wales has been Disestablished. The argument is that the nation has a right to its own property. Yet under the Bill as it now stands the Established Church of England is, in future, to be expected to subscribe a sum of from £30,000, to £70,000 a year to the Disestablished Church in Wales. I say it is only necessary to take two cases of that kind to show that the arguments that are used in favour of the one so far from being the same when applied to the other are actually contradictory.

This surely is also borne out by what has been taking place not only in the House during the course of the previous Debates but also in the country. I do not know what was the case thirty or forty years ago, but it certainly seems as if then, at any rate, Disestablishment and Disendowment meant much the same thing in the minds of most people. Now they mean nothing of the kind. The old Liberationist idea that the Free Church was dependent on the voluntary subscriptions of its living members has been abandoned, formally or informally, by practically every religious denomination in the country, and it is idle to-day to discuss a question of this kind in terms used generations ago which have now become quite obsolete and out of date. We have had many examples during the course of this controversy of individuals, not only members of the English Church but Nonconformists, members of other denominations, who have said that they are in favour of Disestablishment, but are opposed to Disendowment. I believe that that is a feeling which is held to a very great extent by people outside who are not members of the Church of England, and, surely, in view of this general feeling, the existence of which nobody can deny, we have a very strong case for saying that the Bill should be divided into two, and that this body of feeling outside should have a means of finding expression in this House. The fact that it might lead to the technical withdrawal of the Bill under the Parliament Act does not appeal to me. That is not for us to consider at all. We merely have to consider the fact that we have a very strong case which represents a large and growing body of opinion outside, and we demand that this body of opinion should have a hearing in this House. We therefore say that the Bill must be divided into two, and, if it is not divided into two, this body of opinion outside, which is now or may be in favour of Disestablishment and is opposed to Disendowment, will have no means of finding expression. I therefore hope that even at the eleventh hour this Instruction may be carried, so that we may say that this House still in some degree represents public opinion outside.


The words in the Motion, "notwithstanding anything in the Order of the House of the 16th day of June," are not necessary, because this Motion has no relation to the Order which was passed by the House.


I understand that, Sir, and will not move them.

Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the Bill into two Bills, the first, dealing with the Disestablishment and the second with the Disendowment of the Church in Wales."


I am sure that neither the hon. and learned Member who moved nor the hon. Member who seconded this Motion would have done so without a very serious purpose. If, therefore, I can show them, as I believe I shall be able to do, that the effect of this Motion could have no possible good result, I trust that neither they nor their hon. Friends will Wish to press it further. This is the same Motion as was moved upon going into Committee upon the same Bill last year. We had at that time a very full discussion. I admit that the fact that it was discussed then does not disentitle hon. Members to have a discussion now. I readily admit, also, that the facts which have came to light and the arguments which were used in the course of the Committee stage of the Bill last year might be very relevant to the arguments now. I think, in fact, that they are relevant, but they are relevant, in my judgment, in this sense, that they show beyond any question of doubt that no practical good of any kind could be effected by accepting the Motion. We have to consider the effect of this Motion from the point of view of the opposite sides of the House. If this Motion were carried, how would it affect our judgment upon the Bill or Bills, and how would it affect the judgment of hon. Members opposite upon the Bill or Bills? We know from the Committee discussion of this Bill that supposing we agreed to divide the Bill into two parts and took a Division separately upon each—we know, from the declarations that have been made from this bench, and by some of my hon. Friends in the House, that upon this side of the House we would not propose a measure for the Disestablishment of the English Church in Wales unless it were accompanied by a measure of Disendowment, and we know also that we would not propose a Bill for the Disendowment of the English Church in Wales unless it were accompanied by a measure of Disestablishment. That has been declared again and again, so that so far as any effective result could be secured upon this side of the House, the mere dividing of the Bill into two parts would merely require that two Divisions should be taken instead of one.

In the Debate last year which took place upon this Motion, I stated—and if the House will allow me to recall the words I then used, I shall be glad to do so—that there was no necessary connection between Disestablishment and Disendowment. I did not say, as the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare) seemed to argue, that there was no necessary connection between the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the English Church in Wales. On the contrary, I asserted, and assert again, that in our opinion the connection is most intimate between Disestablishment and Disendowment of the English Church in Wales, because, as we have argued throughout—it would not be in order to go into the argument and I merely state it—the Endowment of the Church in Wales, at any rate as to a great part of the Endowments, came as a concommitant of Establishment. That is the argument we use. Consequently we, upon this side of the House, cannot separate the conception of the Disestablishment of the English Church in Wales from Disendowment. Upon the other side of the House how does the question stand? Supposing the Motion were accepted, would it in the least affect the views of hon. Members opposite? Not in the slightest. What would be the practical result of dividing the Bill into two parts? Hon. Members opposite have declared by representative spokesmen—I cannot say each individual Member has said it—that even if there were no Disendowment in this Bill, they would vote just as strongly against Disestablishment. That has been stated again and again, and I think I may say that it represents, according to the arguments and statements of the bishops outside the House, the accepted view of the Church of England. If that be so, what is the advantage of dividing the Bill into two parts? Hon. Members opposite would vote against each of the parts, and hon. Members upon this side would vote for each of the parts. We have discussed these two ideas combined in one Bill. Here the hon. Member for the Bassetlaw Division (Mr. Hume-Williams) fell into error. The very proposals for Disendowment which are now in the Bill were before the public in detail. The Bill was introduced in the year 1909.


Does the right hon. Gentleman say that at the last election the people of the country had any idea of the quantity that was going to be taken from the Church?


I must remind the hon. and learned Member that in 1909 the proposals put forward then by the Government were printed in a Bill, and were open to be studied by every elector in the country. They took from the Church a very much larger proportion of its Endowments than is proposed in the present Bill, consequently I am justified in saying that every detail of the Disendowment effect of this measure was before the electorate in 1910. They had it in the Bill before them. In these circumstances, when the public know the Bill and have always known the Bill, when the House of Commons has debated this Bill at great length as a single Bill, and when no possible practical effect could arise from the acceptance of this Motion, I appeal to hon. Members upon both sides of the House not to occupy further time in discussing a proposal which can have no practical result. I will not go into the points which were raised yesterday, which are equally applicable to-day. If this Motion were carried, no provision is made for it in the Motion to which the House has already agreed. It would be impracticable, it would be useless, and upon these grounds I hope hon. Members will not press it.


The right hon. Gentleman has really missed the point as to the object of this Instruction. I am sure he does not mean cynically to tell us, what we so often hear now, that it is absolutely useless to discuss anything in this House or to have a Division, because we know they are going to vote on party lines. I know the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to make that cynical statement, but that is what his speech came to. It really came to this: "Is it any use your talking or dividing, for the Members behind the Government are going to vote for the Bill as a party, and your people are going to vote against it as a party? Why, then, should we spend more time upon it in the House of Commons, and why not go outside and enjoy ourselves?" If that is to be the rule, there will be an end of the House of Commons altogether. It is a dangerous statement to make inside the House. Take the matter one step further. We have to justify the votes we give in the House of Commons. You may justify your voting for this Bill as one whole Bill, but there are hundreds of people in the country who have no objection to Disestablishment, but who have the gravest objection to Disendowment. Hon. Members in this House know that perfectly well. I have the privilege of knowing many religious Nonconformists in England who have the greatest possible objection to the Disendowment scheme of this Bill. There are hon. Members upon the opposite side of the House whom I know, and whose constituents I know, and there are many of those constituents who object most strongly to the Disendowment Clauses of this Bill, although they are in favour of the Disestablishment Clauses. If you divide this Bill into two, there will be an opportunity for people who are in favour of Disestablishment to vote in favour of it, while those who think, as many of their constituents think, that the Disendowment Clauses of this Bill are unjust—I will not use a stronger expression than that, although I am thinking of some at the present moment—would be able to say that they are not prepared to vote for Disendowment and the using of religious funds for other than religious purposes.

One of the objects of the Motion is to enable us to have a definite vote upon two separate measures. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the Church of England as a whole have said that they would never vote for Disestablishment. I have heard many Liberal Churchmen in this House say that they are in favour of Disestablishment, but they hold very different views about Disendowment. I do not know that I attach very much weight to the views of Liberal Churchmen in this House, but I am not inclined to take the cynical view of the Home Secretary that, whatever their views may be, they will vote for the Bill. At any rate, one is entitled to give them an opportunity of showing that they have different views. I know that certainly in private life they have different views. In private life I heard them say that they have a leaning towards Disestablishment, but I have never come across anybody except Liberal Churchmen in the House of Commons who have the slightest feeling in favour of the Disestablishment of the Church of Wales or of England. There is a definite distinction between these two questions. As to the practical utility of the division, I say that you can deal with matters which are totally distinct into two totally distinct Bills. If we are not allowed to discuss matters in the House of Commons, our use as a talking assembly is coming rapidly to an end. At least we might have an opportunity of taking a Division upon two separate matters. A Division takes but a very short time, but it enables us to go down to the constituencies, and enables us to make a definite statement that we voted in favour, not only of Disestablishment, which is popular certainly among Nonconformists, and is not obnoxious to a certain section of the Church of England, but against Disendowment, which I believe to be an absolutely unjust and unfair proposal, and which I believe is so regarded by the great bulk of the Nonconformists of England, and certainly by the whole of the Churchmen, always excepting Liberal Churchmen in the House of Commons.


The Home Secretary told us that we are entirely wrong in thinking that the Disendowment proposals of this Bill were not before the country at the last election, and that the argument used for dividing the Bill in two parts was not therefore a sound one. It seems to me that he entirely forgot what the traditions of his party are. How on earth can the electors possibly have known that the party which had produced in a comparatively short space of time several utterly conflicting Home Rule Bills for Ireland, whose record on the education question is of producing one Bill after another of an utterly different kind, which contradicted each other in very material details—how could they possibly know that because the Bill had been produced on some previous occasion it would be exactly in the same form when brought into the House of Commons this Session? Of course, that argument is an absolutely fallacious one. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly aware that the argument that the country did not know what Disendowment meant in all its details is absolutely unsound, and constitutes a very real reason why there should be a separate vote given upon it, even though it is obvious to everyone that we cannot have a discussion on it. Again, the right hon. Gentleman says it would be perfectly useless, because the Government have made a declaration that it is impossible for them to separate the two parts of the Bill, but there may be a few independent Gentlemen left on the opposite side. It is not for him to assume that he has entirely done away with all freedom of thought on the opposite side of the House. When we say that sort of thing it is supposed to be a mere declaration of an ignorant Tory, but for the right hon. Gentleman to say that of his party is a challenge to those who may wish to stay outside the general definition of his party which he is prepared to give. The argument that this keeps the Bill within the Parliament Act has been dealt with. That is no affair of ours. If the Government chose so to frame the Parliament Act as to make this very reasonable measure of discrimination impossible, it is not our fault. We should be very glad to accept any alteration which made such a vote possible, but the Government have made their difficulty, and it is not for us to get them out of it.

But what seems to me a stronger reason than occurred when this similar subject was debated last year, is the further extension of opinion which has taken place, and has been able to take place, since those debates occurred. We now know that this Bill is in its final form. When it was last brought in, the House and the country were full of the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman of the generosity that he was going to show to the Church and the concessions which were possible. We now know what is the limit of the con- cessions. We know what Disendowment in its full detail means. We know this cannot be altered, therefore, we can give a final and complete judgment on the provisions of the Bill. That was impossible when this was last discussed. We had this promise in our minds, and there are many on the other side who hoped, at the last moment, that the right hon. Gentleman might be able to suggest and to promise some really solid concessions which might have altered their opinion; but he was pulled up by his Welsh friends, and was not allowed to go any further. Very likely he may have had an honest desire to be conciliatory and generous. He told us he was going to be, but political circumstances were too great for him. Now the opinion of the country has had an opportunity during this interval of being formed. The country had not the opportunity of voting on it at the last election, and the only criteria we can have now are the evidences of opinion, public and otherwise, which have been shown since the Bill passed through Committee. There is no doubt whatever that the feeling against Disendowment was the strongest feeling on that side, and that is proved by the fact that each occasion on which the Government had to rely very largely on the support of hon. Members below the Gangway, who are so conspicuously absent now, and always are when debates are going on, but whom the right hon. Gentleman always take care to have somewhere handy in the Library or Smoking Room to support them in a particularly difficult corner, was an occasion when questions of Disendowment were involved. He would not have passed the Clause in Committee which dealt with glebe if it had not been for their support, and he would not have passed the Clause dealing with the question of curates without their support, and those were matters on which there was the strongest feeling on the other side of the House that the Bill was unjust and unfair.

As regards the feeling outside, everyone knows what has been going on. Hon. Members opposite profess to sneer at demonstrations and petitions. They may have their weak spots, but at any rate, let hon. Members try, if they can, to show us some counter demonstration. They may have their weak spots also, and we shall be very glad to point them out. But we are justified in saying that since the last occasion when this was debated, there has been the most striking exhibition of public feeling in opposition to this Bill, and that opinion has shown itself more strongly against Disendowment than against Disestablishment. Why is that? The question of Disestablishment is one that hon. Members opposite do not understand, and it is equally natural that the country as a whole should not understand it. I do not think there are very many people who could give a very clear and definite idea of what they mean by Disestablishment. But now that the Bill has been through Committee, everyone knows what Disendowment is going to be, and in consequence there is a very strong feeling against these Disendowment proposals, and I am perfectly certain, although party loyalty may be so utterly blind as the right hon. Gentleman pretends on that side of the House, the votes that hon. Members give will be brought up against them very much more largely if we can separate the Bill, and their constituents will have a very much more clear idea of the way in which they have been misrepresented than they have at present. If we were given a chance of an absolutely clear vote without the party Whips being put on, I believe the Disestablishment part of this Bill would go through the House, but I do not believe, if every Member voted according to his conscience and forgot all about the whole paraphernalia of party and the rest of it, the Endowment part of the Bill would go through. That is surely a sufficiently strong reason for saying that we ought to have a chance of voting on these two questions separately, and I do not think there would be strong opposition to the idea of dividing the Bill, because the Establishment is the main grievance with the Welsh Members—they tell us that they do not care about the money—and on the other hand, Disendowment is the main thing which those who have not thought very deeply about the question have in their mind. Therefore, it will be easier to deal with the question of Disestablishment by itself than with the questions of Disestablishment and Disendowment together. We feel justified in making our protest, and if we can divide the Bill, I am perfectly certain that the functions of the House of Commons will be more intelligently carried out, and difficult though the position is that the Government has put us into, it will make it easier for us to give definite expression to the opinions that we hold.


The reason given by the Home Secretary for resisting this Instruction was certainly a singular one. It certainly was not complimentary to his followers. He told us, in effect—I am paraphrasing his language—"there is not the slightest use in your dividing this Bill into two, because I am perfectly confident that if you do I can rely upon my followers to support the two Bills with the same mechanical regularity with which they have voted for the one."


That is not a paraphrase or anything like a paraphrase of what I said. I quoted from the statements of hon. Gentlemen on this side that they would vote in favour of Disestablishment or in favour of Disendowment.


It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman has confirmed my view with this simple addition, that he wants to tar us with the same brush with which he tars his followers, and says there is no more independence on our side than on his own. At any rate, the only conclusion I drew from his speech was that it was no use dividing upon the Bill, because the same men who supported him upon the one Bill would support him upon the two, if they were divided. I must leave it to him to fight out that question with his supporters behind him. Are they really so well drilled that they have no independent minds at all if the Bill is presented to them in two Bills instead of one? I suggest to some of those who sit behind the right hon. Gentleman that they should make a protest against such an imputation on their independence. We are always accused throughout the country of making these imputations upon the regularity with which hon. Members opposite support their Government, but now we have the Home Secretary himself, in effect, telling us that all these charges are perfectly true. This is an opportunity for the supporters of the Government of proving their independence and voting for this Instruction, in order that they may have an opportunity of dispelling the imputation which has been placed upon them by the Home Secretary.

But there are other people to be considered besides supporters of the Government, who are not very often considered by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and those are the electors. Assume that the Home Secretary is right in saying it is no use, for the purposes of his followers, dividing the Bill into two. Does it not occur to him that there might be some useful purpose for the electors? Are there not many electors throughout the country who will be prepared to support one Bill, but who would not support the other, and is it not only confusing the issues to put these two distinct matters into one Bill, and to say to the electors, "Take it or leave it as a whole?" Might I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that on this, as on some other occasions, he might have more regard for the electors who send us here? On the merits I would point out that, after all, there are two questions, namely, Disestablishment and Disendowment, which are absolutely separable and distinct. They are supported or opposed by totally different, considerations. Disestablishment is supported by many who disapprove of Disendowment, and vice versa, and I put it to the House, is it not obscuring the issues to wrap both up in one Bill? Would it not be much more fair and honest to the House and the country to put the plain issue of Disestablishment in one Bill and the plain issue of Disendowment in another? After all, Disendowment is the main difficulty. Disestablishment is mainly a religious question, and Disendowment is largely, if not entirely, a financial question, which is wrapped up intimately with religious considerations, and from that point of view I think it would be much fairer to the House and the country as a whole, if we were able to consider these two distinct and separate questions apart from each other.

5.0 P.M.

We know the objection raised by the Prime Minister last night to a similar Instruction upon the Home Rule Bill, and I think it was hinted at by the Home Secretary to-day. The right hon. Gentleman says that if you pass the Instruction you will prevent the operation of the Parliament Act in relation to this measure, because you will have two Bills instead of one. Is that an argument on the merits of the question? It is quite true that it is an argument upon the necessities of the Government, but it has nothing whatever to do with the merits of the question. This House has never decided yet that the Parliament Act is to apply to the Welsh Church Bill, and, therefore, when I am asked to say I must not vote for the Instruction because it will deprive the Bill of the benefit of the Parliament Act, I say that may be a question for the Government, but it is not one for the House on the merits which we have to consider. After all, has not the time come when we ought not to make any further concessions to the necessities of the Government? Has not the time come when we can consider these great questions on their merits? I would appeal to the Home Secretary to have some more faith in the intelligence of his supporters, and to allow them to vote upon the merits of the Instruction apart from any consideration of the necessities of the Government.


This is the third time we have had a Debate on the question of dividing the Bill into two parts, and I must say that on every occasion, although we have been overborne by the Government majority, we have always had the best of the argument. There is really no reason whatever why these two questions should be mixed up together. I listened to the speech of the Home Secretary with much interest, as I always do, but I thought his answer was most inconclusive. He said there was no use proceeding with this Instruction because the Government would do so and so. I do not think he described actually what the Government would do. I think if the Government dropped the Bill, that would be a much more satisfactory solution of the whole question. When the right hon. Gentleman said that there would be two Divisions instead of one on the Third Reading, surely he left out of view entirely the opinion of the House. It is true that the Government may make up their mind to keep Disestablishment and Disendowment together, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot fail to recognise the fact that there is a great body of opinion in the country in favour of the one and not in favour of the other. That opinion obtains in this House, too. It is not only that there are a large number of people in favour of Disestablishment and against Disendowment, but there are also some people in favour of Disendowment and against Disestablishment.

At one of the demonstrations against this great popular Bill in the country last night, I was speaking to a well-known Socialist clergyman who told me that, as a Socialist, he was entirely in favour of Disendowment, while, on the other hand, he was strongly opposed to Disestablishment. If that is the case, why on earth should the Government persist in mixing up the two questions, as necessarily going together, though upon these questions many people hold absolutely contradictory views? Why do they insist in forcing the Bill through in such a shape that we cannot give one vote on the one question and another vote on the other question? May I point out to the Home Secretary that he has not quite fulfilled what he said he would do when we discussed this question last time in December. He said then that this Motion was unnecessary, because if we looked at the Amendments we would find one on the Paper to Clause 8 standing in the name of the hon. Member for Brent-ford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), which, if debated, would enable us to discuss the very point we were discussing upon the Instruction. What happened? Although we were put off then, and possibly the Home Secretary owed part of the majority which he obtained to the fact that he pointed out that a discussion could be taken on the Amendment to Clause 8, when we got to that Clause the guillotine was so arranged that the Amendment could not be moved at all, and there was no opportunity for discussing the whole question as a clear issue. Under the circumstances, I think my hon. Friends are entirely justified in raising the question again. The Home Secretary to-day used rather a strange argument. He said that whatever may be true about the Church of England, in the case of the Church in Wales, the two questions must go together, because the Endowments came to the Establishment. If that is so, how does he reconcile his Bill with the view expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Second Reading of the Bill last year? The Chancellor of the Exchequer then quoted as a great authority Professor Maitland, who said that the Church was first Established at the Reformation. And yet these Endowments you are taking away were Endowments mostly given before the Reformation. You are taking away Endowments, according to the great authority quoted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which did not come to the Establishment, and you are leaving those which came to the Establishment. It seems to me that the Government are not entirely in a logical position. If the Home Secretary refuses the Instruction on the ground he has stated, he must reconcile his view with that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who laid down exactly the opposite view on the Second Reading of the Bill last year.

There is an argument which has never been answered, and no attempt has been made to answer it by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side. It is an argument which I ventured to put in moving the Instruction the last time the matter was discussed, namely, that the arguments for Disestablishment and Disendowment are totally different. Not only in many cases are the people different who support these two things, but the argument is different, and there is no reason why the two questions should be included in one Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Hoare) mentioned the case of religious equality. I do not want to occupy the time of the House, and therefore I will not further argue that point. Let me take another point. A great argument which we have always heard, and which I may call the old Liberationist argument is that Establishment unduly fetters the Church, and that we should free the Church from those galling bonds and fetters. It was said also that the connection with the State is bad for the Church, and that therefore it would be to the great advantage of the Church that we should liberate her from, as Mr. Miall and others said, those galling bonds. That may be a good argument for Disestablishment—I do not deny it—but can it be an argument for Disendowment? Do you want to liberate the Church by liberating her from her Endowments? There are many people who naturally support the Disestablishment doctrine, though from all that I can observe in the country the cry of Disestablishment is a dying cry. There is nothing like the cry now that Church and State should be separated which there was forty or fifty years ago, or even twenty years ago, when we had this question before the House and the country on the last occasion. I can well understand a certain number of old Whigs being in favour of Disestablishment, but I cannot understand anyone being in favour of Disendowment. The two things are totally distinct. I know that there is one on this side of the House, and though even my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) might, as an old-fashioned Whig, be in favour of Disestablishment, I doubt very much whether he would be in favour of Disendowment. It seems to me that the reasons are distinct, and although it may be hopeless to expect that any good will come from the moving of this Instruction, because the cast-iron majority who support the Government take no interest in the two questions at all, and this Amendment will be voted down like every other Amendment, we are bound to make a protest. We are bound to show to the country that we realise the difference between Disestablishment and Disendowment, and to say that if the Government were honest they would take a separate vote on each, instead of mixing them up in one omnibus Bill.

Viscount WOLMER

The volcano on the other side of the House appears to be not only extinguished, but extinct. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Llewelyn Williams) and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Edgar Jones) seem to have sunk into the ease of the Smoking Room, for they have not deigned to attend this Debate. I think that is exceedingly regrettable, because if anything did transpire from the very much curtailed Debates we had last Session, it was that even in this House, this party-ridden Assembly, there is a profound difference of opinion in the minds of many Members on the merits of Disestablishment on the one hand and Disendowment on the other. We saw it throughout the whole of the Debates during the Committee stage of this Bill, and one heard about it during the whole of the intrigues and lobbying that went on behind the scenes. It was obvious the whole time that there was an important section of the Liberal party which was in favour of the principle of Disestablishment, but could not stomach the Disendowment Clauses of the Bill, and it is only by confusing the issue and pretending that Disendowment is an inherent part of Disestablishment that the Government have been able to carry the Disendowment proposals at all. Therefore, if true effect is to be given to the mind of this House it is absolutely necessary that the two subjects should be separated as they are separated by nature, so that those Members who believe in Disestablishment could pass Disestablishment, and those who do not believe in Disendowment could reject the Disendowment proposals. But, of course, the last thing that the Government want is to give the House a free opportunity of dealing with this question. Could anything, more than the spectacle we witnessed this afternoon, prove the utter degradation to which the House of Commons has fallen? This assembly which is supposed to govern the country is not even allowed the opportunity of taking a straight vote on the question of Disendowment and Disestablishment by themselves. The majority of this assembly absolutely acquiesce in that situation. They wait in other parts of the building until they are ordered to come and vote the proposals into effect.

On this side we were all very much struck by the speeches made by the hon. Member for Morley (Mr. France), the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Gladstone), and other hon. Members opposite, and when we remember that all Debate on the Committee stage was abolished under the Parliament Act, those Members who find themselves in that position ought to be given an opportunity of voting on a Straight issue. They have not got the chance of voting on the separate Clauses or debating Disestablishment. They are asked to vote on the whole Committee stage en bloc. That to my mind is an absolute absurdity. In all the arguments and Debates which took place on this Bill last Session, as far as I am aware, only one argument emerged from the other side in support of this Bill. That is the argument that there was a mandate for it. I do not think that that argument was conclusive, and it was not supported by adequate proof, but I submit that it is an argument that can only apply to Disestablishment and does not apply to Disendowment at all. The fact that you have got so many General Elections in Wales supporting hon. Members who believe in Disestablishment is only an argument, if it is an argument at all, in favour of Disestablishment, and it is not worth a scrap in favour of the Disendowment proposals of this Bill, which have never been before the country and which are held in universal detestation throughout the country by Nonconformists as well as by Churchmen. For that reason I cordially support this Motion. But I think the point which my hon. Friend made so well requires some answer from the other side.

Both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister state that the Establishment of the Church of England in Wales took place at the Reformation, and the Prime Minister, especially, while admitting the absolute spiritual continuity of the Church throughout all the ages, affirmed that there was a definite Establishment at that date. If that is so, all the Endowments that were given before that date are clearly much more rightly the property of the Church after Disestablishment than before Disestablishment. Therefore, to put them together is absolutely grotesque. It is much more reasonable to say that as long as the Church remains Established she should not be entitled to enjoy the Endowments that she obtained before that Establishment took place. As the hon. Member for Chelsea so well put it, you have numerous instances in all quarters of the world where Disestablishment has taken place without Disendowment Hon Members opposite have admitted that there is no intrinsic connection between the two. They have utterly failed to convince us that they have anything to do with each other. Therefore, we demand, in the name of common sense, that they should be separated. To answer, as the Prime Minister has answered, that it would break down the machinery of the Parliament Act is no answer to our demand. It is a biting condemnation of the Parliament Act. It simply shows what a futile measure that measure is, and how it has absolutely succeeded in degrading the whole spirit of the House of Commons. It seems that on the very first occasion when the Parliament Act has been put into effect we see that it has reduced the House of Commons into a mere voting machine, and has deprived it of all initiative of its own and of the opportunity of making up its own mind on a clear issue, and therefore what it has destroyed is not the House of Lords but the House of Commons.


Hon. Members opposite have felt so completely their inability to answer the arguments which have been advanced from this side of the House, that they have crept silently from this House in order to conceal their diminished heads elsewhere. But I hope that the Under - Secretary, before the Debate finishes, will make some attempt to answer the conclusive case which has been advanced by my hon. Friend from this side. So far as I have been able to understand from the Home Secretary, the grounds of his refusal to accept my hon. Friend's Motion are mainly that first in the ordinary popular belief there is an inseparable connection between Disestablishment and Disendowment, and that therefore it would be outraging popular sentiment if you had one without the other, and secondly that there is a radical connection between the two things in popular sentiment. I think that my hon. Friend was plainly justified in saying that in this matter we have undergone a considerable change since we debated this Instruction last year, for, if it was ever true, the reason why it was true then to say that in the minds of the public the two things were regarded more or less as one was that until the thing was debated in Committee the Disendowment proposals were never made clear to the minds of the public. The ordinary public was led to believe that there was a grievance in the matter of supposed in-quality and in the matter of Establishment, but the ordinary public never knew and had no means of knowing, unless they were prepared to read all the Clauses of the Bill, what were the Disendowment proposals which were put forward. All the references in the election addresses of hon. Members opposite were to "religious equality," and they blurred the question of Disendowment as completely as ever they were able to do.

With regard to the logical connection between the two things, I think that the Home Secretary in his speech to-day will feel that he was well advised in sheltering himself behind rules of order when once again he argued that Endowment was one of the results of Establishment. Anyone who takes the trouble even to glance at the very surface of this question, apart from prejudice, will not attempt to substantiate such a position. I think it does come back really to this, that apart from party interests and arguments we know perfectly well that there is no answer to accepting the Instruction of my hon. Friend. All common sense invites you to do it. The arguments of some of your own supporters on the last occasion on which the matter was discussed invited you to do it, and the only reason that prevented you was that it would be politically inconvenient. There are three sections of opinion upon this question. One lot of people want to have Disestablishment and Disendowment; another lot of people want to have, if they can, Disestablishment without Disendowment; and until my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley said so this afternoon, I was not aware that there was a third class who wished to have Disendowment without Disestablishment, but I am prepared to accept it from him. I do not think anybody would challenge the fact that you certainly would be able to carry Disestablishment in this House as an abstract question without any measure of Disendowment at all. I never met anybody who favoured Disestablishment who said that he would not have it unless it was coupled with Disendowment—except the Under-Secretary himself, who said that it was the only programme worth having. With the exception of him, I do not think that there is anybody who would refuse to vote for the abstract principle of Disestablishment because there was no Disendowment. If that is true, it means that you are afraid to distinguish between the two, because you know that you would not be able to have Disendowment without Disestablishment. You have got no fear about Disestablishment. You have a real fear that you would not be able to carry Disendowment until you mix it up with what a great many other people desire on all sorts of grounds, namely, Disestablishment.

I invite the right hon. Gentleman to consider how complete the confusion is. The question of Disestablishment, if you are to discuss it properly and arrive at some intelligent agreement as to what is meant by it, raises the whole point of the historical policy which has in this country insisted on the clergy being treated as a separate estate. Then there is your policy of Disendowment, which raises questions in the discussion of which you ought to be guided not by old abstract and in some degree antiquarian questions of history, but by practical considerations of what your Disendowment proposals will do if they are carried now. That is a point which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite always refuse to consider. The main effects of Disestablishment and Disendowment will be almost inverse in their operation. I am one of those who think, and I believe that many hon. Members on each side of the House agree with me, that the result of Disestablishment would be far more unfavourable to the State than it would be to the Church. Speaking for myself, I do not think that Churchmen have any reason whatever to fear Disestablishment, but they have reason to fear it from the point of view of the State. As to Disendowment, I do not, of course, fear its effect upon the Church in regard to its spiritual life, but I do fear it from the point of view of the work which the money enables the Church to perform. In joining Disestablishment and Disendowment together you invite people to vote in a homogeneous way on both at once. Is it not transparent that the reason this Instruction is not accepted is that hon. and right hon. Members opposite have reasons of political expediency which forbid their accepting it? Otherwise, I should be curious to see the result if, for once, Members of this House were allowed to follow the dictates of reason and conscience rather than the crack Of the party Whip, for I believe that in a free Division my hon. Friend's Instruction would be carried by an overwhelming majority, consisting of Members on both sides of the House.


I should like to congratulate the Home Secretary, if I may, on the Pontificial attitude he adopted, and apparently his speech has had the effect of imposing a ban on those Members opposite whose powers of speech have been so eloquently manifested on other occasions. I am bound to say that the Home Secretary did not seem to me to adduce any reasonable argument in opposition to the Instruction moved by my hon. and learned Friend. He seemed to base himself only on the interests of His Majesty's Government. He did not state any of the arguments one would suppose he would have stated, nor did he attempt to show that Disestablishment and Disendowment are so closely interwoven that they could not be separated or that the arguments on which they are founded are so similar that no one could properly be expected to vote for the one without voting for the other; or, again, that there are practical difficulties so great that it would be impossible to carry out the proposal. In not one of those particulars did the Home Secretary make out or attempt to make out any case at all. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Hume-Williams) pointed out that the Home Secretary on more than one occasion had stated that Disestablishment and Disendowment did not necessarily go together. The Home Secretary in his reply admitted that, but said that so far as this Bill is concerned Disestablishment and Disendowment were so conjoined. I should like to call his attention to what he said on the 18th December of last year:— We have been challenged whether it was necessary that Disestablishment and Disendowment should be conjoined. There have been several cases of Disestablishment without Disendowment, and there have been cases of Disestablishment with Disendowment. It has never been put forward on this side of the House by the Solicitor-General, as the hon. and learned Member stated, nor by anybody else, that the gift to the Established Church of itself would deprive the Church of the right to retain it upon becoming Disestablished. I support the statement of my hon. and learned Friend that there is nothing in the argument that the two cannot be separated. The arguments in favour of Disestablishment and those in favour of Disendowment are not similar; the arguments in favour of Disendowment are based on history; they are not always accurate, they are often varied. But anyone who has followed the course of the Debate realises that the whole of the arguments in favour of Disestablishment are founded simply and solely on expediency. It was said to be expedient that there should be religious equality between the Churches. There is a distinct difference between the arguments in favour of Disestablishment and those in favour of Disendowment. In regard to the question of practical difficulties, I think anyone who has studied the Bill at all carefully has seen that it is comparatively a simple matter to take those Clauses which refer to Disestablishment and put them into a Bill by themselves, and to take the Clauses relating to Disendowment and put them into another Bill by themselves. You have only got to take the three first Clauses and the 13th Clause of the Bill to find that practically the whole of the question of Disestablishment is involved in them. There may be one or two other questions dealing with marriage and other matters which might be necessary to put into the Bill, also, but there would be no practical difficulties such as would make it impossible or even very difficult to separate these two questions into two Bills. The whole matter seems to me to narrow itself down to this, that this Instruction must not be passed because it might interfere with the action of the Parliament Act. I should like to ask the Home Secretary whether the Parliament Act was made for the House of Commons or whether the House of Commons was made for the Parliament Act? I believe that a great many Members of the House on both sides would like to vote for this Instruction if they were given the opportunity of taking an honest Division upon it. If my hon. and learned Friend goes to a Division, I shall most heartily support the Instruction.


The Home Secretary early in the discussion made a speech of amenity and courtesy which it seemed was going to make this Debate quite a memorable one, because some of us thought that he was making a perfectly accurate and correct statement. I remember, in reading one of Mr. Belloc's books, of a Cabinet Minister who, having received an injury to his arm, was obliged ever after to speak the truth. But on reflection my hon. Friends pulled themselves together and began to see that the statement of the Home Secretary was after all not correct. On this question of Disendowment there have been considerable signs of a difference of opinion among hon. Members opposite, for the statement of the Home Secretary is not accurate that the feeling on his side in regard to Dis- endowment is exactly the same as regards Disestablishment; and we are entitled to maintain that this Instruction really gives Liberal Members the Parliamentary opportunity to which they are entitled. We are still trying to take the Parliament Act, and the assurances on which the Parliament Act was based, seriously. The Parliament Act was undoubtedly based on assurances given on the platform in the country and in the House of Commons that we would have a real opportunity of reconsidering proposals which were made. I do not suppose there is anyone who would seriously dispute that if the judgment of the country were taken on this matter of Disendowment, it would certainly be rejected. I do not think that anybody in the House believes for a moment that Disendowment commands the support of the majority. Disestablishment, no doubt, commands the great majority of Nonconformists and a minority of Churchmen, but Disendowment is profoundly unpopular in the Church, and a great body of Nonconformist opinion is now against it. If we are really to carry out the purpose of the Parliament Act we ought to have an opportunity of reconsidering the question of Disestablishment and Disendowment separately. I do not think this Bill is going to pass into law, but if it does, I am quite sure that it will not come into operation, because there must be a Dissolution before the date of Disestablishment, and, in that case, the new House of Commons will be able to do what it pleases with the Act, whatever that may be. Is it in the interest of Disestablishment to bind these two questions together? I think, in the opinion of the country, Disendowment drags down the question of Disestablishment. Even in the view of hon. Members opposite, would it not be wiser to separate the two questions while there is time, and then you would have reasonable hope of keeping the Disestablishment part of the Bill in effect, after the Disendowment part is repealed; or, if the Bill does not pass, you have a better chance, when you renew the controversy, in having separated the questions once for all. If you keep the two questions together, it is not only unsound, but thoroughly bad legislation, founded on mistaken history. The division is also in the interests of those who are most zealous and most conscientious promoters of this Bill—that is to say, opponents of the Establishment. No one, I think, doubts that what feeling there is behind the Bill, inside or outside the House, is concentrated on the Disestablishment part. Would it not be wise, therefore, from the point of view of those zealous supporters, to separate the Bill into two, so that the more popular part, or the less unpopular part, should no longer be weighed down by the other part? For those reasons I think this Instruction is reasonable, though I do not suppose, because it is reasonable, that it will be carried. The House has never been very largely attended during the Debate. Generally we have had about a dozen Liberal Members. No doubt a dozen persons have done great things, but those Gentlemen appear to have taken very little interest in the discussion to which they have condescended to listen, so that I do not anticipate any very striking effect from our arguments in the Division Lobbies. I am quite certain of this: If the Government do to-day, as they have done on very many previous occasions, namely, press forward their proposals, relying only on their party majority, which has got neither reason nor popularity behind it, in the end, though at some discredit to the House of Commons and injury to the traditions of debate, their schemes will fail and their party will be defeated, and we shall reap what we deserve to reap—the benefit.

Captain TRYON

I rise to support the Instruction, not because I do not oppose either point, as I am opposed to both, but because there is a great difference amongst portions of the Liberal party on the question of Disendowment and Disestablishment. Some hon. Members opposite are, I believe, strongly opposed to Disendowment, and I believe that in that objection they really represent what they do not openly represent here, namely, the views of their constituents, and I think that they know they represent the views of their constituents, because I notice when Liberal Members are speaking in England they do their very best to avoid all reference to the word "Disendowment." There is generally some talk about religious equality and so on, but Disendowment is not mentioned. I think that is a good thing, because I believe it means that a great many Liberal speakers in the country are heartily ashamed of the policy of Disendowment. The Home Secretary gave us a truly remarkable description of what happened at the General Election. He tells us that the voters all knew the contents of the Bill of 1909. I do not believe that the average elector reads these Bills, but I do know that when he goes to Liberal meetings he does not hear about Disendowment, but about religious equality, and a few kind words as to how fond the Liberal speaker is of the Church. It is possible that the voter may not know that when the Liberal speaker says he is very fond of the Church what he really means is that he is going to Disendow the Church. The elector also probably hears a good deal of a desire for friendship amongst the Churches, and perhaps he may not know that that desire is translated into a carefully calculated removal of a considerable portion of the Church's income. Therefore I believe we ought to have these questions decided separately, because the Liberal party is divided about the matter, and the opposition to Disendowment is much stronger than the opposition, what there is of it, to Disestablishment. My print, then, is that because the differences in the Liberal party reflect the far greater difference in the Liberal ranks in the country, we ought to have the opportunity, therefore, of voting separately on those two questions.


This is the first time this Session I have intervened in a Debate on a Bill under the Parliament Act, because I thought the whole thing such a farce. On this side of the House we knew the Home Rule Bill and this Bill were going to be dragooned through, and that practically any debate would be a waste of time. I think, however, if we could get this particular Instruction carried, it would be very advantageous to the real thought of the country on these questions of Disestablishment and Disendowment. It appears that the forces underlying the support of Disestablishment and Disendowment are quite different. Disendowment is supported by the force of knowledge, because those who support it know that it means getting money out of the Church possibly into the pockets of the people, and that is very easily understood by the public at large. A large section would be prepared to support that policy. When I go to the country and try to find out what is supporting Disestablishment, it seems to me it is really the force of ignorance, because very few of the ordinary electors realise what is going to happen under the provisions of the Disestablishment Clauses of this Bill. I have often myself had a considerable sprinkling of supporters of the Bill in an audience, and when I have asked them what they meant by Disestablishment, it was exceedingly difficult to get an opinion from them. If we could get this Bill split into two, we should find exactly the same difference in this House. A very large number of Members opposite who glibly support Disestablishment because there is money in it, would find a great difficulty in supporting Disestablishment from any real knowledge of what Disestablishment was going to effect. The only argument I have been able to ascertain, which influences the minds of speakers in the country is that under Disestablishment you would get rid of four Welsh bishops from the House of Lords. There are, I admit, reasons perhaps, why it is unfair to have all the heads of one Church, and not the heads of other Churches in the House of Lords, but, as has been frequently pointed out from these Benches, that inequality could be removed without pulling the whole Church down. It is not necessary to Disestablish and Disendow the Church in order to get rid of those four bishops from the House of Lords.

Another argument which we might have if we could get a separate vote, and about the only argument, would be that the clergy of the Church of England might sit here. I am not at all sure if we had a separate vote that hon. Members opposite would support that portion of the Disestablishment programme. They, as well as we, have got experience of ministers in this House, and I am not at all sure that they would think it would be desirable to add to the number of ecclesiastics here, which could be done under the Disestablishment proposal of this Bill. I want to go a step further. There is another reason why we should have a separate vote, and that is because Disestablishment involves dismemberment of the Church of England. Most of the arguments opposite arise from what is called the national argument, namely, that we are bound to pass this measure, because the representatives of Wales were in favour of it. That might do for Disendowment, and I can conceive some justification for that argument so far as it involves Disendowment of that portion of the Church in Wales, but the argument has no validity whatever with regard to dismemberment of the Church of England. Many of us here have very grave doubts as to the right to dismember the Church. Parliament may have the right to Disestablish and Disendow the whole Church, but some of us have very grave doubts whether, jumbled up in this way, you have the right to dismember the Church of England from the Church in Wales. The national argument was almost the only argument advanced by the Prime Minister in favour of this Bill. If these matters were separated you would have to prove that you had in favour of Disestablishment a majority of Members from England and Wales, which, of course, you are quite unable to do. You are simply carrying this Bill through by the votes of the Irish party. You are trying to keep these two sections of the Bill in one to prevent difficulties of conscience amongst those who would be prepared to vote for Disestablishment, but who would not vote for Disendowment, if they could get a. clear-cut issue, and, again, because you want, to put the matter plainly, to carry the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church, and the dismemberment of the Church of England by the predatory instincts of the Welsh Radical party who are in favour of Disendowment.


I desire to refer to one aspect on this matter, which has not previously been mentioned. I think I can see, so far as one section of the right hon. Gentleman's party is concerned one very strong reason why he objects to divide this Bill into two parts. Some

sixty Scottish Members will no doubt support the Opposition to this division of the Bill, because the absence of that division is most convenient for them. I would like to ask the hon. Member for Perth, who is very well fitted to speak on this question, whether he thinks one-sixth of those sixty Members would dare come forward in Scotland and propose a pure Disendowment Bill, if they could not cover it up with some specious plea about religious equality. In the present position and attitude of the Scottish Churches, Scottish Members are doing a very bold, I should say, almost a treacherous act to the Church of England, if they, knowing how Disendowment would be viewed by the Church in Scotland, are ready to confuse those two issues together, and, because the Bill for Disestablishment may be speciously described as a Bill for something unknown, which they interpret as religious equality, would go to their constituents, and defend their action in stripping of its Endowments, a Church, by a procedure which they know perfectly well was not dreamt of with regard to the Church in Scotland.

Question put, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the Bill into two Bills, the first dealing with the Disestablishment and the second with the Disendowment of the Church in Wales."

The House divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 306.

Division No. 134.] AYES. [6.0 p.m.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Campion, W. R. Gastrell, Major W. H.
Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. Cassel, Felix Gilmour, Captain J.
Anstruther-Gray, Major William Cater, John Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.
Archer-Shee, Major M. Cautley, Henry Strother Goldman, C. S.
Ashley, W. W. Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Goldsmith, Frank
Baird, John Lawrence Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.) Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. Goulding, Edward Alfred
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) Grant, J. A.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Greene, Walter Raymond
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) Clive, Captain Percy Archer Gretton, John
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S. E.)
Barnston, Harry Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)
Barrie, H. T. Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)
Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.) Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Haddock, George Bahr
Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton) Craik, Sir Henry Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Croft, H. P. Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Dairymple, Viscount Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) Harris, Henry Percy
Bigland, Alfred Denniss, E. R. B. Helmsley, Viscount
Bird, Alfred Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)
Blair, Reginald Dixon, C. H. Hewins, William Albert Samuel
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue Duke, Henry Edward Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith
Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) Duncannon, Viscount Hills, John Waller
Boyton, James Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Hill-Wood, Samuel
Bridgeman, William Clive Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy
Bull, Sir William James Fell, Arthur Hope, Harry (Bute)
Burn, Colonel C. R. Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Butcher, John George Fletcher, John Samuel Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)
Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Forster, Henry William Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) Gardner, Ernest Houston, Robert Paterson
Hunt, Rowland Norton-Griffiths, J. Starkey, John Ralph
Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) Staveley-Hill, Henry
Ingleby, Holcombe Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Joynson-Hicks, William Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Strauss, Arthur (Paddington)
Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr Paget, Almeric Hugh Swift, Rigby
Kerry, Earl of Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Parkes, Ebenezer Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)
Lane-Fox, G. R. Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) Talbot, Lord Edmund
Larmor, Sir J. Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F. Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)
Law, Rt. Hon. A. Boner (Bootle) Perkins, Walter Frank Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End) Pollock, Ernest Murray Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)
Lee, Arthur Hamilton Pretyman, Ernest George Thynne, Lord A.
Lewisham, Viscount Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. Touche, George Alexander
Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.) Quilter, Sir William Eley C. Tryon, Captain George Clement
Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) Randles, Sir John S. Tullibardine, Marquess of
Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel Valentia, Viscount
Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) Rawson, Colonel Richard H. Wairond, H on. Lionel
Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) Remnant, James Farquharson Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Mackinder, Halford J. Rolleston, Sir John Weston, Colonel J. W.
Macmaster, Donald Ronaldshay, Earl of Wheler, Granville C. H.
M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A. Rothschild, Lionel de White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)
Magnus, Sir Philip Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Malcolm, Ian Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth) Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.)
Mallaby-Deeley, Harry Sanders, Robert Wolmer, Viscount
Mason, James F. (Windsor) Sanderson, Lancelot Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)
Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas Sandys, G. J. Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) Sassoon, Sir Philip Worthington-Evans, L.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Mount, William Arthur Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L p'l., Walton) Yate, Colonel C. E.
Newdegate, F. A. Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Newman, John R. P. Spear, Sir John Ward TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Hume-Williams and Mr. Hoare.
Newton, Harry Kottingham Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Nield, Herbert Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Clancy, John Joseph George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd
Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) Clough, William Gladstone, W, G. C.
Acland, Francis Dyke Collins, G. P. (Greenock) Glanville, Harold James
Adamson, William Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford
Addison, Dr. C. Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Goldstone, Frank
Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. Condon, Thomas Joseph Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)
Agnew, Sir George William Cory, Sir Clifford John Greig, Colonel J. W.
Ainsworth, John Stirling Cotton, William Francis Griffith, Ellis J.
Alden, Percy Cowan, W. H. Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)
Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire) Craig, H. J. (Tynemouth) Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)
Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Crean, Eugene Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Crooks, William Hackett, John
Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. Crumley, Patrick Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)
Barnes, George N. Dawes, J. A. Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick) Delany, William Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry
Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) Denman, Hon. R. D. Hayden, John Patrick
Barton, William Devlin, Joseph Hayward, Evan
Beale, Sir William Phipson Dewar, Sir J. A. Hazleton, Richard
Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George) Dickinson, W. H. Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork. N. E.)
Bentham, George Jackson Dillon, John Helme, Sir Norval Watson
Bethell, Sir J. H. Doris, W. Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Duffy, William J. Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen)
Black, Arthur W. Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Henry, Sir Charles
Boland, John Pius Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)
Booth, Frederick Handel Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) Higham, John Sharp
Bowerman, C. W. Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Hinds, John
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.
Brace, William Elverston, Sir Harold Hogg, David C.
Brady, Patrick Joseph Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Hogge, James Myles
Brocklehurst, William B. Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) Holmes, Daniel Turner
Brunner, John F. L. Essex, Sir Richard Walter Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)
Bryce, John Annan Esslemont, George Birnie Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Burke, E. Haviland- Falconer, James Hudson, Walter
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles Hughes, S. L.
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar) Ffrench, Peter John, Edward Thomas
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Field, William Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)
Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) Fitzgibbon, John Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Chancellor, H. G. Flavin, Michael Joseph Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Gelder, Sir W. A. Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)
Jowett, Frederick William Nannetti, Joseph P. Rowlands, James
Joyce, Michael Needham, Christopher Thomas Rowntree, Arnold
Keating, Matthew Neilson, Francis Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Kellaway, Frederick George Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Kelly, Edward Nolan, Joseph Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Kennedy, Vincent Paul Norman, Sir Henry Scanlan, Thomas
Kilbride, Denis Norton, Captain Cecil W. Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.
King, J. Nuttall, Harry Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.
Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Sheehy, David
Lardner, James C.R. O'Doherty, Philip Sherwell, Arthur James
Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) O'Donnell, Thomas Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook
Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) O'Dowd, John Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Leach, Charles Ogden, Fred Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)
Levy, Sir Maurice O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert O'Malley, William Snowden, Philip
Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert
Lundon, Thomas O'Shee, James John Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Lyell, Charles Henry O'Sullivan, Timothy Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Lynch, A. A. Outhwaite, R. L. Sutherland, John E.
Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) Palmer, Godfrey Mark Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) Parker, James (Halifax) Tennant, Harold John
McGhee, Richard Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Pearce, William (Limehouse) Thorne, William (West Ham)
MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) Toulmin, Sir George
Macpherson, James Ian Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
MacVeagh, Jeremiah Phillips, John (Longford, S.) Verney, Sir Harry
M'Curdy, C. A. Pointer, Joseph Wadsworth, John
McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Pollard, Sir George H. Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)
M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
M'Micking, Major Gilbert Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Wardle, G. J.
Manfield, Harry Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Markham, Sir Arthur Basil Priestley, Sir R. Arthur (Grantham) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Marks, Sir George Croydon Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Watt, Henry A.
Mason, David M. (Coventry) Pringle, William M. R. Webb, H.
Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. Radford, G. H. White, J. Dundas (Tradeston)
Meagher, Michael Raffan, Peter Wilson White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)
Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Raphael, Sir Herbert H. White, Patrick (Meath North)
Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) Whitehouse, John Howard
Menzies, Sir Walter Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Millar, James Duncan Reddy, M. Whyte, Alexander F.
Molloy, Michael Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Wiles, Thomas
Molteno, Percy Alport Redmond, William (Clare, E.) Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Money, L. G. Chiozza Rendall, Athelstan Williamson, Sir Archibald
Montagu, Hon. E. S. Richards, Thomas Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Mooney, John J. Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Morgan, George Hay Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Winfrey, Richard
Morrell, Philip Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Wing, Thomas
Morison, Hector Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Young, W. (Perthshire)
Muldoon, John Robinson, Sidney Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Munro, R. Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Murphy, Martin J. Roche, Augustine (Louth) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. Roe, Sir Thomas

I have a message from the King signifying to the House that His Majesty has been pleased to place at the disposal of Parliament for the Established Church (Wales) Bill His Majesty's interest in the bishoprics and other ecclesiastical dignities and benefices in Wales and Monmouthshire.

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

The CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order of the House of 23rd June, proceeded to put forthwith the Question, "That the Chairman do Report the Bill, without Amendment, to the House."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 309; Noes, 204.

Division No. 35.] AYES. [6.12 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) Alden, Percy Barnes, George N.
Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire) Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)
Acland, Francis Dyke Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)
Adamson, William Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Barton, William
Addison, Dr. C. Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. Beale, Sir William Phipson
Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Bentham, George Jackson
Agnew, Sir George William Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Bethell, Sir John Henry
Ainsworth, John Stirling Barlow, Sir John Emmett (Somerset) Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine
Black, Arthur W. Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) Munro, R.
Boland, John Pius Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Murphy, Martin J.
Booth, Frederick Handel Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.
Bowerman, C. W. Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Nannetti, Joseph P.
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Needham, Christopher Thomas
Brace, William Hayden, John Patrick Neilson, Francis
Brady, P. J. Hayward, Evan Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)
Brocklehurst, William B. Hazleton, Richard Nolan, Joseph,
Brunner, J. F. L. Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.) Norman, Sir Henry
Bryce, J. Annan Helme, Sir Norval Watson Norton, Captain Cecil W.
Burke, E. Haviland- Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Nuttall, Harry
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North) Henry, Sir Charles O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar) Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) O'Doherty, Philip
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Higham, John Sharp O'Donnell, Thomas
Cawley, H. T. (Heywood) Hinds, John O'Dowd, John
Chancellor, H. G. Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E H. Ogden, Fred
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Hogg, David C. O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. Hogge, James Myles O'Malley, William
Clancy, John Joseph Holmes, Daniel Turner O'Neill. Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Clough, William Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Howard, Hon. Geoffrey O'Shee, James John
Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) Hudson, Walter O'Sullivan, Timothy
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Hughes, Spencer Leigh Outhwaite, R. L.
Condon, Thomas Joseph Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus Palmer, Godfrey Mark
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. John, Edward Thomas Parker, James (Halifax)
Cory, Sir Clifford John Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmer (Swansea) Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Cotton, William Francis Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) Pearce, William (Limehouse)
Cowan, W. H. Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E[...]) Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)
Crean, Eugene Jones, William (Carnarvenshire) Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Crooks, William Jewett, Frederick William Pointer, Joseph
Crumley, Patrick Joyce, Michael Pollard, Sir George H.
Cullinan, John Keating, Matthew Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) Kellaway, Frederick George Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Kelly, Edward Price, Sir R. J. (Norfolk, E.)
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Kennedy, Vincent Paul Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Kilbride, Denis Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire) King, J. Pringle, William M. R.
Dawes, J. A. Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton) Radford, G. H.
Delany, William Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Raffan, Peter Wilson
Denman, Hon. R. D. Lardner, James C. R. Raphael, Sir Herbert H.
Devlin, Joseph Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Dewar, Sir J. A. Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Dickinson, W. H. Leach, Charles Reddy, M.
Dillon, John Levy, Sir Maurice Redmond, John E (Waterford)
Donelan, Captain A. Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert Redmond, William (Clare, E.)
Doris, William Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)
Duffy, William J. Low, Sir F. (Norwich) Rendall, Athelstan
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Lundon, T. Richards, Thomas
Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) Lyell, Charles Henry Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)
Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) Lynch, A. A. Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Elverston, Sir Harold McGhee, Richard Robertson, J. M. ((Tyneside).
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Robinson, Sidney
Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South) Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Essex, Sir Richard Walter Macpherson, James Ian Roche, Augustine (Louth)
Esslemont, George Birnie MacVeagh, Jeremiah Roe, Sir Thomas
Falconer, James M'Curdy, C. A. Rowlands, James
Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Rowntree, Arnold
Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.) Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.
Ffrench, Peter M'Micking, Major Gilbert Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Field, William Manfield, Harry Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Fitzgibbon, John Markham, Sir Arthur Basil Scanlan, Thomas
Flavin, Michael Joseph Marks, Sir George Croydon Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.
Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson Mason, David M. (Coventry) Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Gelder, Sir William Alfred Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd Meagher, Michael Sheehy, David
Gladstone, W. G. C. Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) Sherwell, Arthur James
Glanville, H. J. Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Ailsebrook
Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford Menzies, Sir Walter Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Goldstone, Frank Millar, James Duncan Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)
Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) Molloy, Michael Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)
Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) Molteno, Percy Aiport Snowden, Philip
Greig, Colonel J. W. Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Griffith, Ellis Jones Money, L. G. Chiozza Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert
Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke) Montagu, Hon. E. S. Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Mooney, J. J. Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Morgan, George Hay Sutherland, J. E.
Hackett, J. Morrell, Philip Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) Morison, Hector Tennant, Harold John
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton
Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) Muldoon, John Thorne, William (West Ham)
Touimin, Sir George Watt, Henry Anderson Williamson, Sir Archibald
Trevelyan, Charles Philips Webb, H. Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Verney, Sir Harry White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston) Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs, N.)
Wadsworth, J. White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.) Winfrey, Richard
Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) White, Patrick (Meath, North) Wing, Thomas
Walton, Sir Joseph Whitehouse, John Howard Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)
Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. Young, William (Perth, East)
Wardle, George J. Whyte, A. F. (Perth) Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay Wiles, Thomas
Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) Williams, John (Glamorgan) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.
Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Goldsmith, Frank Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.
Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Anstruther-Gray, Major William Goulding, Edward Alfred Paget, Almeric Hugh
Archer-Shee, Major M. Grant, J. A. Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)
Ashley, W. W. Greene, W. R. Parkes, Ebenezer
Baird, J. L. Gretton, John Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)
Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.) Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, London.) Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds) Perkins, Walter F.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Pollock, Ernest Murray
Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) Haddock, George Bahr Pretyman, Ernest George
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) Pryce-Jones, Col. E.
Barnston, Harry Hall, Frederick (Dulwich) Quilter, Sir William Eley C.
Barrie, H. T. Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham) Randles, Sir John S.
Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.) Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.) Rawlinson, John Fredrick Peel
Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton) Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence Rawson, Col. Richard H.
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Harris, Henry Percy Remnant, James Farquharson
Beauchamp, Sir Edward Helmsley, Viscount Robert, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.) Rolleston, Sir John
Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) Hewins, William Albert Samuel Ronaldshay, Earl of
Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) Hibbert, Sir Henry F. Rothschild, Lionel de
Bigland, Alfred Hickman, Colonel Thomas E. Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)
Bird, Alfred Hills, John Waller Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Blair, Reginald Hill-Wood, Samuel Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)
Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue Hoare, S. J. G. Sanders, Robert Arthur
Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- Hohler, G. F. Sanderson, Lancelot
Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) Hope, Harry (Bute) Sandys, G. J.
Boyton, James Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) Sassoon, Sir Philip
Bull, Sir William James Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Burn, Colonel C. R. Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford) Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l., Walton)
Butcher, John George Houston, Robert Paterson Smith, Harold (Warrington)
Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis Spear, Sir John Ward
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.) Hunt, Rowland Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Campion, W. R. Hunter, Sir C. R. Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Cassel, Felix Ingleby, Holcombe Starkey, John Ralph
Cator, John Joynson-Hicks, William Staveley-Hill, Henry
Cautley, H. S. Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Kerry, Earl of Stewart, Greshom
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Lane-Fox, G. R Swift, Rigby
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) Larmor, Sir J. Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)
Clive, Captain Percy Archer Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End) Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)
Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham Lee, Arthur Hamilton Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) Lewisham, Viscount Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)
Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.) Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) Thynne, Lord A.
Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. Touche, George Alexander
Craik, Sir Henry Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) Tryon, Captain George Clement
Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) Tullibardine, Marquess of
Cripps, Sir C. A. MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh Valentia, Viscount
Croft, H. P. Mackinder, Halford J. Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Dairymple, Viscount Macmaster, Donald Ward, A. S. (Herts, Walford)
Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) M'Calment, Major Robert C. A. Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Denniss, E. R. B. M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) Weston, Colonel J. W.
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott Magnus, Sir Philip Wheler, Granville C. H.
Dixon, C. H. Malcolm, Ian White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Duke, Henry Edward Mallaby-Deeley, Harry Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Duncannon, Viscount Mason, James F. (Windsor) Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.)
Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) Wolmer, Viscount
Fell, Arthur Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) Wood, Hon. E. F. L.(Yorks, Ripon)
Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes Mount, William Arthur Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Fletcher, John Samuel Newdegate, F. A. Worthington-Evans, L.
Forster, Henry William Newman, John R. P. Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Staurt-
Gardner, Ernest Newton, Harry Kottingham Yate, Colonel C. E.
Gastrell, Major W. Houghton Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) Younger, Sir George
Gilmour, Captain John Nield, Herbert
Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. Norton-Griffiths, J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord
Goldman, C. S. O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid) E. Talbot and Mr. Bridgeman.

Bill reported without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow (Wednesday).