HC Deb 11 August 1919 vol 119 cc1061-3

No parish situated in Wales or Monmouth-shire and which is in an English diocese shall be deprived of the right of self-determination granted to border parishes by Section nine, Subsection (1), of the Welsh Church Act, 1914, by reason of its having been separated or divided off from a larger parish, situated partly in England and partly in Wales and Monmouth shire, if such separation has taken place subsequently to the year eighteen hundred and fifty.—[Major Barnston.]

Brought up, and read the first time.


I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

This Clause does not touch, nor is it intended to touch, any of the man principles of the Bill. It is intended to cover only what I believe to be a unique, almost an isolated, case. My interest in the matter is that it is concerned with a parish which derived a large portion of its. endowment from my own Constituency in Cheshire, and close to my own rural home, and which formed one parish with a Cheshire parish for some centuries. The parish to which I refer and to which this Clause will refer is the parish of White well. Briefly the matter arose in this way: The parish of Malpas had two rectories, and it was arranged that When the town one became vacant White well should become a separate parish. This was in 1885. White well then received as endowment (1) the tithes of Royd, Flintshire, township; (2) the tithes of Wigland, Agden, and hall Cod-dington, Cheshire, township; (3) the proceeds of the sale of the town rectory house and thirty acres of glebe situated at Malpas, Cheshire, for the purpose of acquiring a site and building a rectory house. Thus the larger part of the endowment came out of Cheshire. It is only twenty miles from Chester; it is forty-five miles from St. Asaph. I will not detain the Committee longer because my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary tells me he is going to accept the Clause, and I am sure the Committee will agree that it is an elementary act of justice.


I hope the Committee will accept this. It is a very small matter. There are very few parishes which could be affected, and it is a perfectly reasonable alternative.


This is about the fifth time this Act has been interfered with, though we were told at the time there was to be no interference with the main Instructions of the Act. This goes a great deal farther than appears on the surface. This is one parish. I do not know how many more border parishes there are mixed up in this way. I shall certainly feel it my duty to go into the Lobby against this Clause, if necessary, and I can only express my great surprise that the Home Secretary, who told some of us this afternoon that none of these Amendments could be accepted, should come here now and accept these Amendments in spite of what he told us. I look upon this as part of the agreement we were trying to make this afternoon, and I am very sorry and very surprised that the Home Secretary, without any notice, should accept such a Clause as this, which materially affects the whole structure of the Bill

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause accordingly read a second time, and added to the Bill.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow (Tuesday).