§ Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
§ [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to teinds and to the stipends of ministers of the Church of Scotland, and the tenure of the property and endowments of that Church, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient—
§ The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson)
The purpose of this Financial Resolution is to enable the Treasury to negotiate with the Church authorities for the redemption of certain sums which at the present time are already payable out of the Consolidated Fund. The Financial Resolution does not in any way deal with the question as to whether or not these payments are to be continued, but is a mere enabling Resolution, giving the Treasury the power to contract for the redemption of whatever the sums may be, whether restricted or otherwise. It will be for the convenience of the Committee, I feel sure, if, in the first instance, I explain what is the. nature of these payments. These payments are all contained 478 in the Seventh Schedule of the Bill, under six heads, and I propose to deal with these six heads separately.
The first three heads are very much of the same character. They all relate to sums which are payable for the augmentation of stipends of ministers in various parts of Scotland, and, taking No. I first, which amounts to a sum of £12,000, the history of that is as follows: I do not want to go back on a good deal that was said on the Second Reading Debate with regard to the transition of the old Church property and land into the hands of the Crown and various lay titulars, as they were called, at the time of the Reformation. That has been very fully dealt with already, but may I remind the Committee that, generally speaking, those Church properties did go into the hands of the Crown and, through the Crown, into the hands of laymen to a very large extent. It was recognised subsequently, even in Acts of Parliament, that the description of those properties was the patrimony of the Church." You will find that expression in Acts of Parliament, and the last stage of that transference of the old Church property subsequent to the Reformation was in 1690, when on the final abolition of the episcopacy in Scotland the Bishops' lands were forfeited to the Crown and remained in the hands of the Crown except in so far as by power subsequently obtained at a much later date these have been sold or otherwise realised.
I think I should point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and to the Committee that this is a Motion of narrow limits. It proposes to allow the Treasury to compound for certain payments that they are at present liable to make, such being set forth in the Schedule to the Bill. It is open to argument whether the Treasury should have this right to compound or not, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman, of course, is in order in setting out what these things are, but I do not think that it would be in order to have a controversial historical discussion as to the origin of these payments
§ The LORD ADVOCATE
I had hoped that I was stating it non-controversially—I have no desire to be controversial—but there is necessarily interesting his- 479 torical matter with regard to these payments. May I also remind the Committee that in the time of Charles I provision was made for providing the clergy, the Reformed Church clergy of the Church of Scotland, with competent stipends, and, along with that, it is necessary to explain that there had been power given and Commissions set up to have the teinds, as they were called, of the different proprietors throughout the country valued. By the beginning of the 19th century, owing in part, as set out in the narrative of the Statute in which these payments had their origin, and owing in part to the general fall in prices of grain on which the stipends were generally based, and in part to the fact that many of the valuations which were obtained in the first part of the 17th century under the process to which I have referred were—I suspect because of undue influence in some cases—exceptionally low and turned out to be worth very little, it was found in many parishes in Scotland that it was impossible, under the existing system of raising stipends from the teinds, in view of these valuations and the low price of victual, to get anything like a salary op stipend on which the ministers could live. The Crown at the beginning of the last century, as I have already reminded the Committee, had in its hand a good many of the old Church lands, and the course taken was that, in the first instance, under an Act of 1810—that is what settles a part of the first sum in the Seventh Schedule—provision was made for the making up of a list of parishes in Scotland in which the stipend of the minister was less than £150 and was incapable of being raised by further resort to the usual method of getting an augmentation of stipend. That list was to be made up by the Barons of the Exchequer, and it was provided, under that Act of 1810, that in those cases the difference between the actual amount so brought out and £150 was to he provided from the hereditary revenues of the Crown in Scotland. That gives a sum of £10,000 a year.
A similar provision, as a result of further alteration in the prices of grain and other circumstances, was made in 1824 for bringing them up to £150 or in cases where it had been discovered that manses or glebes could not be got to £180 or £200, making the total of £12,000 a year in the 480 first Schedule. In 1824 likewise, because, of the long distances, particularly in the Highlands, which could not be covered by the parish ministers and the lack of provision of religious ordinances for the people there—they were so far away that they could not get to their parish church—a sum of £50,000 was authorised to be spent and was spent in erecting additional places of worship, mainly, if not entirely, in the Highlands. I should mention that these churches in each case were erected by transactions with the heritors themselves. Manses were provided, glebes were provided, sites were provided, and the whole cost in every case did not fall on the State, on the hereditary revenues. There, against, there was a provision to provide a stipend, I think, up to £120 a year. Again, those sums were charged on the hereditary revenues of the Crown in Scotland. That was a sum of £5,040 per annum, which is the second sum in the seventh Schedule. The first two items, making £17,040, were subsequently—I do not think I need trouble with the details, of the Statute—transferred from the hereditary revenues of the Crown in Scotland on to the Consolidated Fund. That certainly is not a point on which any Scotsman should raise a complaint. That was because the management of the hereditary revenues of the Crown in Scotland was transferred to the English Office of Woods and Forests, and they were brought together and the charge was put on to the Consolidated Fund. These payments have continued to the present day. I should mention that the first sum of £12,000 covers 204 parishes in Scotland at the present time. It is split up among 204 parishes.
Let me now turn to the third sum mentioned in the Schedule, because I want to be as short as I can. It is a sum of £2,000 for itinerant preachers, and it is of very old date. It was first of all granted as a sum of £1,000 a year by a Royal Warrant in 1725, and it bore to be payable again by the Receiver-General of the hereditary revenues in Scotland, or, as it is expressed:—The Receiver-General and Paymaster of our revenues in Scotland out of such our treasure being and remaining in his hands.and the warrant was addressed to the Barons of the Exchequer in Scotland. That payment was subsequently increased to £2,000 in 1811, and the purpose of it 481 was to provide itinerant preachers, I think almost entirely in the Highlands, to go round and to provide means of religious instruction and aid and ordinances to smaller groups of people who could not be reached by the ordinary parish means. The fourth item is a sum of £1,100 which is for certain expenses of the General Assembly. It includes allowances to the Moderator who, as my English friends may know, is the Chairman or President of the General Assembly of the Church, to the Procurator, a very ancient office which I was once proud of holding, who is the legal adviser and Treasurer of the Church as well, and to various other officials of the Church. It also covers the provision of beadles and the general expenses of the Assembly. Five hundred pounds was the original sum in that case, and it was first paid under a Royal Warrant of Queen Anne of 1710. This sum, again, is charged on the hereditary revenues in Scotland, and hon. Members will note that these last two sums date from a period not very long after the Revolution settlement of 1690. That sum was increased to £1,000 in 1808. Up to that point the Moderator had not participated in it, but in 1832 an additional £100 went to the Moderator of the Church. The remaining two sums are not large in amount, but they are very interesting in their nature. The fifth item is a sum of £86 3s. 1d., and is payable to three ministers and three precentors. It will be noted that it is brought out very precisely.
§ The LORD ADVOCATE
I am afraid that is a slip. I must differ from it. The three precentors get a sum of £5 odd each, amounting to about £16. That. is all that is in their favour. They are the precentors of St. Andrews, an old Archbishopric, the Precentor of Glasgow, an old Bishopric, and the Precentor of Dunfermline, an old Abbacy. The ministers are the Minister of Queens-ferry, the Minister of Breehin, and the Minister of Lerwick. They get sums of just over £21 each. These payments go back a long way. For instance, the payment to the Minister of Queensberry goes back to 1794 under a Royal Charter which expressly bears that it. is a grant out of the teinds in the hands of the 482 Crown. In the same way, the grant to the Minister of Meigle, which we can trace as far back as 1773—that is the first recorded note of it—expressly bears to be a payment out of the bishops' rents in the hands of the Crown. It is the same with regard to Lerwick, which we can trace hack to 1701—a Royal Charter. All these three places—and we may assume it is the same in the case of the small amounts to the precentors—are all grants directly related to bishops' teinds or rents in the hands of the, Crown. They, like the other payments in the middle of last century or thereabouts, were transferred on to the Consolidated Fund. That is the cause of all these payments. But I wish to bring to the notice of the Committee what was their origin. I could give a great deal more interesting detail, but it is not worth while.
§ The LORD ADVOCATE
The justification undoubtedly—at least I suggest it looks like it—was that these were payments out of revenues in the hands of the Crown which were directly related to the particular minister or percentor benefiting.
§ The LORD ADVOCATE
Let me make it more plain. These were lands which originally had been Church lands and were forfeited to the Crown under the Revolution settlement of 1690, shortly prior to the date when some of these payments were started. History very seldom gives a complete and absolute answer, and I can only give the information that I have at my disposal. But they have gone on for a very long time. It is only as a matter of form or convenience that lately they have taken the form of being a charge on the Consolidated Fund. The payment is not a very big one, anyway.
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
The right hon. Gentleman has told us the historical-source from which the moneys have come to pay the Ministers at Lerwick, Queens-ferry and Brechin, and the three unnamed percentors, but he has not informed us, from the batch of historical 483 evidence which he appears to have beside him, what was the ostensible justification at the time for making the payment to these particular individuals.
§ The LORD ADVOCATE
My hon. Friend asked me particularly about the Lerwick payment. The Lerwick payment was granted in 1701 out of the rents of the Bishopric of Dunkeld. Undoubtedly the Bishop's rent and teinds of Orkney had been forfeited to the Crown in 1690.
§ The LORD ADVOCATE
Historically the lands belong to the Church. That is not the point, however, with which we are concerned to-day. Dowally is a peculiar payment, and would take some little time to explain. But there, again, the lands of the Bishop of Dunkeld came into the hands of the Crown in 1690, after the Revolution Settlement, and the original payment to the Minister of Dunkeld was in 1704, when a grant was given by the Crown to the Minister of Dunkeld out of the teinds of Meigle, a parish some little distance away. But the teinds had belonged to the Bishopric of Dunkeld. Later on—I think about the beginning of last century—it was found that the Crown could not stand in the way of the Meigle minister getting his rights out of these teinds, and a payment seems to have been made from that (late from the hereditary Crown lands. I wanted to inform the Committee of the origin of these grants. The amount of that payment, if it makes the Committee any wiser, is, I think, 86 bolls, but it is an amount which is reduced each year into money according to current prices. That explains as briefly as I can explain it the general nature of these teinds.
484 I now come to the general terms of the Financial Resolution itself. I would again remind the Committee of what the Chairman has already drawn attention to, that we are not really concerned here as to whether these payments are to be continued or not, and I remind the Committee of this because of an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr), because I am going to suggest to him that he should not press his Amendment, and I hope to convince him of the reason why he should not do so. I quite appreciate the purpose of the hon. Member in putting the Amendment down. It is, I understand, in order to secure that these payments shall not be continued after the lives of the existing incumbents. But let me put this. The first Sub-section of Clause 18, which is riot included in the Financial Resolution, is the one on which the continuation of these payments will arise in Committee, and the hon. Member has got an equivalent Amendment to that Sub-section. But, assuming for the moment that Sub-section (1) is limited to payments to existing incumbents, the Financial Resolution as it stands will equally apply in its present terms without alteration at all. On the other hand, if in Committee the Amendment to Subsection (1) is refused, and the payments are to be continued, the effect of the hon. Member's Amendment to the Financial Resolution would be that it would completely hamper the Treasury in negotiating for redemption, because all they could do then would be to go to the Church authorities and say, "It is quite true that under Sub-section (1) these payments are to he continued in perpetuity, and it is quite true that we would like to redeem them if we could, but because of a limitation put in the Financial Resolution, all that we can offer you is the capital value of the existing life interests."
That means that the Financial Resolution would be absolutely useless. There never could be any negotiations at all, and it does seem to me that the Amendment is not necessary for the hon. Member's true purpose, as I understand it. And, on the other hand, if his Amendment—and I have strong reason to put accent on this—were accepted on the Financial Resolution, and the powers were left as in Subsection (1), which is not in the Financial Resolution, it would make the Financial 485 Resolution futile. I do not imagine that is what the hon. Member and his colleagues desire to bring about. Their desire, I understand, which we will meet at the proper time and place, is to have the continuation of these payments limited to the duration of existing life interests, and not in perpetuity. You cannot. do that by the Financial Resolution, or any Amendment of it, and it is for that reason I am suggesting to hon. Members who have put down this Amendment that the only effect of the Amendment, if adopted, would be to add nothing to carrying out what is the true purpose of the rest of the Bill. On the other hand, if they were successful, it would completely hamper the Treasury on the Financial Resolution. I would, therefore, suggest to the hon. Member and his friends that they should not press the Amendment, as it would really not serve, from that point of view, any useful purpose, although I quite appreciate the point which has led the hon. Member to put it down. I have dealt, I believe, quite fully with the various points, and have indicated what, in the opinion of the Government, is the right course that we should ask the Committee to take. Accordingly, I would appeal to the House to pass the Resolution without Amendment.
§ Mr. BARR
I beg to move, in line 9, at the end, to add the wordsProvided that such capital sum or sums shall not exceed the amount, together with interest thereon, necessary for discharging in full all existing life interests.I think that we have before us, this afternoon, a very clear issue. We have a payment chargeable on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund. The right hon. Gentleman has given a very interesting historical statement, in the main accurate, but with one or two suggestions and inferences with which I do not agree. He has correctly and properly called attention, in the first instance, to the Acts of 1810 and 1824, under which these endowments were first bestowed upon the Church. As he indicated, the Government of the day found that certain stipends had come to a very low ebb indeed; that owing to the teinds having been exhausted in certain cases, there was no available source other than the Exchequer by which they could make an increment to these very low salaries, and 486 they proposed, under the Act of 1810, to augment the stipend up to the sum of £150. Fourteen years later—in 1824—they found that, owing to the fall in the price of grain, a standard of 1150 was not maintained, and they voted an additional £2,000, making £12,000 in all. Where there was neither manse nor glebe, they provided for a salary up to £200, but where there was a mans; or glebe, £180 was provided.
Another 1924 Act cancelled an Act of 1823 mainly for the purpose of building places of worship in the outlying districts. These were auxiliary congregations, and the minister was, in a sense, the assistant minister. In the first instance, they were not to exceed 40 in number. In the end there came to be 42, and a salary of £120 was provided for these ministers, who were, in fact, assistants to the minister of the parish, though they had a certain liberty and position of their own. That accounted for £5,040. In this Measure, I think, there were one or two provisions that the right hon. Gentleman did not indicate. It was mentioned, for example. that there should be a fit person appointed as precentor at the princely sum of £5 per annum, and a beadle, who was to be "passing rich," on the sum of £3 per annum. I am sorry to say these Acts reflect somewhat upon the class to which I belong, because, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, they contain a provision that if ministers, in their extremity, should sign their names to warrants, when they were not entitled to these grants, they were to be judged guilty of the crime of forgery. I am glad to say this threat proved effective, and history does not give any instance of ministers being guilty of forgery in order to obtain a salary, although sometimes we have been obliged to resort to sonic strange means of obtaining a salary. T said we had a very clear issue in these Exchequer grants. We are not dealing here with a question of teinds. It is easy to mystify and to say you know nothing as to the origin of teinds. It is easy to say that these were originally the gift of pious donors, but we do not associate a pious donation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer or with the Consolidated Funds. The right hon. Gentleman put forward a plea that these were in respect of bishops' teinds and rents that had been given over in the year of the Revolution Settlement. T noticed that. towards the 487 end of his speech he indicated certain small sums which he was able to connect with the Exchequer in this way and with the hereditary revenues of the Crown. I also noticed, in regard to the larger grants, that what he said was more in the way of suggesting, and as a matter of fact—
§ Mr. BARR
I will come to that particular point. These are the words in the Statute and they seem to me to imply quite clearly that they were drawn from the current revenue:There shall in every year be set apart and appropriated in the hands of His Majesty's Receiver-General and Paymaster in Scotland out of the public revenues and monies received and collected by him.I think that is entirely clear. Not only so, but the Church of Scotland were good enough to promise that they would look into this matter and provide us with a memorandum on the subject. They were obliged to confess—and they did so quite freely and clearly—that in the Acts themselves there is nothing to connect this with the bishops' revenues, with the bishops' lands, teinds, and rents. I think the answer to that is this: That I cannot see that the Presbyterian Church of Scotland can have any claim to teinds and rents that were given expressly, as appears, for working the bishoprics and the advancement of episcopacy in Scotland!.
I would remind the hon. Member that the question before the Committee is not whether these payments are justified, but whether, as they exist, the Treasury shall have the right to redeem them or not.
§ Mr. BARR
I hope that I understand you aright, but what I am seeking to show is that in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman travelled so far in showing the history of this, that I thought I might be allowed to point out that his historic claim did not carry us to the point that there was any obligation on this House to continue these indefinitely, and to continue them by a redemption that would carry full value; therefore was arguing that the redemption should he limited to the life interest. I do not dwell en the other funds to which he re- 488 ferred, the £2,000 for itinerant preachers, and the £1,100 for expenses of the General Assembly. These were properly described in the Haldane Report as coming from public sources. It may be said that these were rightly given, but I should like to put this point: that even if they were a proper charge when they were given—which I do not admit—the Church was one and it represented the people of Scotland. It is altogether a different question to provide a redemption sum that will continue in full to-day when the Church is divided and when it cannot be said to represent in the same full degree the people of Scotland.
It may be said further, that these are small funds, but the principle is great and it is very clear. As a matter of fact, the Church of England does not draw from public sources in the same way in which the Church of Scotland does in these grants. That was very clearly brought out by a statement made by Mr. Gladstone bearing upon these endowments with which we are dealing. In 1892 he wrote:The Church of England receives no assistance from public funds.In a speech on the 25th January, 1893, he qualified that in the following words:I have declared again and again that the funds of the Church—understanding the words as they were generally understood by the Irish Church Act—are national property. And this remains true, although it be also true that the Established Church in England does not, like that in Scotland, draw anything as an Establishment from what I may term Parliamentary sources.I dare say it will be said that if we are limited to the present life interest, to alter it would bring hardship upon incumbents and churches. The answer to that is that in any church in Christendom that has been relieved of such grants the testimony is to the fact that it has prospered far better without such grants than with them. There is nothing which so dries up the fountains of Christian liberality and paralyses Christian giving as allowances and grants like these.
I would again remind the hon. Gentleman that if the whole of this Resolution were denied the grants would continue indefinitely, as they are now being paid. The sole question before the Committee is whether the Treasury should have the right to redeem 489 them or not. It is impossible to argue the question now as voluntaryism and establishment.
§ Mr. BARR
Mr. Hope, with all respect, I have no intention of so doing. What I have not made sufficiently clear in my argument was that if you redeem for such a sum as was suggested in the Haldane Report the full value of such sum will continue, annual payment or annuity, fur all time. You will be on an entirely different basis from that on which it now stands if you limit the payments to the present life interest.
The hon. Member would he quite in order in showing that they should not be redeemed because he hopes in a future Parliament to get rid of them altogether. But he is not in order in showing whether they should continue or not. He must direct his attention to the Financial Resolution.
§ Mr. BARR
The point I wish to make is this: that the redemption should be limited so that it should be a sum which should not provide a continuance in full of the payment, but be limited to the present life interest. The Amendment I have down exactly bears that out, and that at the close of the period, such grants shall cease altogether. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that I should withdraw my Amendment altogether inasmuch as it was not necessary, and that if I carried it—which is a very optimistic prophecy—as an Amendment to the Clause in the Scottish Grand Committee it would not be necessary, and that if I do carry it then it would hamper the Government.
I desire to hamper the Government in this respect, because I am not in favour of the continuance in full of this payment. To refer once more to these particular churches which are affected, you will find there are 32 churches mentioned in the particular Schedule that gives the list of the Parliamentary churches. Of these there are 18 that have less than 30 members, 14 with less than 20 members, and 10 which have not more than 10 members. We are often asked to carry through these Financial Resolutions in order that we may limit the number of churches in Scotland, but I submit that by these grants you are unnecessarily increasing the number of churches that 490 would not exist at all unless they had this artificial support given to them. Further, I say that by passing this Money Resolution and continuing thereby these grants, though in a new form, you do not aid the cause you have at heart, and that nothing is more obnoxious than a continuance in any form, even in the form of the redemption, of these grants, to the Church to which I belong. I have not heard any minister or office bearer in the United Free Church defend these grants. When I was coming away, one of the leaders of the movement towards union said to me, "I hope you will be able to do something in regard to these Exchequer grants." We hold them as absolutely wrong in themselves, and I belong to a Church which for half a century has made its protest against such grants. If now it were to give in and accept, even in this form which is proposed, in the form of a redemption sum, I do not think it could expect anything after its testimony but scorn from the people of Scotland. I stand so strongly against these grants because I believe that if the Church were to accept a continuance, even in this new form, it would completely doom itself in the eyes of the democracy, and it would renounce all claim to the moral leadership of the people of Scotland.
§ Mr. KIDD
I shall try, Mr. Hope, to respect the limit which you properly enforce in a discussion of this kind. I confess I had a difficulty in quite appreciating the argument of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) in his attempt to distinguish between the property of the Church, represented as it is by these grants from the Consolidated Fund, and the property of the Church otherwise as represented by teinds. It matters not how the money under discussion is labelled at the present time, there can be no doubt about this, that the original source of the money at the time of the Reformation was Church land. Take the case of my own constituency. We have there a humble allowance of 20 guineas, and that 20 guineas is a small sum representing lands, which, although situated at South Queensferry, belong to the Abbey of Kulross. The lands of that abbey were not confined to the northern side of the Forth, but extended to the southern side of the Forth.
491 If the source of these grants are Church lands, given to the Church at the time of the Reformation, appropriated by the Reformed Church to provide a competence for the ministry of the Church, I cannot see how we can distinguish them from teinds. The only argument against the Resolution that I can imagine is this, that some exception can be taken to these grants coming from the Consolidated Fund. The Lord Advocate's very luminous speech has made quite clear that while the source is now so labelled the real source is that which I have stated, and that the legal title is perfect. 'Considering that the Reformed Church got only a fraction of the total Church land, I hope hon. Members will agree that on grounds of equity and law no exception can be taken to the Resolution.
I would remind the hon. Member that now an Amendment has been accepted which still further limits the Debate. The question is whether the sum paid for redemption shall be by annual payments, or whether the amount shall be such as to discharge existing liabilities.
§ Mr. KIDD
With regard to redemption, my hon. Friend would lose by baulking this Resolution. If the Resolution be not carried, then there is no redemption. If there is no redemption, there is continuing payment, and if there is a desire on the part of anyone in the House to take from the Church anything, or to limit its patrimony in any way, the best way to defeat that purpose would be by defeating the present Resolution. If the Resolution be not carried, the payment continues, and a continuing payment., I am entitled to assume, would amount to very much more, if capitalised on a reasonable basis, than any sum given in redemption. For that reason I hope the Committee, on every ground, on the ground of economy—if that is a ground that moves any Member of this House in dealing with the Church—will pass the Resolution, as also on the ground of law and equity.
§ Mr. MACPHERSON
I do not propose to detain the Committee for more than a moment or two, as I have not the least intention of disobeying your ruling, Mr. Hope, and discussing endowments, or establishments, or any such subject. The 492 point I desire to make is a very small one, and I hope you will regard it as germane to the subject. We are greatly indebted to my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate for the clearness of the many speeches which he has been delivering lately on this particularly thorny and difficult subject, difficult even to a Scotsman. As I understood his speech this afternoon, he went on to explain that these moneys were originally payable out of the hereditary revenues of the Crown in Scotland, and that after a certain time they became embodied in what we now know as the Consolidated Fund, and that the real reason for moving this Money Resolution this afternoon is to enable the Treasury to get from Parliament the right of redeeming these sums this year. These sums, when redeemed, are to be used for certain new purposes. I was very much struck, and I feel sure the Committee was greatly struck by the fact that most of these sums were originally devoted to the purpose of enabling the Church to perform and maintain the rites of the Church in the more inaccessible parts of Scotland. I am standing here to-day as one of the representatives of those inaccessible parts to make a suggestion to my right hon. Friend. I hope I am in order in making this suggestion, because I for one am not prepared to vote for this Money Resolution—
I would like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that discussion can be continued on the Resolution after the Amendment has been disposed of. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman is going to say, but possibly he might find it more convenient to make his suggestion then.
§ Mr. MACPHERSON
No, my suggestion is a very short one, and I think you will say that I am in order. I wax saying that I am not prepared to vote for this Money Resolution unless I can get some guarantee from my right hon. Friend that the point I make will be considered by him, and that he can get an equal guarantee that the point will be considered by the joint Church. The funds which are redeemable now are funds, as I said, which were originally used in the main for the purpose of maintaining the ordinances in the North of Scotland. A great part of the North of Scotland is provided for by a Church which is called the Free Church of Scot- 493 land, or the Church of Scotland Free. That Church claims, and I think justly claims, that it is mainly responsible for the maintenance of the ordinances of the Church, in accordance with the old standards of faith, for the vast majority of the Gaelic-speaking population. They say, and rightly if I gauge accurately the point which my right hon. Friend has been making, that in any re-allocation upon the redemption of funds, their claims ought to be considered. They say that they have, right along throughout. history, maintained the old standards of faith from the time of the origin of the patrimony of the Church, and that they are now in the main responsible for the maintenance of religious ordinances in the more inaccessible parts.
The point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr)—and in my judgment not a bad point—that the more you give in State grants the more likely churches are to be erected which are totally unnecessary from the point of view of membership or anything else. My point, on the other hand, is this, that if you have sums of this kind the proper thing to do is to devote part, in any case, of those sums to those localities where one and probably two churches are necessary, and no more, in order to make it easy for them to maintain their congregations and maintain the ordinances of their churches. I would suggest, therefore, that my right hon. Friend should use every endeavour to recognise the claims of those congregations in the North of Scotland, and ask the joint Church to enter into an arrangement with the Free Church of Scotland to have a committee appointed to review the religious position and the religious needs in the North of Scotland, and to find out how much should be given to them for maintaining, and maintaining alone in certain parts, the ordinances of religion of both Churches. I hope the Committee will agree with me that something of that nature is necessary as well as fair.
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
In the restricted form in which this discussion may now only take place, I must confine myself to one point which I do not think has yet been made this afternoon. Before I make that point, I should like to compliment the Lord Advocate on the very clear and very explicit way in which he stated what, in 494 his view, was the historical origin of the charges we are discussing this afternoon. Personally, I think he might have gone a little further back, and discussed where the beneficent donors of those lands to the Church got them. It is all very well to begin at an arbitrary point in history and say: "Here a kindly donor gives land to the Church, and the Church in turn may dispose of these revenues as it chooses."
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
At any rate, we might, without very great, historical difficulty, go back to the period when large areas of common land, land belonging to the burghs, at any rate in Scotland, were stolen from those burghs.
I do not understand how the hon. Member connects this with the question of whether a whole price or life interest price should be paid for redemption.
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
I can see the difficulty, hut it is essential for the purpose I have in view that. I should in some degree enter my caveat against the arbitrary period taken by the Lord Advocate when he began his historical disquisition this afternoon. What is the purpose of this Money Resolution? It is very simple and very clear. Are we to redeem on a basis of life interest, or are we not? The Government proposes that the Treasury, that is the Government, should have powers under Clause 18 of the Bill to arrange with the Church of Scotland, or any committee or institution of the Church, or any minister or precentor, for redemption by the payment of an agreed capital sum. Is this House going to give the present Government unlimited powers to agree with the Church of Scotland, with the financial managers of the Church of Scotland, to put it in another way, to arrange a deal between themselves? What number of years' purchase is it to be? What composition is likely to take place if it is left to the present Government, to the present Treasury Bench? What sort of terms? How is the public likely to be skinned if it is left to the present Government to arrange with the financial managers of the Church of Scotland? Therefore, an Amendment has been put down somewhat to limit 495 the amount of redemption payment that is required to be paid. Objection has been taken by the Lord Advocate that the terms of this Amendment are not such as would be looked at by the financial managers of the Church of Scotland. On the other hand, will not the Lord Advocate give this Committee—perhaps he will give me his attention just for one second—before this Vote is taken, some indication of what is in his mind, or what is in the Government's mind, as to, shall we say, the number of years' purchase they are likely to offer, that they are likely to discuss? Or are we to be asked to vote unlimited powers to this Government to come to any terms they choose with the managers of the Church of Scotland? I submit that it is bad financial business for this House to give this Government, or indeed any Government, carte blanche, unlimited powers to spend public money, and give no indication whatever to the House as to any self-imposed limits that they may have before they enter on the discussion. On these grounds I trust that if we do not get such an assurance from the Lord Advocate, the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) will press his Amendment to a Division.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
I want to join with the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) in the point he has raised. I have always taken the line that Parliament, when granting any financial aid or assistance, or sums of money, ought at least to name a definite sum, and, further, have some control over the disposal of the money. It seems to me that we are giving under this Resolution a free hand to the authorities connected with the Church to use any sum they like, and in regard to the rate of interest the Treasury have not fixed the rate. When Scotland is faced with other matters dealing with parish councils we fix a rate of interest when they are borrowing from Government sources, and I suggest that there ought to be a definite rate of interest on all borrowings from the Treasury in connection with this matter. I am sure the Noble Lord (Lord Banbury) who used to represent the City of London in this House would have condemned this practice of handing out sums of money in regard to 496 which the interest was no definitely fixed, and afterwards having no control as to how it should be spent.
I would like to ask how much of this money is to go to the Free Church? The Free Church largely carries on the work of religious thought and the spreading of religious ideas in the North of Scotland. Therefore it is of the utmost importance to the Free Church to know if any of that sum of money is to be used for the propagation of Free Church principles in Scotland. This House has no right to hand over public money to this group, who may spend it in a foolish way. Quite apart from the rights or wrongs of this Bill, the mere issue of allowing Government money raised from the taxpayers of this country to be arbitrarily dealt with without reference to Parliament is a wrong principle, and unjust, and no Government, whether it is Liberal, Labour or Tory, has a right to come and ask Parliament for a Resolution a that kind. Apart from the Scottish Church question, I hope English Members of this House will join with us in condemning what I believe is a bad practice, which, if allowed to continue, will land the Treasury and the finances of this country in a morass worse than it is in at the present time.
Sir W. MITCHELL
May I say, in answer to t he speech which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), that if this Amendment be carried there will be no money for the Free Church or for anyone else after the expiry of the life interest. The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) never does state a case in full, but in reply to his argument, I should like to point out that this is only a question of whether the Church of Scotland is to be allowed to go on paying out as it has been doing year after year. As a matter of fact the Church has the actual disposal of this money at the present time, and has had for centuries. and there is no intention by this Bill of making any difference. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said that by this Measure we are giving the Church complete control. He used that argument as if it were something new, whereas as a matter of fact the Church has had complete control for years. How has the whole case been brought up?
I must point out to the hon. Member that this Amendment only deals with the terms of redemption. Very likely, on the Third Reading of the Bill. Mr. Speaker may rule that the arguments now being used by the hon. Member are in order.
Sir W. MITCHELL
With regard to the terms of redemption, we may take it for granted that unless those terms are advantageous to the Treasury they will not commute. I am quite satisfied that the Treasury will not do anything inimical to the interests of the Treasury. I hope we shall soon have a decision on this point., and that we shall soon see the end of this Rill.
§ Mr. STEPHEN
I wish to associate myself with what has been said by my colleagues in asking the Lord Advocate to consider the granting of some concession to the point of view which we represent. In Scotland on this question there is a very strong minority, and I think that minority is entitled to have its views taken into full consideration. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) stated the point of view of the Free Church of Scotland, and the necessity for conserving their interests. The last speaker suggested that if we pass this Amendment it would rule out the considerations of the interests of the members of the Free Church of Scotland. I do not think so. I know there are two strong definite opinions on this question in Scotland, but I think there should be some give and take on the part of the Government in order to try to meet the views of both sides. It is suggested that the Church of Scotland has had certain powers in connection with this matter all along, and that there is nothing new in the power that is being taken under this Resolution and under this Bill. I would like to dispute the contention nut forward by the previous speaker in this respect, because all along the Church of Scotland with regard to these payments has had a certain necessary connection with the State. and they have also come under the control of the House of Commons. and that has been one of the reasons for some of the ecclesiastical struggles which have taken place in Scotland in the past.
I agree with what has already been said that it is not good business for this 498 Committee to give the Treasury the right to contract for a certain sum in redemption of those interests without the House of Commons being consulted. I do not believe that it is good business, or good for the House of Commons, to lose any control in connection with a matter like this. I do not believe that it is a good thing for the Treasury to have this responsibility thrown upon it. In some matters, perhaps, this would not be of much importance, but so far as I have seen, when the Treasury or the House of Commons is dealing with Churches or Ecclesiastical Corporations, there. is likely to be imposed upon them influences of a kind that it is very difficult to think the Lord Advocate might agree to a definite figure being put in this Resolution. There certainly should be something more definite than is the case at the present time, in order that the House of Commons may know, and the people of Scotland may know, what price the Church of Scotland is taking in this connection.
There is one other matter I wish to raise in connection with the proposed redemption. It is in the mind of most of us in Scotland that behind this redemption in the future is the proposed union of the Church of Scotland with the United Free Church of Scotland to which I myself belong. Of course I am aware that that is something in the future which never take place, but I think that is another reason why this Committee and the House of Commons should take the utmost care that the interests of the contracting parties in the future may be fully protected as well as the smaller communion of the Free Church of Scotland. This is necessary in the North and North-West of Scotland as regards the interests of the members of the various branches of the Church in those districts. This redemption will be very bad business for all those other communions because those negotiations in the future, if they break down, may put the United Free Church of Scotland in the position of coming back to its old demand to the State for the disendownment of the Church of Scotland, and then we shall be face to face with a much more difficult proposition if these redemption proposals are carried to-day. For these reasons I appeal to the Lord Advocate for some concession to the minority opinion in Scotland in the United 499 Free Church of Scotland, because I have been expressing the almost unanimous opinion of that Church and of all those other religious denominations of Scotland which have an interest in this connection. In conclusion, I want to say that I speak in no spirit of hostility to the union of the Churches in Scotland. I myself would like to see that union taking place, but I believe that the Church of Scotland is making a great mistake in the way in which it is proceeding in seeking to extort the last pound, in the way that it can, in connection with these various funds with which it has been endowed, and in being prepared to make no concession to the others, who have very great interests in the matter.
§ Mr. RUSSELL
The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr), in his opening remarks, said that the issue was a clear and simple one, namely, a charge upon the Consolidated Fund. I think, however. that it has been shown, in the course of the speeches we have heard from the other side, that an issue far wider and more far-reaching than that really arises out of this Resolution. It is nothing less than the duty of the State as a trustee of Church property. There is a religious patrimony in Scotland. It is held partly in the form of teinds by heritors and partly by burghs and cities like Edinburgh, Glasgow, or Dundee. These public bodies are trustees of part of religious patrimony of Scotland. So also—
I must point out to the hon. Member that the question before the Committee is merely that of the terms of redemption. It may be that the hon. Member is bringing his argument. to that. hut I must point that out to him.
§ Mr. RUSSELL
The purpose of my argument, Mr. Hope, is to show that the State at the present moment is likewise in the position of a trustee of a part of the religious patrimony of Scotland, and the issue that I suggest is now being raised here is the State's attitude to corporate property, and particularly Church property. The State has a duty by private property and it has a duty by corporate property. Corporate property is different from private property in this respect, that it is public in the uses to which it is put and in the conditions under which it is used, but private with respect 500 to those who are interested in it. I want. to point out that these payments out of the Exchequer, out of the Consolidated Fund, are not a charge upon the Consolidated Fund in the respect that they are a charge which has to be met by taxation of the people. These payments are made by the State as a trustee.
§ Mr. JAMES BROWN
This Amendment makes the position much more difficult even than the original Motion, and as you, Mr. Hope, have already ruled so often that we dare not meander into Scottish ecclesiastical history, we shall have to confine ourselves to the Money Resolution. I am amazed at my hon. Friends behind me, who will insist on trying to make this Committee believe, as they tried to make the House believe on the Second Reading, that the Church of Scotland is out for spoliation. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen were listening to the very clear statement of the Lord Advocate I do not see how that argument could have come from any of them, because, after all, the Treasury is not going to suffer in this. The Treasury will benefit in the same way by the redemption as the ordinary heritors will, we hope, benefit ultimately. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, and f have no objection to their laughing if they laugh in the right place. We do not laugh in the Auld Kirk we do business there; and I trust that being able to do business never will, as it never yet has, detracted from the religious fervour of any people. After all, the labourer is worthy of his hire; the church has to be maintained. and I do not know of any better way of maintaining the church than the method which the Church of Scotland has been following up to the present time. There is to be no new charge on the Treasury. The Treasury will redeem, and if, as I believe, the ordinary heritor will benefit in the end by the redemption of the teinds, so will the Treasury benefit by the redemption and by this being taken off the Consolidated Fund altogether. I do not know. Mr. Hope, whether you will permit me to refer to the Free Church, but so far as I am personally concerned, I uphold everything that has been said about. the earnest endeavour of the Free Church after religious ordinances in the North and North-West of Scotland, and if it were possible in Committee I should very 501 gladly welcome some effort or endeavour whereby the Free Church of Scotland would be enabled to carry on her religious work—that is to say if the Free Church itself does not become a participator in the union that we are contemplating, and so broaden the basis of the union of the Churches in Scotland. Having said that, I do not require to say any more. I want the Committee to come back to this: We are trying—and, because it is a financial matter, we have to bring it here—to get this Committee, and I am sure we shall get the Committee, to agree to this being done, and I do not think it will hurt the Church in any shape or form. It does not impose any new burden; all that it does is to allow the Treasury to redeem these moneys. so that the new and greater Church that is to come into being will be able to set its house in order from every point of view, and thereby so to go into its new life that it will be calculated to do a great amount of good to the people of Scotland. We are not going back to the origin of e teinds, to—in the classic language of one of my hon. Friends behind me—the skinning of the people—
§ Mr. BROWN
John Knox was living in very stirring times, and said some very plain things, but I do not think he would have condescended to such a word as was used by my hon. Friend, because it is not true, in the first place, and John Knox was a speaker of truth if he was anything at all. In any case, we are dealing with what has long been recognised as the patrimony of the Church, and the patrimony of the Church as rightfully belongs to her as any other lands or any other patrimony belongs to any other private individual.
§ Mr. BROWN
I trust I shall not transgress further. All that I wanted to say has now been said. I want the Committee to remember that we are not imposing any burden on the Treasury. We may, as I think has been already said, trust the Treasury to make a very good bargain indeed. All that we are asking is that this Resolution should be passed to-day, so that we can get into Committee 502 and complete the Bill, as every true Scotsman desires.
§ Mr. MAXTON
Members on this side of the Committee always listen with the very greatest respect to any guidance that is given to us on ecclesiastical matters by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown). The high position he has held in the Established Church of Scotland entitles to the fullest consideration any view that he puts before us, but when he asks us to pass this Resolution because he says, "I believe that the Treasury will make a good bargain, and I believe that the nation will ultimately save money," without adducing any arguments in support of it, it puts us in a very difficult position, and it makes us think that the definition current in Scotland with reference to faith and the Established Church has some foundation in fact, namely, that faith is a belief in those things which we know to be not true. We want, although it may be wrong of us in an ecclesiastical and spiritual matter, to ask that we should get the actual round figures that the Treasury is having imposed upon it in this matter. I have made such rough calculations as a comparatively inexperienced person in financial matters may, and I conclude that, if we pass this Resolution to-day, we may be involved, on the very lowest estimate, in a capital expenditure of £500,000, while, taking a-higher estimate we may be involved in an expenditure of £2,500,000—a difference of £2,000,000. I consider that that is a very wide margin. If I were coming before the House of Commons to ask for a couple of millions for some social purpose—for unemployment, for mothers' pensions, for the increase of old age pensions—there would be a very close scrutiny of the proposals before those two millions would be granted. But here they come and ask practically for a free hand to conclude any bargain of any basis, and we are to tell them, "Yes, we know that we shall be involved in at least £500,000. We cannot. be sure, but we think £2,500,000 would be the extreme outside limit." I should not object to a very much larger expenditure than £2,000,000 if I believed that it was going to mean a real revival in the spiritual life of Scotland. I think the expenditure would be fully justified, even by a Treasury which is largely contributed to from episcopalian sources. I believe if 503 we could have some reasonable hope that the expenditure of this £2,000,000 would give the Scots a new inspiration, a new impetus to a higher life, it would be money well expended. But as far as I understand the spiritual movement, they do not start by looking after the financial basis. They start by people going out carrying neither meat nor scrip and saluting no man by the way. This proposition for a new revival and a better understanding among the Presbyterian sections in Scotland seems to me on a par with the efforts which were made by our hon. Friends below the Gangway on this side to set up a. Commission to inquire into what was wrong with them. They lost their soul, and they set up a, Commission to find it.
§ Mr. MAXTON
I think, though you may have some difficulty in seeing it, that there is a connection. I am arguing that we are asked here to give an unspecified sum, a variable amount between £500,000 and £2,500,000, for the spiritual restoration of Scottish life, or the restoration and extension of the spiritual life of Scotland, and I am expressing the view that the highest expenditure suggested in this Resolution would be fully justified if there was any hope of achieving the desired object. But I say spiritual developments do not take place by the planking down of large sums of money or, using the parallel of hon. Members below the Gangway, who, having set out to find their lost souls, have a Commission, which reports that the first thing necessary if they are going to get a new soul is to raise a general fund of £1,000,000.
I understand the object of the Resolution is not so much for a spiritual purpose as for the Treasury to discharge its liabilities once for all to the Church of Scotland.
§ Mr. MAXTON
If I believed that this would achieve that end in a reasonable and legitimate way and we could get rid of the whole proposition once and for ever. I should believe that £2,000,000 was well spent, just as I believe that if 504 we could get rid of this for the expenditure of £1,000,000 the money would be well spent. But apart from what hon Members seem to regard as something humorous, I think the Lord Advocate due to give the Committee some definite idea as to the basis upon which they propose to settle up these various outstanding claims. Some of us on these benches believe that the right and legitimate and proper way is to take each one of these existing charges, charges that we pay now, continue the payment of them as an annual payment during the lifetime of the present holders, and as each of the present holders dies off the charge upon the fund for that particular individual ceases, and the annual payments from year to year would steadily diminish until they finished altogether. That seems to be a fair and a right and a just way of meeting existing claims upon the Consolidated Fund, and a much better way than this indefinite phrase that we have here," by the payment of an agreed capital sum," the agreement to be entered into quite outside the purview of this House and in a way that we could not possibly criticise, but which we should have to accept as a fait accompli at some stage in the progress of the Bill. I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will not take the Committee into his confidence. I am sure either the Lord Advocate or the Secretary for Scotland has given some consideration to what they regard as the maximum sum the Treasury would be justified in expending on this item, and I think we ought to have what is in their minds on the matter. I admit that there might be some latitude necessary as between a minimum and a maximum sum, and I am not prepared to he niggling about it. But I think a latitude between £500,000 and £2,500,000 is much too wide for this House to give to any Minister, however responsible he may be.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOUR
I concur heartily in the expression of opinion which has been vented by Members on this side of the Committee. I recognise, of course, that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown) not only expresses his own personal view, but represents a large body of feeling in the Church with which he is associated. He has been particularly anxious to emphasise the business aspect of it, 505 though he was not prepared to give us these important statistics which would help us to arrive at a finding. I heard the Lord Advocate expounding on one or two of the Amendments upstairs, and he also was emphasising this point. After examining the thing fairly well, and taking an all-round point of view, it looks as if the whole matter was one of business and nothing but business. That, I think, is the most disappointing feature about it. One hon. Member has already stated a point which is being emphasised in Scotland by a section of the Press as to the prospects of union with the United Free Church, that there is nothing actually laid down to warrant that conception as really on the way. It would be quite a probable development that, even after this Bill went through, nothing of the kind transpired.
The hon. Member must connect his argument with the question of redemption of annual payments.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOUR
If we take it as it is presented, on the basis of redemption, we arc going to face another aspect of it that I think comes within the range of the Chairman's ruling, and that is that carrying through this redemption is going to make is an exceptionally difficult matter to face any proposition which might arise in the renewal of that movement which sought to disestablish the Church. And when we think of the essentials surrounding the spiritual interest of Scotland, this phase of it, instead of facilitating that which ought to be part of the object in view, is really going to retard anything of the kind. The churches as they stand to-day are showing a very considerable decline in many quarters, especially in industrial quarters, and this phase of it which is being so strongly driven by a very limited number of influential people in connection with the Church who have brought this matter to the point we are at to-day, that procedure and the line upon which they have gone, the circumscribed plan whereby they have focused a considerable amount of feeling in support of their project, leaves as a matter of fact—and they are well aware of it—a large body of opinion within the Church which is opposed to the proposition altogether.
I have listened with great care to the hon. Member. and I cannot see that his argument has the slightest relevance to the terms of redemption. It may be a very proper speech to make on the Second or Third Reading, but the very limited question whether the Treasury should redeem these. payments, and at what price, does not lend itself to these considerations.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOUR
It is difficult to get what I want brought out under your ruling, but I will come closer to it. Why should it be possible to have this proposal put up for us without. anything more definite that a minimum statement of anticipation of £500,000? Why should it be possible for any hon. Member to say, as has just been said, that it might even range to the amount of £2,500,000? Is there nothing better in the way of an estimate as to how it will work out than that? If we are going into a thing of. this kind surely, after all the negotiations which have taken place and the investigations which have been made from the historical point of view stated by the Lord Advocate himself, we might have been able to get something which would give more definite information on that aspect. Keeping to that one point. that we have before us to-day it only intensifies in the mind of the general body of the public—and there is a large body unfortunately who are out of the range of the Church—this very same plan is only emphasising the material aspect of the whole concern, and, in reality, instead of facilitating any spiritual development it will hamper the whole progress of. agreement from the ecclesiastical point of view.
§ The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour)
I would like to say a few words in reply to the Debate, and then I would appeal to the Committee to come to a decision on the Amendment. We have been discussing what some hon. Members have called a business proposition. As I understand the question, it is an arrangement by which the power of-bargaining will be permitted between the Church and the Treasury for the redemption of certain sums of money which the Treasury is due to pay at the present time. Various estimates have been made by hon. Members, more particularly the hon Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), as to what this redemption will entail for 507 the country. If I have followed him aright, he has taken estimates on 25 years' purchase and 125 years' purchase.
§ Mr. MAXTON
I may be over-calculating the annual amounts involved, but my two estimates were based on 12 years' purchase and 25 years' purchase, and not on the extravagantly long period suggested by the right hon. Member.
§ Sir J. GILMOUR
Then I am afraid the hon. Member must have been over-estimating, because I understand that the total sum involved is only £20,200.
§ Sir J. GILMOUR
The annual liability in the Schedule of the Bill is set down at £20,226. That being the case, I think it might well be left to negotiations between the Church and the Treasury. It would not be proper for me to say more than that, in my judgment, the Church will be very fortunate if they make a
|Division No. 28.]||AYES.||[5:50 p.m.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Start., Cannock)||Heyday, Arthur||Scurr, John|
|Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Hayes, John Henry||Sexton, James|
|Ammon, Charles George||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Smillie, Robert|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Hudson, J. H. Huddersfield||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)|
|Barnes, A.||John. William (Rhondda, West)||Snell, Harry|
|Batey, Joseph||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)|
|Beckett, John (Gateshead)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Kelly, W. T.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Broad, F. A||Kirkwood, D.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Bromfield, William||Lansbury, George||Taylor, R. A.|
|Bromley, J.||Lee, F.||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)|
|Buchanan, G.||Lowth, T.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Lunn, William||Thurtle, E|
|Clowes, S.||Mackinder, W.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Cluse, W. S.||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P|
|Compton, Joseph||March, S.||Varley, Frank B.|
|Connolly, M.||Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)||Viant, S. P.|
|Cove, W. G.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Wallhead, Richard C|
|Dalton, Hugh||Murnin, H.||Warne, G. H.|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Oliver, George Harold||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Davies. Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Palin, John Henry||Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney|
|Day, Colonel Harry||Parkinson. John Allen (Wigan)||Wedgwood. Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Duncan, C.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Welsh, J. C.|
|Dunnico, H.||Ponsonby, Arthur||Westwood, J.|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)||Potts, John S||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Greenall, T.||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)||Riley, Ben||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Ritson, J.||Wright, W.|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth. Pontypool||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O.(W. Bromwich)||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Groves, T.||Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)|
|Grundy, T. W.||Robinson. W. C. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Hardie, George D.||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Mr. Barr and Mr. Maxton.|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Barclay-Harvey, C. M.|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Apsley, Lord||Barnston, Major Sir Harry|
|Albery, Irving James||Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Beamish, Captain T. P. H.|
|Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)||Bahour, George (Hampstead)||Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)|
|Allen. J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)||Bainiel Lord||Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)|
§ bargain on something like 20 years' purchase, and not on the other periods which have been mentioned. The right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) asked that some measure of a pledge should be given that certain of the outlying portions of the Highland areas might receive some benefit from these funds. I am not in a position to give anything in the nature of a pledge, but I would say that I feel fairly satisfied, from my knowledge of the Church and those who control her destinies, that they will be very ready to recognise their duty as a National Church, and I would express a hope that if and when they come to consider these particular matters, if they do not deal directly themselves with these problems, they may do it through a sister Church. I hope that the Committee will now be prepared to go to a Division.
§ Question put, "That those words be there added."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 101; will be very fortunate if they make a Noes, 294.511
|Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-Berry,||Fremantle, Lieut, Colonel Francis E.||Moore, Sir Newton J.|
|Berry, St. George||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.|
|Bethell, A.||Ganzonl, Sir John||Moreing, Captain A. H.|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Gates, Percy||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Gee, Captain R.||Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive|
|Blades, Sir George Rowland||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Murchison, C. K.|
|Blundell, F. N.||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Goff, Sir Park||Nelson, Sir Frank|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Greene, W. P. Crawford||Neville, R. J.|
|Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart||Grentell, Edward C. (City of London)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W||Gretton, Colonel John||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)|
|Brass, Captain W.||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Nuttall, Ellis|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Oakley, T.|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Ormsby Gore, Hon. William|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Hammersley, S. S.||Owen, Major G.|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Hanbury, C.||Pennefather, Sir John|
|Brown. Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Penny, Frederick George|
|Broun-Lindsay, Major H.||Harland, A.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen.H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Harrison, G. J. C.||Perkins, Colonel E. K.|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||H artington, Marquess of||Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Philipson, Mabel|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Hawke, John Anthony||Pleiou, D. P.|
|Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Pilcher, G.|
|Alan Burman. J. B.||Henderson, Capt. R. R (Oxf'd, Henley)||Pliditch, Sir Philip|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)||Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton|
|Butt, Sir Alfred||Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.||Price, Major C. W. M.|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Raine, W.|
|Caine, Gordon Hall||Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A||Ramsden, E.|
|Campbell, E. T.||Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'hy)||Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Rawson, Alfred Cooper|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Rees, Sir Beddoe|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Holland, Sir Arthur||Rice, Sir Frederick|
|Charleton, H. C.||Homan, C. W. J.||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)||Ropner, Major L.|
|Christie. J. A.||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Rose, Frank H.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Moseley)||Ruggies-Brise, Major E. A.|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Howard, Captain Hon. Donald||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Rye F. G.|
|Cohen, Major J. Brunel||Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n')||Salmon, Major I.|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Hunter-Weston. Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Huntingfield, Lord||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)|
|Cope, Major William||Hurd, Percy A.||Sandeman, A. Stewart|
|Coupon, J. B.||Hurst, Gerald B.||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Courtauld, Major J. S.||Hutchison, G.A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)||Sanderson, Sir Frank|
|Courthope. Lieut.-Col. George L. Craig,||Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)||Sandson, Lord|
|Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)||Hiffe, Sir Edward M.||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D|
|Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Savery, S. S.|
|Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Jacob, A. E.||Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)|
|Crook, C. W.||Jephcott, A. R.||Shaw, Lt.-Col.A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W)|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts. Westb'y)|
|Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Curzon, Captain Viscount||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Shiels, Dr. Drummond|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Lamb, J. Q.||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Dalziel, Sir Davison||Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ.,Belfst)|
|Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)||Little, Dr. E. Graham||Skelton, A. N.|
|Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)|
|Davison. Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Locker-Lampoon, G. (Wood Green)||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Loder, J. de V.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Dennison. R.||Looker, Herbert William||Spender Clay, Colonel H.|
|Doyle, Sir N. Grattan||Lougher, L.||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Drewe, C.||Lowe, Sir Francis William||Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)|
|Duckworth, John||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Luce, Major-Gen Sir Richard Harman||Steel, Major Samuel Strang|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Lumley, L. R.||Storry Deans, R.|
|Edwards, John H. (Accrington)||Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Elliot, Captain Walter E.||McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Ellis, R. G.||Mac Intyre, Ian||Styles, Captain H. Walter|
|England, Colonel A.||McLean, Major A.||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid|
|Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith||Macmillan, Captain H.||Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.|
|Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Tasker, Major R. Inigo|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Macquisten, F. A.||Templeton, W. P.|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||MacRobert, Alexander M.||Thompson, Luke. (Sunderland)|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Falls. Sir Charles F.||Maklns, Brigadier-General E.||Thomson, Sir W.Mitchell-(Croydon.S.)|
|Fanshawe, Commander G, D.||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Tinne, J. A.|
|Fielden, E. B.||Margesson, Captain D.||Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P|
|Ford, P. J.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Waddington, R.|
|Forestier-Walker, L.||Meller, R. J.||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Forrest, W.||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)||Winby, Colonel L. P.||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).|
|Watts, Dr. T.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George||Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)|
|Wells, S. R||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Wheler, Major Granville C. H.||Wise, Sir Fredric||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple||Wolmer, Viscount||Wragg, Herbert|
|Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torguay)||Womersley, W. J.||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)||Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)|
|Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)||Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)||Wood, E.(Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)||Commander B. Eyres Monsell and'|
§ Resolution to be reported To-morrow.