HC Deb 12 May 1925 vol 183 cc1696-715
Mr. BARR

I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, to leave out the words

" is constituted a. real burden or." I wish, first of all, to thank the hon Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) for his goodness in withdrawing for the pre sent from his opportunity to speak on the Motion which he has down on the Paper, and to allow us to go forward with the consideration of this Bill. We understand that the first arrangement was that a whole sitting until 11 o'clock at night should he devoted to the Bill. We have, however, readily conformed, in the present situation, to the curtailed arrangement, and I am sure that we shall suit the convenience of the House by making our speeches short.

The first Amendment to which you referred, Mr. Speaker, is in relation to the land charge. This Bill is sometimes spoken of as if it were an agreed Bill It is an agreed Bill as between the Church of Scotland and the heritors, and it has a certain silent and approving approbation from the United Free Church of Scotland. But in regard to this particular matter of the land charges, opinion is very keenly divided, even in that Church. At the last General Assembly a motion was made to the effect that if this land charge were persisted in it would give rise to grave practical difficulties and might imperil union itself A permanent burden, as in Clause 12, is placed upon the land.

Teinds, or, as they are known in England, tithes, were put first at one-tenth of the fruits of the soil. In the year 1629, for convenience, one-fifth of the land was taken as equal to one-tenth of the fruits of the soil. Now it is proposed to make this a charge on the land itself, as the highest and best form of security: a charge on the land for alI time in the interests of a particular church. To that we take the strongest exception. It is levied on heritors of all creeds, and it is land which we hold to be ultimately the common possession of the people, and the taxation from which should certainly not be applied to any sectarian or sectional purpose, but to purposes common to the whole of the people. It is certainly not a new burden, but it is a burden in a new form, and w e hold that it is a burden which should never have been imposed, and that the churches should rely on their own resources and not on public funds of any kind

Although the charge has existed for centuries, we dare to challenge it, and we dare to challenge it in the particular form in which it appears as a charge for all time on the soil. The Federation of Landowners were candid enough to say that their reason for not redeeming this charge was that they would stand in a better position in time to come when land legislation might be proposed, and that if a future Government were to cast envious eyes on the land as a source of taxation they would be less likely to do it if they found a perpetual charge already on the land. They were candid enough to say that it might be a temptation to a future Government. I am not sure it will be a temptation to the present Government to put a tax on the land.

We on these benches have no objection to land taxation for great public purposes. When I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day asking that someone should name any particular article or articles that would better suit his purpose for taxation, it occurred to me that a land charge if adapted to public purposes would better suit his object than the net-work of silk in which he has entangled himself, and much better than this web of Penelope. We are told that Penelope wove a web every day and unravelled it every night, and had always to begin again. If I may use another classical illustration, we remember the story of Dejanira, who sent a white silken shirt to Hercules. Although she sent it as a charm, there had been a poisoned arrow put into it, and when he clothed his flesh with the garment the arrow penetrated parts of his body and he, was in most fearful pain. He tried to wrench it off but was unable to do so, and it ended his earthly career.

I would take the opportunity of saying that a tax on land might suit the purpose of the Chancellor of the Exchequer better than some of the silk duties we have been discussing. if you are to put a tax on land you must devote the revenue derived from it to public and not sectional purposes. The teinds with which we are dealing were from the first recognised as having certain public purposes in view and not only to support the Ministry. Before the Reformation, they were recognised by the Roman Catholic Church as having three purposes in view, to support the Ministry, the education of the people and the maintenance of the poor. John Knox put forward this public purpose in the first hook of discipline. In the year 1696, it was stated in the great Education Act that the use of the teinds for the. purpose of providing schools and education was a proper pious purpose. We know also that the support of the poor was one of the subjects that John Knox put in the very forefront as the chief of the objects to which these funds might be devoted. In this Bill we find that the last remnants of responsibility for the poor are taken away in the Clause, which says that reports are no longer to be given in regard to the spending of the church door collections.Wehave precedents in the settlement of the Irish Church and the Welsh Church, in which provision was made both for education and the poor. In this Bill, the whole is scooped into the coffers of the Church. We object strongly to a land charge being devoted to a sectional purpose and not going to the general needs and common good of the people.

4.0 P. m.

There have been certain changes made in this Measure during the Committee stage. Those to whom payment of less than Is. is due are to he exempted in future. We are grateful even for small concessions, but this concession, without saying anything derogatory to it, is not a concession that takes any very substantial form. I think the Lord Advocate told us that 111 returns he had received from various parishes gave the sum of £164, and, if these were typical of all the parishes of Scotland, it would work out at something like £1,200 for the whole. In the second place, those who were liable for a sum between 1s. and £1 are to redeem compulsorily their payments on an 1s years' calculation. We do feel with regard to that particular class of men, that while they are getting, I grant. fairly generous arrangements in regard to the matter of years, in compulsory redemption they are having imposed upon them what the large heritors refuse to impose upon themselves. When this Measure, or a similar Measure, was before the. House of Lords last year, the Duke of Buccleuch spoke in the strongest terms against compulsory redemption. He said the land lords could not afford to pay for it, and that indeed it would be the final ruin. We have, however, been ruined so often, that we are not greatly impressed by that. Then he said it is highly objectionable to impose redemption by compulsion upon unwilling holders. If it is highly objectionable to impose it on large heritors, it is equally, or more, objectionable to impose it on small heritors, and he went on to say: Many farmers have bought their farms and many smallholders have acquired their holdings. You have to see that no injustice is done to these smaller men. Lord Younger, on the same occasion, said: To add to the present burdens of landowners the obligation to redeem the teinds is a monstrous proposal. Speaking of the small heritor, he said: The imposition on these unfortunate people of the compulsory obligation to redeem is a provision which. I hope, will not receive the assent of your Lordships' House. Yet, it seems, it is to receive the assent of this House. We do say that there is an injustice done to the smaller men. There is one further objection. A new valuation is to be taken under Clause 16 and the Sixth Schedule. We were told the other night by an hon. Member that many of these men preferred to be tenants rather than peasant proprietors, but many, as we know, have been obliged, against their will, to purchase their holdings, and, under the provisions of the Schedule, unless a man can show that he or his predecessors in the farm which he now holds have made certain improvements in the course of the preceding 20 years—improvements of a permanent nature or of any other kind—he may be brought in for a payment of one-fifth of the value as entered in the valuation roll. That is to say, a smallholder, whose holding is valued at £100 a year, who may have been paying £1 or £2 towards the support of the Church, may now be brought in under this new valuation to the extent of £20 per annum for all time

We understand that the Government, and those behind them, are the friends, as they often represent, of the agricultural interest. They are the friends of industry. Their policy is to safeguard industry. We were safeguarding the silk industry yesterday, and you are going to safeguard the agricultural industry by allowing the imposition of £20 per annum on a small peasant proprietor, whose whole holding is valued at no more than £100 per annum. We are reminded of the words that John Knox used in regard to this very imposition, in which he said it was so oppressive on the tillers of the soil, that it was a wonder the sun did not withhold its light and heat to the earth

There is one more objection in regard to the way in which this land charge is to be carried out by compulsory powers. The Lord Advocate, quite candidly, told us that if you had a land charge at all, you must have some power of enforcing it. You must have a Sheriff Court. process; you must have resort, if need be, to the impounding of goods or to some other forcible way of compelling contributions. I think it was Tertullian, one of the earliest and greatest of the Christian Fathers, who said it is not the business of religion to force religion, and because of this Clause, as throughout this Measure, the whole system is built on the application, if need be, of force to compel payments, not from the members even of a particular church, but from those who are without its borders, because it is a compulsory charge laid on land. and because it seems opposed to the fundamental principles of political and religious equality, we take exception to this land charge, and I move the Amendment accordingly.

Mr. HARDIE:

I beg to second the Amendment

Under the arrangement, I will not detain the, House for long, but I want to point out that, in dealing with the Church of Scotland Bill, those who arc not acquainted with the facts, might take it that this discussion and this Bill had some credal or religious basis. I want to make it clear, arid anyone who cares to read the reports of the Scottish Standing Committee will see, that neither creed nor religion came into the discussion. It is simply a. question of goods. The question is not that a creed or religion shall be furthered in its work in Scotland. All that was wanted in Committee upstairs was a division of the loaves and fishes, one section trying to transfer their responsibilities to another. But where the whole thing is off the rails, so far as the sense of justice is concerned, is that any section of a community should have the right to inflict its burden upon another unwilling section of 'the community. We were told at the beginning that this Bill was going to be as the cement in the building, to unite all the stones together, and give us one great united edifice, and that all things wouldgowell in the religious world so far as Scotland was concerned. Yet every day in the Committee showed some point where some new interest was being sought or combated, so that in that way there is nothing left of the real spirit that was said to be in the Bill

Why should any section of a community seek to impose its will upon another, especially when it comes to the question of making that section pay for something with which it does not agree? The charge' on the soil is not only a first charge, but it is going to be used as a huge lever in order to raise, if possible, all the values connected with these things called soil and land, for there was a great difference of opinion even in this House not long ago as to what was land and what was not land, and the whole purpose of what we are discussing now is that, by legal enactment in this House, we are going to throw overboard that which was the greatest principle underlying this or any other church. That is to say, there were definite purposes for which the moneys accruing from these holdings were to be applied. We have got away from the poor box at the door of the church, because the parish council has taken that up, we have got away from the education of the church largely because the education authorities are looking after that, and one would have thought that people with the church interests in their minds, if not in their hearts, would have seen to it that the initial purpose for which the church was built, that of the strong being looked after by the weak, would not have been thrown over by the British Government. I should have thought that principle would have appealed to every Member of this House.

When you come to the Clause dealing with stipends between one shilling and one pound, and the 18 years' calculation as a. basis, this is called a great cam- promise, but I can see nothing in the way of compromise, because it does not matter how you reduce that which is wrong. It is wrong to take even the portion to which you reduce it. If it be wrong, why take any portion? Then the new forced valuation—because that is what it amounts to—on the part of the farmer is going to lead to this great increase, and the farmer who, during the Way years, was compelled to buy the land at a very high price, in addition to having paid a high price for his land, is now going to he compelled, by practically the same Parliament as that which compelled the compulsory, purchase of his land, to stand this further increase. With all the mock talk in this House about doing something for the agriculturist something for the allotment holder, something for the smallholder, at every chance. Ion. Gentlemen opposite have they always get right down to the land, and the ruin working upon it. If there had been the slightest evidence of any adherence to the principles of the Church of Scotland, hon. Members opposite would hive been ashamed

Mr. KIDD:

The two hon. Members who have just spoken have referred to the case of the farmers who acquired their land and seemed to suggest that these farmers who are called on to pay teind in the same way as other people are subject to special hardship. That, of course, is clearly an unsound argument. All land in Scotland has to be acquired subject to teind, and these farmers have acquired their land subject to teind which is just as clearly defined, and as much a burden on the land as any mortgage or any other burden. If I acquire my land subject to a mortgage I pay a correspondingly smaller price for the land, making allowance for the mortgage. The same principle affects land purchase in connection with the burden of teind. There is no discussion on Scottish theology raised by this Bill, and it is a mercy for this House that there is not. The Bill is a very simple matter. It seeks simply to regularise the property of the Church of Scotland. The State gives its sanction to any property, whether that of a private individual, a voluntary association, or the Established Church, and the only difference between the property of the Established Church of Scotland, and any other property is this, that the one property is more ancient than the other. [HoN. MEMBERS: "It was stolen!"] I do not think that the hon. Members who use that term have made any very critical study of history or otherwise they would have known that the rights of the Church of Scotland come before the rights of the landowner, historically, and that there is no title so full and so complete as that of the Church.

Mr. MAXT0N:

Admitting that the lights of the Church of Scotland are antecedent to those of the State, may I ask whether the rights of the Presbyterian Church, are antecedent to the rights of the State?

Mr. KIDD:

The ordinary rules of succession apply, and the Church of Scotland has just the same right to its property that any of its predecessors had. All that this Bill seeks to do is to say we quite recognise that the Church acquired its property at a time when land or the fruits of land was the only form of property. The position of the Church's property therefore, in comparison with other forms of property, seems to be somewhat archaic. We now seek to get rid of archaic forms and to harmonise Church property with ordinary ideas of property. Who has a right to interfere with this? The debtor in the transaction is the heritor and the creditor is the Church, and even the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) will admit that the debtor and creditor in this par- titular matter are in agreement. When they are in agreement, who will challenge the agreement to which they have come? All that we are doing here is to modernise the property of the Church. That transaction is being carried through, as between a debtor and creditor in agreement, and there the matter begins and ends.

Mr. WESTWOOD

I support the Amendment because I believe in religious equality, because I believe that every person should pay for the propagation of his own religious views, and because this Clause, and the proposals of the Bill, will compel those who are opposed to the Church of Scotland to pay for the religious views of the Church of Scotland. I also support the Amendment because I believe that no one should be compelled to pay for the propagation of religious views with which he is not in agreement. I also support the Amendment because, white we agree that a tax on land is just, the proceeds of any tax on land should be used for the benefit Of all, and not merely for the benefit of a section of the community. I support. the Amendment because this Bill creates vested rights in the land on the part of the Church of Scotland and will make more difficult the nationalisation of the land when we have the power, as I believe we shall after the next election, to nationalise the land. I am opposed to private ownership of the land, and I believe that we ought. to nationalise the. land, and though private ownership is had, it will not make it good merely because the Church of Scotland gets private ownership so far as land is concerned. There have been members of the Church of Scotland, and even preachers in the pulpits of the Church of Scotland, who have been opposed to private ownership of land or the placing of burdens on land which would merely benefit the Church of Scotland. I may quote from Brewster's sermons, of which we heard in the Committee stage. He says: It is the right of all to be fed from the produce of the earth. God the sovereign proprietor, who is no respector of persons, has given to all an equal right, and no one can show from Him any better title than any other to appropriate and monopolise the land. Some indeed claim a preferable right in virtue of laws made by themselves or by those 'from whom they inherit or derive their possessions. These laws confer a legal right, and that right should he allowed so long as it rests on the law of the land, but these laws in most cases were made without the concurrence of the other inhabitants who as God's creatures were the rightful owners of the soil. [HON. MEMBERS: "What has this to do with the Bill? "] This has everything to do with the Bill, because my point is that if private ownership of land was created by those most interested in it, as it has been, without consultation with the rest of the inhabitants of the land, then this I3ill and this Clause are being passed through the House without the consent of the Scottish people. If there were a plebiscite of the Scottish people taken at the present time, I am satisfied that neither this particular Clause nor the Bill itself would receive the support of the majority of the people of Scotland. For these reasons, and believing that the people of Scotland are hostile to the provisions of the Bill, I support the Amendment which would avoid placing a burden on the land for the benefit of a section of the community instead of for the benefit of the whole of the people.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. W. Watson)

It is evident that there is a root difference between hon. Members who support this Amendment, and the Government and the majority of Members on this side of the House. A great deal of it depends on the difference of view or of knowledge with regard to the historical position of the matters with which we are dealing. It is beyond dispute in my opinion that, at any rate since the Reformation, these teind rights, which are an estate in land according to our law in Scotland, have been recognised as the property of the established Church of Scotland. This was recognised in Acts of Parliament immediately after the -Reformation, and it was also recognised by the Crown when they made provision for a competent stipend to ministers being given out of these teinds in the seventeenth century, and this right to a stipend has been enjoyed by ministers of the Established Church of Scotland ever since the middle of the seventeenth century. I can quite understand, even if I do not agree with them, the views which, for instance, the hon. Member for South Midlothian (Mr. Westwood) expresses with regard to the nationalisation of the land, and the fear that they may he prejudiced at some future date. which may never arrive because of the particular provisions which we are considering at the present time. I can understand it, though I do not agree with him. I do not know that I even agree that it will necessarily make it more difficult, but the point is that the effect of the provision which' we are here making is merely to put into more convenient, simple and practical form the right, which for so long has been recognised and carried out, of the established Church of Scotland.

Consider the situation. At the present moment this liability to pay a competent stipend rests on the estate of land. Its value has to be arrived at year after year according to the fluctuating price -of victuals, and unless and until you can get rid of these fluctuations, by turning this annual liability into a fixed money amount, you cannot change into a more simple form the nature of the liability on the estate of land. It is because everyone must admit the great advantages of the earlier part of the Bill, which provides for the commutation into a fixed annual money amount of the stipend due, that we are able to propose that the liability, instead of being a fluctuating burden on the fruits of the land, should become a fixed money burden on the fee, as we say, o: the land or on the land itself. For practical purposes it does not make very much difference in its results to the landowner. He has got the same liability in the end. We are able, because of these provisions, to turn it into this much simpler, more normal and usual form of burden on land. So much for the general view. The provisions for a land charge which are being considered do not affect the small heritors. They are not within the purview of the Amendment which we are considering at present. I understand that they will be considered in another group. With regard to the larger heritors—over the £1 of annual liability —redemption as regards them is only optional.

Mr. JOHNSTON:

On a point of Order, so that there may be no misunderstanding. Was there not an understanding on these benches that the smaller heritors should he dealt with in the first group?

Mr. SPEAKER:

I think that that was so. It seems to me to be a convenient group.

The LORD ADVOCATE

I understood that the reference to the smaller heritors was going to be left to the third group by the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson).

Mr. JOHNSTON:

It is well to have this matter cleared up. The understanding was that the first discussion should be upon the lands of the Church, that the second discussion should be upon the grant from the State, while the third discussion should centre round the repairs to manses and buildings, and that the groups of Amendments dealing with these matters should be taken in that order.

The LORD ADVOCATE

That is so, and I apologise for not having realised the fact. I will take the Bill as it stands now with regard to the stipend and the liability of the small heritor. Where his annual liability is under £1 there is no provision for his liability being made a charge upon the land, the reason being that when you get down to these small sums the expense and inconvenience involved in turning them into a land charge makes it necessary to find some other form of dealing with that liability. Therefore, it was obvious that the only way of dealing with it would be by redemption. This matter was very carefully considered last year when the earlier Bill was in another place, and, as a result of that consideration, redemption was made compulsory below 21, but on mitigated conditions; that is to say, the number of years' purchase was reduced to 18 with an alternative option either to pay the 18 years' purchase at once or spread the payments over a period of 18 years.

On this point may I remind those who were members of the Committee, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife put to me a case which he had received from a correspondent suggesting apprehensions which were very natural on the basis of the figures used. It was suggested that this man, whose existing liability was half-a-crown a year, would he run in for something like 241 per year as a result of this provision. I have since communicated with the right hon. Gentleman and shown that the position is very different indeed. Obviously his alternative is either to pay 18 times half-a-crown, which is 45s., and get rid of the liability all at once, or else to spread it over a period of 18 years, in which case the amount would be under £4. That would be the total of his liability on the alternative basis. I, hope that may clear up any apprehensions which may exist based on erroneous calculations of that kind. It seems to the Government that the proposals regarding small heritors are very fair, and it should be borne in mind that under concessions which were given by the Government and which are embodied in the Bill now, those whose liability is under Is, have complete exemption from any payment. I do not want to go into details as to the reasons for that provision, but I think everybody will agree that it is of advantage to the Church, even though some pecuniary sacrifice may he involved. It is difficult to get exact information, but any information which I have points to the suggestion that there is a certain pecuniary sacrifice. On the other hand, in view of the great importance of Church union generally, of the progress of the Church and of the relations between the Church and the people, I think the Church will gain by this in the ultimate result, instead of losing. One is wise to take a broad view of these matters

I desire to take one or two of the detailed points in the speeches to which we have just, listened. The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) referred to what he called a new valuation to be made under Clause 16. I do not quite appreciate the reason for that phrase. I should explain to the House or remind those Members of it who know already, that ever since the early part of the seventeenth century it was open to heritors or owners of estates of teinds to have them valued. A great many of them did so in that century and their successors scored tremendously in these later years by having very low valuations. There has been a continuous current of valuations right down to the present. time. Under the existing law the same method of valuation is prescribed as that which is adopted in Clause 16 and the relative Schedule to which the hon. Member for Motherwell referred. There is another very small point in connection with which I think the hon. Member fell into a slight error. Not only are all improvements made within the last 20 years by the heritor and his predecessors to be taken into account, but also any other improvements made at any time, the benefit of which still subsists in the property. That is the ordinary businesslike method of putting a value on a property of any kind—to take the value at the time—and it is quite right not to take into account an improvement the effect of which has been exhausted. A closer perusal of the Schedule will satisfy the hon. Member that the point is fully covered. I would also ask the hon. Member to bear in mind that the valuation there dealt with, is not the valuation of the stipend but is the valuation of the whole estate of teinds. Even to-day, in many cases, the liability may extend to the whole valuation of the estate, of teinds, but not necessarily so. The two things are not necessarily equivalent.

I regret very much that the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) seems to take the view that all the churches concerned in this Bill, and the Government for that matter, are only concerned with what he called the loaves and fishes. I demur to that suggestion. The Church of Scotland throughout its history, and at the present moment, has not used and is not using its property as its own personal and selfish right. The Church of Scotland has it in trust for the people of Scotland. It has used and exercised that trust as such, and it is in order that the Church, growing as it has been in the favour and affection of the people of Scotland for many years past, may be enabled more efficiently and more economically to administer the property which it so holds in trust, that the present Bill has been promoted. The hon. Member for South Midlothian referred to a plebiscite of Scotland. I differ entirely from him as to what the result of such a plebiscite would be. We have had a plebiscite on several occasions of the Scottish representation in this House, and we know where the majority is—and a very substantial majority too.[HON. MEMBERS:" In the last Parliament? "]No, in this Parliament, on the Second Reading of this Bill. I would remind the House of one other point which justifies what I have just said. The membership of the Church of Scotland has increased during the last 80 years, since the disruption, at a pace even greater than that of the population of Scotland. I feel convinced that within a few years we shall have an incorporating union with the other great Presbyterian Church and possibly other Presbyterian Churches, and we shall then have at least 95 per cent. of the Presbyterian people in Scotland within our fold.I mention these figures in reply to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Midlothian, and I ask the House not to accept this Amendment.

Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON:

The Lord Advocate, in reviewing the points involved in the group of Amendments now under ccnsideration, has not said a single word regarding one which stands in my name, and which is as follows: in Clause 14, page 10, line 6, after "stipend" to insert which heritor or person shall not include any heritor or person who has not hitherto been called upon to make any payment in respect of such stipend. He has not dealt with that matter at all. As to the other point with reference to the small heritor whose payment ranges between 1s. and —The said arrangements had been made for the redemption of those payments, because they were so small and the trouble they involved was so great, that the only arrangement which could be made in the case of heritors of this class was that there should be redemption on an 18 years' basis. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also referred to a case which I brought to his notice while the Bill was in Committee. This was the ease of the heritor—who by the way was a member of the Church of Scotland—and who was greatly concerned about his payments to the Church being increased under the terms of the Bill. He said his payment had been 2s. 6d. a year, but that under the terms of the Bill he Was likely to be asked for £4 a year. The Lord Advocate disputed that assertion and asked me to send him the communication, which I did, and I have now the reply of the Lord Advocate. It appears it is not a question of 18 years' purchase at 2s. 6 d. a year, which is the present payment of the heritor in question, but 18 years' purchase at 4s. 9d. per year.

The LORD ADVOCATE

The alternative is to pay at once 18 half-crowns, which is 45s., or if the heritor prefers to spread the payment over 18 years, he can do so, but in that case there is added an amount for sinking fund of 2s. 3d.

Mr. ADAMSON

On the Lord Advocate's own showing it is 18 years at 4s. 9d. which the man has to pay, and not 18 years at 2s. 6d. I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd), in the course of his contribution to the Debate, to say that these terms had been agreed upon between the heritors and the Church, and that it was not the business of this House to come in, as he put it, between debtor and creditor. That may have been the case so far as the large heritor is concerned, but it is certainly not the case with regard to the small heritor. As I pointed out in Committee, there was no machinery at all by which the opinion of the small heritor could be taken. It is true that Doctor Whyte and Mr. MacMillan, in the course of the negotiations, considered the position of the small heritor, but they considered his position purely and simply in the light of their own ideas and not in consultation with the small heritors. If this Bill passes through the House in its present form, it will undoubtedly rope in thousands of small heritors who hitherto have not been called upon to contribute a single farthing. That is the position in which this Bill leaves large numbers of people in Scotland. It is true that the Lord Advocate brought in an Amendment during the Committee stage which he said would wipe out all the persons that I had in view in tabling my Amendment. I dispute that. I do not believe that the Amendment that he inserted in the Bill in Committee, the Amendment which pleased everybody whose payment is less than one shilling., wipes out the parties

whom I seek to cover by my Amendment. I believe that large numbers of heritors will be brought in, in terms, by this Bill to make a payment for the first time, and I consider that that is a very unfair position in which to place them. I see the Lord Advocate showing signs of dissent, and it may be that he and possibly some others do not agree with me, but I think it is a very unfair position in which to place these persons

I have always understood during these Debates that all that the Church wanted was to secure what it considered to be its property and its rights, and that it did not want anything else than it was getting under present conditions, but unless there is provision made for those who hitherto have not contributed a single penny to the funds of the Church, it will he getting more than it has been getting under existing conditions. I need not go into the reasons why large numbers of small heritors have never been called upon to pay. I gave some of the reasons in Committee, and I do not intend to do it here during the Report stage, when time is very limited, but there is the position, that there is a considerable number who will he roped in, in terms, by this Bill, who hitherto have not paid a penny, and I think it very unfair, and that it will lead to a considerable amount of dissatisfaction when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes. 272; Noes,118

Division No. 96.] AYES [4.50 p.m
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Briggs, J. Harold Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Briscoe, Richard George Christie, J. A
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Brittain, Sir Harry Clarry, Reginald George
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Centr'l) Brocklebank, C. E. R Clayton, G. C.
Allen, J.Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby) Brooke, Brigadler-General C. R. I Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Cohen, Major J.Brunel
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Brown, Maj. D.C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Atholl, Duchess of Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) Cope. Major William
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Couper, J. B
Barclay-Harvey, C. M Buckingham, Sir H Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Barnett, Major Richard W. Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) Bullock, Captain M Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- Burman, J. B Crook, C. W
Barry, Sir George Burton, Colonel H. W Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Bethell, A Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Betterton, Henry B Campbell, E. T Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Llndsey, Galnsbro)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Cautley, Sir Henry S Curzon, Captain Viscount
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.) Dalkeith, Earl of
Blundell, F. N Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Davidson, J,(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Brass, Captain W Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovll)
8rassey, Sir Leonard Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N (Ladywood) Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose) Rentoul, G. S
Dawson, Sir Philip Iliffe, Sir Edward M. Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley Insklp, Sir Thomas Walker H Rice, Sir Frederick
Drewe, C. Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Duckworth, John Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Eden, Captain Anthony Jacob, A. E. Roberts, Samuel (Herelord, Hereford)
Edmondson, Major A. J. James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert Ropner, Major L
Elliot, Captain Walter E. Jephcott, A. R. Ruggles-Brlse, Major E. A.
Ellis. R. G. Kidd, J. (Linllthgow) Rye, F. G.
Elveden, Viscount King, Captain Henry Douglas Samuel, A. M.(Surrey, Farnham)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Sandeman, A. Stewart
Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth Knox, Sir Alfred Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) Lamb, J. Q. Sanderson, Sir Frank
Everard, W. Lindsay Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R. Savery, S. S.
Fairfax, Captain J. G. Lister, Cunllffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
Falle, Sir Bertram G. Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
Falls, Sir Charles F. Loder, J. do V Shepperson, E. W.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D. Looker, Herbert William Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Fermoy, Lord Lougher, L. Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Fielden, E. B Lowe, Sir Francis William Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Fleming, D. P. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Skelton, A. N.
Ford, P. J. Luce, Major-Gen.Sir Richard Harman Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Forestler-Walker, L Lumley. L. R Smith-Carington, Neville W
Foster, Sir Harry S Lynn, Sir Robert J Smithers, Waldron
Foxcroft, Captain C. T MacAndrew, Charles Glen Somerville, A. A.(Windsor)
Fraser, Captain Ian Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Spender Clay, Colonel H.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) Sprot, Sir Alexander
Ganzonl, Sir John McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Wlll'sden, E.)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Maclntyre, lan Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Glbbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham McLean, Major A. Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Gllmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Gower, Sir Robert Macquisten, F. A Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W.H.
Grant, J. A. MacRobert, Alexander M. Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C
Greene, W. P. Crawford Makins, Brigadier-General E. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Gretton, Colonel John Malone, Major P. B Styles, Captain H. Walter
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Gunston, Captain D. W. Margesson, Captain D, Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Marriott, Sir J. A. R. Tasker, Major R. Inlgo
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.) Meyer, Sir Frank Templeton, W. P.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Harland, A. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Harrison, G. J. C. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Waddington, R.
Hartington, Marquess of Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Wallace, Captain D. E.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) Ward, Lt.-Col.A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Harvey, Ma|or S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Haslam, Henry C. Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph Warrender, Sir Victor
Hawke, John Anthony Nelson, Sir Frank Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Headiam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Neville, R. J. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Wells. S. R.
Heneage. Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Wheler, Major Granvllle C.H.
Henn, Sir Sydney H. Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple
Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Nuttall, Ellis Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Hennlker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A. Oakley, T Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by) Ormsby-Gore,Hon. William Windsor-clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Hilton, Cecil Pennefather, Sir John Wlnterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Wise, Sir Fredrlc
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Phillpson, Mabel Wolmer, Viscount
Holland, Sir Arthur Plelou, D. P. Womersley, W. J.
Holt, Capt. H. P. Pitcher, G. Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Homan, C. W. J. Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Hopkins, J. W. W Preston, William Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) Price, Major C. W. M. Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S Ralne, W. Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald Ramsden, E. Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer Rees, Sir Beddoe TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hurd, Percy A. Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) Major Sir Harry Barnston and Mr.
Hutchison, G.A.Clark (Midi'n & P'bl's) Remnant, Sir James F.C. Thomson.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Cluse, W. S. Fenby, T. D.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R Forrest, W.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Compton, Joseph Gibbias, Joseph
Attlee, Clement Richard Connolly, M. Gosling, Harry
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston) Cove, W. G. Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) Dalton, Hugh Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Barnes, A. Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Groves, T.
Barr, J. Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Grundy, T. W.
Batey, Joseph Day, Colonel Harry Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Briant, Frank Dennison, R. Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Broad, F. A. Dunnico. H. Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Buchanan, G. Edwards, John H. (Accrlngton) Hayday, Arthur
Hayes, John Henry Oliver, George Harold Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Darby)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) Owen. Major G. Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Palln, John Henry Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Hirst, G. H. Paling, W. Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan) Thurtle, E.
John, William (Rhondda, West) Ponsonby, Arthur Tinker, John Joseph
Johnston, Thomas(Dundee) Potts, John s. Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Sprlng) Varley, Frank B.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Rlley, Ben Viant, S. P.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Ritson, J. Warne, G. H.
Kelly, W. T. Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W,R., Elland) Watson, W.M. (Dunfermllne)
Kennedy, T. Salter, Dr. Alfred Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Lansbury, George Scrymgeour, E. Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Lawson, John James Sexton, James Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah
Lee, F Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Westwood, J
Lowth, T Sitch, Charles H Whiteley, W
Lunn, William Siesser, Sir Henry H Wignall, James
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon) Smillie, Robert Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Mackinder, W Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe) Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
MacLaren, Andrew Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Maclean, Nell(Glasgow,Govan) Smith, Rennie (Penistone) Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
March, S Snell, Harry Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercllffe)
Maxton, James Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) Spoor, Rt. Hon. Bcnjamin Charles Windsor, Walter
Montague, Frederick Stamford, T.W. Wright, W.
Morris, R.H. Stephen, Campbell Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Sutton, J. E
Murnln,H. Taylor, R. A. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Mr. Hardie and Mr. Kirkwood.
The LORD ADVOCATE

I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, after the word "redeemed," to insert the words" or extinguished."

This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to