HC Deb 12 May 1925 vol 183 cc1749-75
Sir HENRY CRAIK

I beg to move, in page 48, line 27, at the end, to insert the words and also to the Clerk of Teinds, who shaft communicate the same to any titular who has previously notified the Clerk of Teinds in writing that he desires to receive such intimation, and such titular shall have the same rights of objection and appeal as are, by the provisions of this Schedule, conferred on titulars in the cage of valuation by an heritor. This Amendment will not raise the religious, political or metaphysical contentions that have been raised in connection with previous Amendments. It becomes my duty to move this Amendment in the interests of one of the Universities which I have the honour to represent in this House. The Glasgow University holds teinds to the amount of about £6,000 per year. These teinds are subject to alteration and commutation, and to the application of various provisions. The alteration on revaluation may lead to a very serious diminution of the revenue of Glasgow University, which it has hitherto drawn from teinds, and which it holds as titular. It is my duty to stand up for the interests of this important educational endowment of the Glasgow University, especially having regard to the increased burdens placed upon the University.

All that we ask is that notification shall be given to the Clerk of Teinds, and that he shall communicate the proposal for the commutation of the teinds to any titular who has previously notified that he desires to receive such intimation. I do not think the Lord Advocate can believe that that is an unreasonable request on the part of the University. I am placed under the disability of not being able to enter as a lawyer into these complicated questions, which are beyond the intellectual range not only of myself but of many others in this House. I appeal to the Lord Advocate to listen to this claim on behalf of the University, with that consideration which he is usually prepared to show. I trust that I may have from a constituent of mine, the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home), who is a notable graduate of Glasgow University, some help in this proposal, which I am sure he will recognise is of value to the University.

Sir ROBERT HORNE

I cannot resist the moving appeal which has been made to me by my right hon. Friend. He has not attempted to explain the Amendment, but he has indicated that it is of too complicated a legal nature for him to enter upon any discussion. I am glad to think that there is no legal complication about the matter, and that I can state in a few sentences why I appeal to the Lord Advocate to give way. I recognise that if the Lord Advocate resists the appeal, it is impossible for us to carry the Amendment. I am sure that he will in no way be injuring his Bill if he consents to adopt the Amendment. The matter is simply this: The Glasgow University is the titular in a large number of teinds. The heritor, as provided by this Bill, is to receive notice of any process of valuation, and the heritor has to give intimation, according to the terms of the Schedule, to the titular.

It is, as far as I know, an entirely unusual process in law that the petitioner should not give himself the requisite notice to the person who has been the respondent in the petition. Why it should be left to any respondent to hand a notice to the titular is more than I can understand. It will be perfectly simple that notice should be given to the titular. No doubt, the Lord Advocate will say that the titulars are not in many cases know-n. To meet that point, the Amendment suggests that notice shall be given to the Clerk of Teinds, who shall give the requisite notice to the titular, but only in those cases where the titular has given notice to the Clerk of Teinds that he wants such notice. As this is such a reasonable request, I find some difficulty in understanding why the Lord Advocate should refuse. it. I hope that the Amendment which has been proposed in such moving terms by my right hon. 'Friend will he agreed to.

The LORD ADVOCATE

I confess I am in some difficulty in understanding why this Amendment is moved, because the two things for which it asks are in the Bill now, as I pointed out in the Committee stage. The proceedings which are dealt with under paragraph 2 on page 45 of the Schedule are proceedings for valuation. These proceedings may be at the instance of a person called the heritor, or at the instance of the titular. If it is at the instance of the titular, then, in the case referred to by the right hon. Member who moved the Amendment, it will be the Glasgow University itself. If it is the heritor who raises the question of valuation, then he is the petitioner to whom the right hon. Gentleman refers, and, under paragraph 10 of the Schedule, he is bound to give notice to the titular.

Sir R. HORNE

That is not the case with which we are dealing.

The LORD ADVOCATE

Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the Bill? Paragraph 10 says:

"A heritor may have his unvalued teinds valued or surrender valued teinds in accord- acne with the provisions of this Schedule, whether he has or has not a heritable right to such teinds:

Provided that— (a) Where the heritor proposes to have valued or to surrender any teinds to which he has no heritable right, he shall at the time when he gives notice of the appointment of a valuer or lodges a minute of surrender or a surrender as aforesaid intimate the appointment or the surrender in writing to the titular of the teinds"— in this case, the Glasgow University— who shall have the same rights of objection and appeal "— That is what is sought by the Amendment — "as are by the provisions of this Schedule conferred upon the minister of the parish or the General Trustees;

I cannot understand why they want to have them in twice, and accordingly I resist Amendment.

Amendment. negatived

7.0 P.M.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND(Sir John Gilmour)

I have it in command from His Majesty to signify to the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purpose of The Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Bill, gives his consent, so far as His Majesty's interests are concerned, and the House may do therein as it thinks fit.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. BARR

In rising to oppose the Third Reading of this Measure, I wish to refer. in the first place, to some things that have transpired this afternoon. I desire to say that strangers in this House would hardly have known they were dealing with a Church by law established, and on which special State privileges have been conferred. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd) spoke of this as an agreement which had already been made between the heritors on the one hand and the Church of Scotland on the other; the debtor and the creditor as he said, omitting altogether the consideration that here is a Church by law established and by law State-endowed. No one would have supposed that there had ever been a Church of England in Ireland, an Episcopal Church in Ireland, or a Church in Wales that had been in a similar position, and from the national endownments of which funds were voted for public purposes, for education, and for the poor, and that here in Scotland, under a precisely similar situation, we are giving none of those public funds at all to public purposes, but handing them all over to be the private property of a particular Church. The Lord Advocate was bold enough to say that those endowments had been recognised as the property of the Church of Scotland by all authorities, and I gather almost for all time. At this time of the afternoon, it would not become me to go at length into the authorities that I can quote on the other side, but I would mention Lord Robertson in the Prestonkirk case on 3rd February, 1903. In summing up that case, he said that the divines of the Roman Catholic Church have long sought to establish that these endowments, these teinds and other properties were theirs, and that the Protestant clergy after the Reformation had sought to establish the same claim, but, fortunately for the country, they were never able to succeed in that contention.

That is the evidence of a distinguished Judge who was himself a procurator of the Church of Scotland, and, therefore. his opinion gains additional value. I might take Milman, a famour preacher of the Church of England, who says that tithes were initiated by Imperial authority and enforced by Imperial power. Adam Smith, in his "Wealth of Nations," says that these are a real land tax, not voluntarily or spontaneously given by pious donors, but a real land tax. If I were to come to statesmen in this House, you would find that a long succession, both those of Conservative and Liberal professions and standing, have given the same clear judgment. Edward Burke said this was a tax of 2s. in the £. You have Sir Robert Peel saying that these were benefits conferred by the State. Lord Melbourne said they were national property. Disraeli used similar words, and W. H. Smith, a respected leader of the Conservative party, while he wished them to be retained for the Church, said they still were national property. That is one of our reasons for opposing this Measure. it takes national property, and it treats it as if it were already the property of a particular Church.

A second line of objection to which I have already referred to-day, lies in the fact that in various Clauses of this Measure civil compulsion is employed to secure contributions for the Church. The power of the Sheriff is brought in—his summary powers to enforce payment in certain cases. That is most obnoxious to many in this House. We cannot conceive any proper definition of a religion under which it is right to compel, in matters of religion by civil force, payment for the promotion and support of a creed that a man does not himself believe. It seems to be opposed entirely to the principles that have long been held in Scotland, first by the United Presbyterians, then by the Free, and now by the United Free Church, that they were opposed to all continued dependence upon State support, and to all that were not freely given by the people themselves who believed in the doctrines to which they were subscribing. It is very far from the principle which we hold should obtain as to the means by which Christian men and Christian churches should support their ordinances and their buildings.

So obnoxious is this principle of coin pulsion in regard to buildings, that Sir Robert Finlay, when he was a Member of this House, and afterwards Lord Finlay, a Conservative, in his Bill in 1886 proposed to eliminate altogether any power of enforcement. In any case, it was not to be civilly enforced. The Lord Advocate, a few minutes ago, made a point that houses of the annual value of £28 might escape, but it does not alter the matter a bit in point of principle whether it is the small or large feuar who is brought in and compelled to subscribe to a religion of which he does not approve, compelled, by force of law, to support and repair buildings of a church of which he is not a member, and in which he does not believe. We are dealing with the United Free Church of Scotland, which, possibly, if it finds its difficulties removed, though it is very doubtful if it will, is to be united with the Church of Scotland after this legislation. Let me say with regard to the Church of Scotland that in 1903 they passed, almost unanimously, a resolution in support of the Nonconformist passive resistance in England in regard to the Education Act. If now they should unite and adopt this Act, instead of sympathising with passive resisters, they would themselves be pounding the goods of any that are passive resisters in this sense in Scotland.

Some time ago, when we were discussing the political levy, the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. R. Mitchell) and myself were taunted from those other benches that we had declared ourselves for it, and, therefore, we must be strongly opposed to trade unions being compelled to subscribe under the political levy to views which they did not hold. That was brought against us. I want to say it will be time enough to use that objection when you find conscientious objectors to the political levy hailed before the sheriff, warrants taken out, their goods pounded, and they are obliged by force to give such a contribution. If you will make this Bill as free in its exemptions as the law relating to the political levy, then at once my objections fall to the ground, and I repair to Scotland to advocate a union of churches on that voluntary ground.

Is it denied, is it doubted, is it questioned that men are hailed before the sheriff and dealt with under the present law in this way? It happens not only regarding the repair of buildings; it happens with regard to the payment of stipend out of teinds. I hold in my hand an advertisement of a public roup of a man's goods, his roll-top desk, and table, and so forth, because, not agreeing with the principles of the Church of Scotland, he did not come forward to pay on a, rental of £70 amounts from £5 2s. in one case to £7 12s. in another case in four successive years. I should like to read to this House a letter to the minister of the parish, dated 8th January, 1921, in which he made his protest: I should explain that I do not feel satisfied to support a form of religion of which I do not approve. Therefore, the sum named has been paid over to a non sectarian, social benefit fund instead. I think you will readily admit that public opinion in Scotland has for long recognised it to be unjust that a citizen should be called upon compulsorily to support a creed of which he does not approve. If Scotland had not been done out of her own independent Parliament in 1707, this obsolete Act would no doubt have been annulled many years ago. I say more. If we had, as we had the right to have, our own Parliament sit ting in Scotland at the present moment, this Measure would never have been passed into law. We object, in the third place, to this Measure because it conveys national property free of all Parliamentary control to be henceforth the property of a particular church. It has been a salutary principle in this country in the past that all grants, whether to public bodies or individuals, from Parliamentary sources, have been accompanied by Parliamentary control, and it ill becomes the Christian Church to break down that salutary principle and have these conveyed over, as the memorandum of the Church of Scotland says, in so many years free from any control by the State or the civil courts, or any other interference of heritors or other outside bodies. No wonder I was able to quote from Wallace and Miller, two esteemed and honoured leaders of the Church of Scotland, that this would be a very good bargain for the Church, union or no union. If you can take national property, and can convey it in this way to be private property, equally you can take private property and can convey it to be national property, and, after the precedent you have given, I am going back to Scotland to tell the miners that we made a mistake in our Nationalisation of Mines and Mineral Bill in saying that we would purchase all the mines. We should have told them, rather, to wait as our friends of the Church of Scotland waited for the incoming of a Government that would be friendly, and then have them conveyed, free of all control, to be their property in all time coming. You have set us a splendid precedent which might be of value in time to come. I close with the words of a great Liberal statesman. I am not going to make an appeal to the Liberal Benches, because there are so few of the Members here, but I am sure that they and those on this side will appreciate those words that John Bright used on 16th April, 1845: I shall hold myself to have read, thought and lived in vain if I vote for a measure which in the smallest degree shall give any further power or life to the principle of State endowment of religion, and in conclusion I would only exhort the dissenters of England—I would make my appeal broader, to adherents of religious equality ever3-where—to act in the same way and to stand by their own great pure and unassailable principle: for if they stand by it manfully and work for it vigorously the time may come, nay it will come, when the principle will be adopted by the legislature of this country.

Mr. MACPHERSON

Now for over 16 days, in one form or another, the House of Commons has been discussing the thorny problem of Scottish historical theology, and all of us who have followed more or less silently the Debates must have been deeply impressed by the conspicuous ability and skill of my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate. He has conducted these Debates in a way which every parliamentarian relishes, and I think it due to him to say that those of us who come from Scotland and admire his metaphysical mind as well as Ilk parliamentary mind have taken notice of the eminence of his ability in those respects. I think it somewhat unfortunate that this Bill should appear before the House of Commons as it is now. By that I mean that church union in Scotland is receiving the sanction of Parliament not by this Bill, but by another Bill which ought to be taken along with this.

Outsiders listening to the Debates in the House of Commons would think, as some hon. Members above the Gangway have suggested, that we are trying to divide what is called the loaves and fishes, and that this is the purpose of this Bill and of church union in Scotland. That is not the case. An extension of union in Scotland may not be claimantly demanded, but those who know Scottish life well know that there has been for a long time a sincere and honest demand for union of this kind, and that the desire for union has been expressed not in the House of Commons alone, but outside the House of Commons in the quiet corners of the country villages and the quiet homes of the people of Scotland. I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for one of the divisions of Edinburgh who said that the Scottish people are now heartily tired of this procrastination and that the Scottish people as a whole, irrespective of the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and others, are sincerely and deeply anxious that religion should come out of the sphere of dissention into the paths of peace.

I am particularly anxious as to one of the Clauses of the Bill. An Amendment was moved by an hon. Member above the Gangway in opposition to one Clause, I think it is Clause 19. It deals with the Exchequer grants. It was a very significant statement which the Lord Advocate made, and in my judgment it was a complete reply to the policy of those who have been speaking in denunciation of it. This Clause does not introduce any fresh charge. As I understand it these grants, which are, I hope, in the course of time to be redeemed, were charges on the hereditary revenues of Scotland, and some of these charges were Royal grants, and these charges upon the hereditary revenues of Scotland were in no degree in the interest of one church or another. They were in the interests or the public as a whole, and the Church was used as an agent for the distribution of these funds in accordance with the best interests of the public. I was glad to hear the Lord Advocate say that he regarded, and that the Church of Scotland regarded, these charges now as a heritage of the Church held in trust for the people.

I represent with my colleagues from the North of Scotland the inaccessible parts of Scotland, and those parts have always been treated by this ancient Assembly with special favour. They have been treated differently in parochial, county, educational and religious matters, and a striking fact which the Lord Advocate shewed in the course of his very able speech on the Money Resolution of this Bill was that the old kings of Scotland, and the old kings of the United Kingdom, felt that they had a. special care of the inaccessible parts of the Highlands. In those parts of the Highlands there are churches which have been administering what are called the rites and ordinances of the Church, and in the Gaelic-speaking parts they have been looked after to a very large extent by a church which is called the Church of Scotland Free. I am anxious that the Lord Advocate and the Government should do everything they can, in the further course of this Bill, and as a result of this Bill, to see to it that those ordinances will be assisted as they have been assisted in the past by public grants, which as the Lord Advocate pointed out, are in the possession of the Church of Scotland as a trust for public purposes.

I am anxious that this Bill should leave the House of Commons with the blessing of the House of Commons. I think that we ought to rise above party in this matter. I can see myself making speeches, such as I have heard above the Gangway this afternoon, on platforms for political purposes with some effect, but I think that the time has now come in the twentieth century when we ought to make an appeal to the higher selves of not only the House of Commons, but of Scotland as a whole, and I should like this Bill to get a unanimous Third Reading in the House of Commons, because I believe that the Bill is what is meant to be a genuine step in the right direction for a real genuine church union in our native land.

Mr. JAMES BROWN

I am very glad that the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) has made this appeal to the House of Commons. I think that it would be a pity that such a Bill as this should go through the House of Commons with any ill-feeling being harboured. I am not going to enter into any controversial matters now, but one would imagine from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) that this was a disestablishment question, because most of what he has said to-day applies chiefly to disestablishment. He also asked this House to make sure that there would be absolute equality of religious denominations, not only in Scotland, but everywhere else. If I thought for a moment that I was in any way endangering religious equality, either in Scotland or anywhere else, I would vote against this Bill, but I am persuaded that I am not doing anything to endanger religious equality. I have always stood for religious equality, and I hope to stand for it while I am on this earth. But we are not now going to discuss all those controversial matters that have been up on Second Reading, and were discussed very thoroughly in the Committee. We should try now to point the way to the churches, how they ought to act now that they are about to get this Bill.

Anybody who takes an unbiassed view of the Bill as it stands is bound to admit that the Church of Scotland has given up a very great deal. We are not discussing anything which she is to get. All we are discussing to-night is how she can best make arrangements whereby religious equality should exist, and whereby so far as possible we shall get rid of State interference in order that we might join up with our great sister Church and the Free Church of Scotland. Everybody must admit that she has given a. great deal. Like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty, I am glad to say how delighted we all are with the skill and the toleration with which the Lord Advocate has piloted this Bill through the House. I am not unmindful of his great antagonist. There are few men in Scotland to-day who know more of Church history than the hon. Member for Motherwell, but, as I said on Second Reading, he knows it so well that he knows how to bring in points that have no point at all, if the House will excuse the contradiction, and he knows how to present them so skilfully that he tries to get the House to look at this Bill as raising a different issue altogether from that which it really embodies, but I am certain that the people of Scotland will agree that there has been a magnanimity and toleration among the promoters of the Bill which very few people expected when we began to discuss this Bill.

Mr. MAXTON

Among the Opposition.

Mr. J. BROWN

I do not know anything that the hon. Member gave away so far as the Church of Scotland is concerned, but I am not going to enter into controversy, I am unequal to a controversy with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) in his own particular and special line. What I am anxious to do is to try to get the people of Scotland, and the Members of this House to whatever party they belong, to look to the good of religious life in Scotland rather than to enter into any of the controversies that have raged around this Bill. Over and over again it has been said that we are out for the loaves and fishes, but anybody who knows the situation is aware that the loaves and fishes have never been the consideration with those who are in favour of the Bill. I wish to deal with another remark which has been made to the effect that the Church of Scotland waited until a Conservative Government came into power in order to get this Bill. That is absolutely untrue. We have been working at this Bill for at least 16 years. We have been trying to get it through, and the party to which I belong would have brought in the Bill if they had been in office longer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Had there been no Election I"] Had there. been no Election, I may remind some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. R. Mitchell) that they would not have been here [Interruption] 1 gather that the, hon. Member for Bridgeton thinks that I was nearly not being here either. It is perfectly true that I suffer from being between two fires, but we are not now discussing my personal position. What I am anxious about is the Bill.

Mr. MAXTON

It was not popular in South Ayrshire

Mr. BROWN:

The Bill is popular enough in South Ayrshire, and so is the Member for South Ayrshire, but I wish to get. every Member of this House to believe that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will give Scotland an opportunity to go forward in her religious life. Anyone who has religion at heart, and who wants to see true Christianity ruling in the land, should be glad to see such a Bill become law at the earliest possible moment. It has been said that the people of Scotland do not want the Bill, and that it has been foisted on the Church of Scotland itself and on this House. May I remind hon. Members that when this Bill becomes an Act we shall be just at the beginning of church union. All of the machinery has to be put into motion. It will be taken as, and it has already been called, a provisional Measure; it will go before kirk sessions and congregations, it will go to the presbyteries, and we shall have majorities in those bodies deciding upon it before the General Assembly deals with it; at all. No hon. Member need be afraid that every provision has not been made for a constitutional settlement of this great question.

I do not desire to speak at length on this subject. If one were to deal with it fully one would occupy far more time than is at our disposal. I would only say that we have now a great opportunity. I am certain the ministers and leaders of the Church of Scotland will rise to the full height of that opportunity. This Measure will break down: the partitions that have stood so long between. the two great Presbyterian bodies, and, if I know the minds of the promoters of the Bill at all, I know it is their hearty desire that union should not cease even when it has been consummated as between the Church of Scotland and the United Free Church. We want to have in Scot- land a people united in their religious ordinances as in everything else. I am satisfied this Bill gives us the opportunity for achieving that end. I should never have spoken a word in favour of this Dill, had I not been anxious to promote true religion in our country, and I believe this Bill, which marks the coming together of these two great churches, will give a lead to other churches and assist us in our religious life. Never was there a time in the history of this Empire when we needed true religion more. I said in another place that the passing of this Act would be one of the greatest Christian acts of this century. I believe that to be the ease. I am very glad that we are now within measurable distance of the Third Reading, and I wish T could persuade hon. Members behind me to give the Third Reading as a unanimous finding. It would give us a chance to consolidate all the religious denominations in our country and give true Christianity an opportunity of doing that work which its founder expected every one of us to do.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN

The Members on these benches are entitled to give some credit to the Lord Advocate and the Secretary for Scotland for the way in which they have conducted this Measure and answered the points raised by those who are opposed to the Bill. We can all agree in recognising the sincerity of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. James Brown), while we may, at. the same time, doubt the wisdom of the views which he holds so sincerely. I am not so much concerned with the results which he has described as being likely to arise from this Bill. If I thought a Bill passed by this Parliament would have the effect which the hon. Member for Ayrshire believes it would have, then I would be quite willing to go into the same Lobby with the hon. Member, but I and those who think with me feel certain that religious unity and the union of the churches is not to he. promoted by a Bill of this character. Religious unity in Scotland must first show itself in the hearts of those who advocate religion. When that happens, no Act of Parliament can either prevent or assist the unity which is likely to follow. It is in the hearts of the people that unity must arise and not in any Bill passing through this House. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire said they had been working upon the projects contained in this Bill for 16 years. It is remarkable, if that is the case, that no one thought it advisable to mention such an all-important question as the hon. Member maintains this to be in the election addresses issued at the last election. I challenged contradiction upon that statement from any Scottish Member who was listening to the Second Reading Debate.

Mr. JAMES BROWN

It was taken for granted.

Mr. MACLEAN

The hon. Member for South Ayrshire interjects that it was taken for granted. It was taken so much for granted, indeed, that nobody knew of it, and nobody had any idea about it until it came up in this House. In the interval since the Second Reading I have taken the opportunity during my journeyings to Scotland to look up such of the election addresses of Scottish candidates as were published in the Scottish Press, in order to see how many announced their intention of supporting it. I cannot find in any election address which was advertised in the Press of Scotland, any reference whatever to the Bill, or any promise to, support it on the part of candidates. It is all fudge and nonsense to say that this question has been before the people of Scotland for the last 16 years. It may have been brought up in church sessions and in academic discussions between members of the churches when they happened to meet, but as for being a political question, discussed and debated among the people of Scotland. I submit that very few people of Scotland bothered themselves about it or knew anything about it until it was brought up on the Floor of this House.

Mr. MAXTON

Not even then.

Mr. MACLEAN

They know about it now. I do not. think it necessary or advisable to continue at great length the Debate on the Third Beading considering the manner in which, during the previous stages, those who support the Government have voted against the proposals put forward by the opponents of the Bill, but I would once again refer to the position which I took up in the Second Reading Debate. Nothing has happened during the ensuing stages to make me alter my opinion by one single jot. I stand where I stood when I raised the point that this Bill is unconstitutional and that this House had no right to accept it upon its first introduction. I have since looked up Statutes and legal opinions which, with all deference to the Lord Advocate, are quite as important and authoritative as the statement made by him on the Second Reading, and all go to show that I was correct in my attitude on that occasion. This House has no right to interfere as it is doing in this Bill, with the Church of Scotland unless a Parliament is at the same time sitting in Scotland and discussing a similar Bill. That was the position taken up by the Parliament of Scotland which passed the Treaty of Union and which insisted, before a union of Parliaments took place between the two countries, that the Act of Settlement should be incorporated in the Treaty of Union passed by this House. You, Mr. Speaker, gave me a ruling in which you said that this House was the authority over all. That. I submit, was not the case as regards the Treaty of Union. It was passed by two Parliaments. One Parliament adjourned and joined in with this Parliament. Before this Parliament can dismiss or alter or revoke any agreement arrived at by the two Parliaments which brought about the Union, a similar Parliament to the Parliament which then existed in Scotland must be convoked, since that. Parliament was never prorogued but merely adjourned. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that your ruling in which you said that this House would, on the Second Reading, discuss that position and make it clear. is a ruling which was not borne out by the facts. Your ruling was as follows: The contentions of the two hon. Members — that is, the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) and myself— may well be put forward in the course of the Debate on the merits of the Bill. I. myself, hare no opinion, of course, as to whether this is a good Bill or otherwise. As I understand, the point is put to me that this House is disabled from proceeding with this Bill because of what has been quoted. I cannot uphold that contention, because this House has in past times frequently changed other Acts by Bills of a similar character. I may submit, in parenthesis, that it has never broken a Treaty made with another country which had a separate Parliament. That, at least, has always been to the honour of this House. You went on, Mr. Speaker, to say: It would be a serious thing to hold that this Parliament was not supreme. Certainly I do not uphold the contention that 1 have any right to stop the proceedings on this Bill."— [OFFICIAL REPORT,10th February, 1925; col. 58, Vol. 180.] Now I submit, as I have all along submitted, that this House is not supreme in the question of the Treaty of Union with Scotland. This House was a partner, an equal partner, not supreme, not the senior partner, but a partner upon equal terms with the Parliament of Scotland, which assisted it in bringing about the Treaty of Union, and I again insist that this Parliament—and even the Lord Advocate himself practically admits it by the quotation he made when he spoke, not of the legal position, but of the moral position—has no right to pass this Bill as, in my opinion and in the opinion of all authorities on the matter that I have studied, it is a breach of the Treaty of Union.

Sir R. HORNE

I will not detain the House more than a very few moments in expressing my great personal gratification that. this Bill should have reached the important stage with which we are dealing this evening. It will, in my view, he the precursor of a very notable episode in the Scottish Members with regard to this particular Bill is very obvious. Lord Haldane had, in a previous Session, introduced into the House of Lords a Bill on behalf of the Labour Government dealing with this very subject on very much the same lines, and he stated, expressing himself as speaking for the whole Government, of which he was a Member—

Mr. MACLEAN

No.

Sir R. HORNE

He stated, deliberately so expressing himself, that no body of opinion comparable to that which was to be found for this Bill could be found for any other which had been introduced into Parliament. He went further, and, upon the matter of the terms which were being given to the Church of Scotland, he said that these were the least which were compatible with justice to the Church. In saying that, he was speaking on behalf of the Labour Government.

Mr. MACLEAN

No.

Mr. KIRKWOOD

He was a Liberal, and he is a Liberal yet.

Sir R. HORNE

I do not wish to take up time by quoting his remarks, but I find it difficult to believe that the Labour party can, in face of these asseverations on the part of one of their most important Ministers in introducing a Bill of this character, vote against the Third Reading of this Measure to-night. The only difference between Lord Haldane's Bill and the present Bill is that now the Church has given much larger concessions than were previously given in the Labour party's Bill. These concessions have been given in order to get rid of any possible hostility of feeling that could be held in any part of Scotland or among any section of the community towards the great Measure which we are hoping to pass. Why has this been done? It has been done in the hope of bringing reunion to the severed Church, which is very dear to the people of Scotland. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), in the course of one of those very witty speeches with which he is constantly delighting the House, said there was no public opinion in Scotland in favour of this Bill, but I think he is just as little in touch with that religious feeling in Scotland as he is with those itinerant preachers who travel in the North of Scotland.

He suggested that this was a Measure devised entirely by theological politicians, but I beg this House to remember that the great movement which is reaching fruition to-day began, not with the clergy, but with the laity of Scotland, who enshrined, in a great memorial which was presented to the people of Scotland, many long years ago, their aspirations after just such a union as today we hope may soon be consummated, that desire to see all people in Scotland holding the same religious doctrines brought together, because it was nothing less than a scandal that people who were professing exactly the same faith and a doctrine which did not differ in. any degree at all should be fighting each other and wasting each other's efforts. That is a condition of things of which they wanted to get rid, and, for my part, I believe that this Bill will bring about this union which we all desire. I think that such a union will have the in evitable effect of quickening the religious life of Scotland and of bringing to the cause of Christianity in our midst a new interest and a new inspiration.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

I want to make a protest in regard to this particular Measure. In the first place, what we have to recognise is that the Labour party, as was practically acknowledged by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown), when in office paved the way for this case being given away. That makes the situation exceedingly difficult for the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) in leading the opposition, as he has done, not only with remarkable ability, but with a depth of sincerity and a standing up for that cause with which his name has been greatly celebrated throughout Scotland. We do not in any way minimise our appreciation of the Lord Advocate for the capacity with which he has handled the Measure, but we feel for those who have had the task to face, as they have had to do under these particular circumstances, that it is not at all creditable to those who formerly in Scotland represented that very aggressive movement known as the movement for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church of Scotland. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire has said: "We want a blessing to fall on the Bill," but you cannot very well have a blessing if you have still carried through the process of retaining, though in a camouflaged system, the actual State connection which provided the real strength of the case against the Church of Scotland as an established Church.

You have also to remember that the Liberal party has put in a, very poor record in later years on this question. I find, in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, that a few of those who are very closely indentified with the Liberal party have been expressing themselves as somewhat disappointed with the efforts that have been put forward in this connection by some of the Members of the Labour party. But what are we to say of the Liberal party, which made this one of its strong planks, and which endeavoured to push the movement, that movement which was so far ahead in Scotland that in truth, especially had we got a Parliament of our own, this Measure would never have had a look in. The business of the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church would have gone through. The real thing lying behind this Measure is not the question of deepening the spiritual life. Any minister and any earnest member of the Church knows that it is not the securing of financial power that will give you your driving spiritual strength and impetus. The real thing lying behind it is that the people are receding from the Church. They are losing faith in the Church, and the management of the Church, especially at headquarters, is beginning to realise that there needs to be a bringing together of the people collectively to provide the necessary numerical and financial strength.

We have read, in the old Book, that if you built upon sand you know what is going to happen. These are the sands of time that are passing away, and hon. Members know it very well. I would just refer to the fact that even in the United Free Church the hon. Member for Motherwell has made the admission that there is not a very enthusiastic demand for the Bill. We had the Rev. Mr. Shilling-law, speaking in a recent meeting of the Perth Presbytery, bringing out the central fact that in truth the Church is not finding now the applications of men to join the Ministry, the explanation being that the emoluments are not sufficient to meet the requirements of the appointment, and that the people are losing their grip upon the Church. That is where we come to the actualities of the case, and when we remember that the Amendment, which was put forward from our side in Committee, to make sure that this Bill would only take effect after the union had been consummated, was rejected it proves this, that, as was quoted by the hon. Member for Motherwell, this is good business for the Church. I commend that to the business men on the other side. That good business is the financial deal, the pact, the intention of the financial forces.

I believe that there will he better prospects for the Church from the spiritual point of view when it sheds a consider able amount of its financial strength, when it gives evidence of its self- sacrificial devotion to the objects which it professes to have in view. The man of the world rightly asks from the Church, the same as in the business world: "Give us proof of your faith, give us evidence of your determination to fight the forces of the evil one, those forces of selfishness and gross material- ism: give us evidence of that and we will believe in you, and we will have a better likelihood of lining up with the Church." Instead of that, the passing through of this Measure, I believe, is going still more to stultify the movement towards union, in the sense that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire has particularly in view. This is really and truly a darker day for Scotland, ecclesiastically, by the passing of this Measure. What you are actually finding now, in some of the churches that are talking in sup- port of it., is that people are leaving the organised churches and constituting evangelical movements, entirely voluntary, and conducting services, even sacra- mental services. The churches are objecting, to some extent, from the commercial point of view, because it is detracting numerically from their strength, but in those smaller bodies where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. You do not find Christ particularly con-corned about the construction of a Measure of this nature being carried through by a representative of the law. The real strength that is to come into Scottish and English and Welsh national life will come from a driving power that is regardless of temporal values and looks to great eternal interests. Without this what you are constructing now will be of no value at all.

The LORD ADVOCATE

I wish, first of all, on behalf of the Government, to thank the House for the very careful and prolonged consideration that has been given to this very important Measure. I will not now attempt to add anything to the numerous speeches that I have had to make on the Bill. I wish to associate myself with what was said by the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir It Horne) as to the advantages to the people of Scotland that will result from this Measure.It is one of the greatest Measures of social reform for Scotland passed for many years. We have come through bad times in many ways. We have had the Disestablishment Movement. It is extraordinary how dead that is now. We have gradually come towards this movement for unity. May I here quote two passages which seem very appropriate? The first is from Dr. Martineau: It is a law of all long-lived nations that the feuds of history die out, while its deeper unities, after hibernating through some winter of discontent, wake with the returning sunshine and assert this life again. The other is a sentence from a speech of Mr. Wallace in the General Assembly, to which reference has been made and from which a distinctly abbreviated excerpt has been taken. Mr. Wallace, in dealing with the various sides of the question, pointed out that there were advantages in the one and disadvantages in the other, and I cannot do better than read his closing sentence: To Reverend Fathers I am only entitled to suggest that, recognising existing interests are adequately protected, they rely upon the laity in future to protect their successors, as in the past they protected their forebears. To my brethren of the laity, I am as one of themselves entitled to speak more plainly. It is their duty and their privilege to undertake these further obligations, determined to meet them in a full and generous spirit, if not with the certainty, yet in the confident hope, that thereby they will play their part in bringing to an end those divisions among Presbyterians which not only interfere with the religious life of the people, but which also embitter opinion and create divisions in all sorts of social and public matters—divisions which are the curse of Scotland. The House has an opportunity of playing its part, and a great part, in helping that goal to be arrived at, and I ask hon. Members to do it now.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS

1 apologise for intervening, for it is generally assumed that no Englishman or Welshman dare interfere with anything Scottish. The only apology I make is that my Scottish friends would not admit that they had no right to interfere in anything that was English or Welsh. If this be the greatest measure of social reform ever introduced into this House, all I can say is that I hope there will be many more to follow it immediately.

Mr.MAXTON

rose—

HON. MEMBERS

Divide, divide!

Mr. MAXTON

I think hon. Members will realise that any arrangements which we have made on this side have been kept honourably. I understand we have still ten minutes left.

Mr. SPEAKER

I do not know whether or not there will be a Division, but it was understood that the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill, which is next on the Paper, would be taken at 8.15.

Mr. MAXTON

The only point I want to make is that a reflection was cast. on those who opposed this Bill by the suggestion that, because Lord Haldane introduced this Bill in another place in the last Parliament it was to be assumed that those of us who sit on these benches supported the Measure. That is Far from

being the case, and the fact that it was introduced in the House of Lords was a very clear indication of that in the view of those who sat behind the Labour Government at that time. I ask the House to believe that those who have been strenuous in their opposition to the Bill in this Parliament would have been just as strenuous in opposition in the last Parliament.

The LORD ADVOCATE

It was introduced in the House of Commons afterwards.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes. 274; Noes, 117.

Division No.99.] AYES. [8.7 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Cobb. Sir Cyril Goff, Sir Park
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Gower, Sir Robert
Albery, Irving James Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. Greene, W. P. Crawford
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips Grotrian, H. Brent
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Cope, Major William Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Allen, J. Sandeman(L'pool, W. Derby) Couper, J. B. Gunston, Captain D. W.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L. Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Cowan, D. M.(Scottish Universities) Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander, F. W. Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C.(Antrim) Hanbury, C.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Atholl, Duchess of Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Harland, A.
Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Harrison, G. J. C.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Crook, C. W.F Hartington, Marquess of
Balnlel, Lord Crooke, J. Smedley(Derltend) Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Banks, Reginald Mitchell Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) Haslam, Henry C.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry Hawke, John Anthony
Boamlsh, Captain T. P. H. Curzon, Captain Viscount Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Bellalrs, Commander Carlyon W. Dalkeith, Earl of Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Berry, Sir George Oavidson, J.(Hertfd, Hemel Hempst'd) Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Bethell, A. Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton) Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Blundell, F. N. Davies, Ma|. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovll) Hennlker-Hughan, Vlce-Adm. Sir A
Boothby, R. J. G Davies, Sir Thomas (Clrencester) Herbert, S.(York,N.R.,Scar. & Wh'by)
Bourne. Captain Robert Croft Dawson, Sir Philip Hilton, Cecil
Boyd-Carpentcr, Major A. Dean, Arthur Wellesley Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S J. G.
Brass, Captain W. Doyle, Sir N. Grattan Holt, Capt. H. P.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cllve Drewe, C. Hopkins.J. W. W.
Brittain, Sir Harry Edmondson, Major A. J. Hopkinson, A.(Lancaster, Mossley)
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Edwards, John H. (Accrlngton) Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Elliot, Captain Walter E. Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Broun-Lindsay, Major H. Ellis, R. G. Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whlteh'n)
Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham) Elveden, Viscount Hume, Sir G. H.
Brown, Brlg.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y) Everard, W. Lindsay Hurd, Percy A.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Fairfax. Captain J. G. Hutchison,G.A.Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Buckingham, Sir H. Falle, Sir Bertram G. Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James Falls, Sir Charles F. Illffe, Sir Edward M.
Bullock, Captain M. Fanshawe, Commander G. D. Jacob, A. E.
Burman, J. B. Fermoy, Lord Jephcott, A. R.
Burton, Colonet H. W. Flclden, E. B. Joynson-Hlcks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L. Kidd, J.(Linlithgow)
Campbell, E. T. Fleming, D. P. King, Captain Henry Douglas
Cassels, J. D. Ford, P. J. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Forestier-Walker, L. Knox, Sir Alfred
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth.S.) Forrest, W, Lamb, J. Q.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn(Aston) Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Chadwlck, Sir Robert Burton Fraser, Captain lans Little, Dr. E. Graham
Chapman, Sir s. Fromantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Loder, J. de V.
Charterls, Brigadier-General J. Gadle, Lieut-Col. Anthony Looker, Herbert William
Chilcott, Sir Warden Ganzonl, Sir John Lougher, L.
Christie, J. A. Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton Luce, Major-Gen, Sir Richard Harman
Churchman, Sir Arthur C. Gee, Captain R. Lumley, L. R.
Clarry, Reginald George Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Clayton, G. C. Gllmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Pielou, D. P. Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus Pilcher, G. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Maclntyre, lan Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton Styles, Captain H. Walter
McLean, Major A. Price, Major C. W. M. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Macmilian, Captain H. Ralne, W. Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Ramsden, E. Tasker, Major R. Inigo
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James L. Rawson, Alfred Cooper Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
MacRobert, Alexander M. Rees, Sir Beddoe Thomson, Sir W.Mltchell(Croydon,S.)
Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel- Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington) Tichfield, Major the Marquess of
Maklns, Brigadier-General E. Reid, D. D. (County Down) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Malone, Major P. B. Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Rice, Sir Frederick Waddington, R.
Margesson, Captain D. Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) Wallace, CaptainD.E.
Marrlott, Sir J. A. R. Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Meyer, Sir Frank Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden) Rye, F. G. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Salmon, Major L. Wells, S. R.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) White, Lieut. Colonel G. Dalryrmple
Moore, Sir Newton J. Sanderson, Sir Frank Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C Savory, S.S Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W) Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Cllve Shepperson, E. W. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Murchlson, C. K. Shiels, Dr. Drummond Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Nelson, Sir Frank Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) Wise, Sir Fredric
Neville, R. J. Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) Womersley, W. J.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Skelton, A. N. Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster) Smith-Carlngton, Neville W. Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert Smithers, Waldron Wood, Sir Klngsley (Woolwich, W.)
Nuttall, Eills Somervllle, A. A. (Windsor) Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)
Oakley, T. Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe) Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Spender Clay, Colonel H Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Oman, Sir Charles William C. Sprot, Sir Alexander Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Perkins. Colonel E. K. Stanley, Lord (Fylde) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) Major Hennessy and Mr. F. C.
Peto, G.(Somerset, Frome) Steel, Major Samuel Strang Thomson.
Philipson, Mabel Strickland, Sir Gerald
NOES.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Hayes, John Henry Smillie, Robert
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hlllsbro') Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)
Attlee, Clement Richard Hirst, G. H. Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Smith, Rennie(Penlstone)
Barker, G.(Monmouth, Abertiliery) Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Snell, Harry
Barr, J. John, William (Rhondda, West) Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Batey, Joseph Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Stamford, T. W
Broad, F. A Jones, Morgan(Caerphilly) Stephen, Campbell
Bromfield, William Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontyprldd) Sutton, J. E.
Bromley, J. Kelly, W. T. Taylor, R. A.
Buchanan, G. Kennedy, T. Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Clowes, S. Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. Thomas. Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Cluse, W. S. Lansbury, George Thomson, Treveiyan (Mlddleshro. W.)
Compton, Joseph Lawson, John James Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Connolly, M. Lee, F. Thorne, W. (West Ham, Pialstow)
Cove, W. G. Lindley, F. W. Thurtle, E.
Crawfurd, H. E. Lowth, T. Tinker, John Joseph
Dalton, Hugh Lunn, William Treveiyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Macklnder, W. Varley, Frank B.
Day, Colonel Harry Maclean, Neil(Glasgow, Govan) Viant, S. P.
Dennison, R. March, S. Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Duncan, C. Maxton, James Warne, G. H.
Dunnlco, H. Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermllne)
Fenby, T. D. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Murnln, H. Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Gibbins, Joseph Oliver, George Harold Westwood, J.
Gillett, George M. Palin, John Henry Whiteley, W.
Gosling, Harry Paling, W. Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan) Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Greenall, T. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Ponsonby, Arthur Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Potts, John S. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Groves, T. Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Grundy, T. W. Riley, Ben Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth) Ritson, J. Windsor, Walter
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N) Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland) Wright, W.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Salter, Dr. Alfred
Hall, G. H.(Merthyr Tydvll) Scrymgeour, E. TELLERS FOR THE NOES —
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Sexton, James Mr. Klrkwood and Mr. T.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) Johnston.
Hayday, Arthur Sitch, Charles H.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.