Sitting of 20 June 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKERtook the Chair at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  BUENOS AYRES NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  BURY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  CARLISLE CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  GLASGOW AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  CITY AND BRIXTON RAILWAY BILL.
  Lords' Amendments agreed to.
  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY BILL.
  Lords' Amendments agreed to.
  LONDON, WALTHAMSTOW AND EPPING FOREST RAILWAY BILL.
  Lords' Amendments agreed to.
  LANARKSHIRE AND DUMBARTONSHIRE RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  MIDDLESBROUGH CORPORATION (GAS) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  NEWHAVEN HARBOUR AND OUSE LOWER NAVIGATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  BLACKBURN CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS, ETC.) BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  SHERINGHAM AND BEESTON PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  WIRRAL RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  MALDON WATER BILL.
  By Order, Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday.
  MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
  By Order, as amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  CALEDONIAN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read a second time, and committed.
  DOVER HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
  Read a second time, and committed.

  LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY (WALES) BILL. [H.L.]
  On the order for the Second Reading of the London and North Western Railway Bill,
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon, etc.): Mr. Speaker, as the honourable Member for Dublin has put down a Motion on the Paper for the rejection of this Measure, and as some Welsh Members are also interested in the same matter, I object to the Bill being taken to-day.
  MR. SPEAKER: To-morrow.

  PAISLEY CORPORATION (LOANS) BILL. [H.L.]
  Read a second time, and committed.
  SAINT THOMAS, SOUTHWARK, AND SAINT SAVIOUR, SOUTHWARK, BILL. [H.L.]
  Read a second time, and committed.
  WATERMEN'S AND LIGHTERMEN'S ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Watermen's and Lightermen's Acts Amendment Bill, with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.—(Mr. Woods.)
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—
  SHERIFFS' TENURE OF OFFICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Without Amendment.
  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  With Amendments.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  COMMONS REGULATION (RUNCORN) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
PETITIONS.
  COMPANIES ACT (1867) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  In favour: From Sheffield; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  Against State Regulation: From Blackheath and Glasgow; to lie upon the Table.
  GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY.
  For inquiry into management: From Holborn; to lie upon the Table.
  For redress of grievances: From Lighthouse Keepers of England, Scotland, and Ireland; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  In favour: From Partick; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour: From Swavesey, Ledbury, and Wincobank; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION BILL.
  For alteration: From Manchester; to lie upon the Table.
  VEXATIOUS ACTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  In favour: From Partick and Cupar; to lie upon the Table.
  VIVISECTION.
  For prohibition: From Bristol; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  DUBLIN HOSPITALS.
  Copy presented of Fortieth Report of the Board of Superintendence, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND.
  Copy presented of Sixteenth Report of the Royal University of Ireland, being for the year 1897 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EXPLOSIVES.
  Copy presented of Twenty-second Annual Report of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Explosives, being for the year 1897 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (GENERAL REPORTS).
  Copy presented of General Report to the Education Department by the Chief Inspector of the North Western Division for the year 1897 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAYS CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES ACT, 1864.
  Copy presented of Report by the Board of Trade on an application made during the year 1897 under the Act, and of the Proceedings of the Board of Trade with respect thereto [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PRISONS (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented of Twentieth Annual Report of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, being the Fifty-ninth Annual Report on Prisons in Scotland, 1897 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2125 and 2128 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series,. No. 464 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TECHNICAL EDUCATION (FRANCE).
  Copy ordered "of Report on French Technical Education by Mr. Charles Copeland Perry, recently issued by the Science and Art Department."—(Mr. Arnold-Forster.)
NEW BILLS.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (1897) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to extend the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, to injuries to health and loss of life suffered by persons employed in certain Dangerous and Injurious Occupations; Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hedderwick, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Tennant, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Holland, Mr. Woods, Sir John Stirling-Maxwell, and Mr. Holburn.
  Presented and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 260.]

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (CONTINUATION SCHOOLS).
  Bill to amend the Elementary Education Acts, and to provide Continuation Schools; Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Samuel Smith, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Yerburgh, Colonel Mellor, Mr. James Stuart, Sir George Baden-Powell, Mr. Woodall, Mr. Hazell, Mr. Jebb, and Mr. Maddison.
  Presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 4th July, and to be printed. [Bill 261.]

QUESTIONS.

  BLASTING GUNPOWDER.
  MR. NICOL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, will he explain why, although a combination cartridge containing blasting gunpowder passed all the necessary Woolwich tests on 16th March, it has not yet been placed on the Permitted List, notwithstanding the fact that all the high explosives which have passed the tests have been palced on such list: and whether he is aware that serious loss is being caused to the gunpowder trade by this exclusion from the Permitted List?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): The particular cartridge referred to, which contained six ounces of gunpowder, would have been already on the list had not the makers desired that its definition in the list should be such as to include larger cartridges as well. The six-ounce cartridge will, in any case, be placed upon the list, and I have also intimated to the makers that a cartridge containing nine ounces of powder will be tested, and if it passes will also go upon the list. The cartridges are a new invention, the danger of the powder which they contain, and which would otherwise inflame coal gas, being neutralised by a special cooler. The effects, however, of this cooler are not sufficiently known to warrant my allowing larger cartridges for the present.
  SIR W. H. DYKE: May I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he is not aware that the limitation in regard to this cartridge after it has passed the test in common with other explosives is calculated to seriously injure the gunpowder trade? I do not wish to press the right honourable Gentleman unduly?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: My endeavour is to enforce the same conditions for every kind of explosive, but in this case the test with the cooler was a special test, and, as I have said, the test has
  760
  not altogether established the effect of the cooler. I have signified my readiness to have another test applied, and I will act upon the result of that test.

  CARLISLE INSPECTORAL DISTRICT.
  SIR W. LAWSON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can state, with regard to the Carlisle inspectoral district, the number of boys' departments which received grants at the rate of 20s. 6d. per scholar, and the number of girls' departments which received grants at the rate of 21s. 6d. per scholar, in the year ending 31st December, 1894; whether he can give similar information for the year ending 31st December, 1897; whether he can state in percentage form the relation of these two numbers to the total number of boys' and girls' schools in the Carlisle district; and whether he can also state what percentage of boys' and of girls' schools in the North Western inspectoral district received grants of 20s. 6d. and 21s. 6d. respectively in the year ending 31st December, 1897?
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): The numbers for 1894 could not be given without much delay, trouble, and expense. In 1897, in the Carlisle district, the boys in 38 boys' schools and 67 mixed schools were paid at the rate of 20s. 6d., and the girls, in 19 girls' schools and 44 mixed schools, at the rate of 21s. 6d. The percentage in the Carlisle district is, if part of the mixed school be treated for the purpose as an entire school: 26.44 per cent, for boys' schools, 16.19 per cent, for girls' schools. The percentage for the North Western district, treated in the same way is: 40.91 per cent, for boys' schools, 31.82 per cent, for girls' schools.

  LONGFORD UNION WORKHOUSE— CASE OF JANE M'CORMACK.
  MR. BLAKE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his atten-

  761
  tion has been directed to the papers and correspondence on the subject of the complaint of Jane M'Cormack, an inmate of the Longford Union Workhouse Infirmary; whether he will move the Local Government Board to comply with the request of the great majority of the elected guardians to hold an inquiry into the case; and will he kindly give the grounds of his decision?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. It is not the practice of the Board to order an inquiry on oath into any case the facts of which have been fully elicited, and the Local Government Board, having regard to the circumstances set forth in the guardians' minutes, and to the explanation received from the medical officer, considered that the latter acted within his discretion in discharging a patient whom he considered in a fit state to leave the hospital, and who refused to submit to the treatment prescribed for her by him. The Board are aware that in the case of a disease such as that from which Mrs. M'Cormack suffered, constant ablution, which was the treatment prescribed by the medical officer, is most essential, not only in the interests of the patient, but also of the health of other patients occupying the ward, and under such circumstances they saw no reason to order an inquiry to be held or to interfere with the decision of the responsible medical officer.

  ALLEGED PRIZE-FIGHT IN HIGHGATE WOODS.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that on Sunday afternoon, the 29th May, a prize-fight took place in one of the Highgate Woods, twenty rounds being fought; whether the police had knowledge of the intended fight, and were present, and in any way interfered; whether steps have been taken to arrest any of the offenders; and whether means will be adopted to prevent
  762
  such a use of the Highgate Woods in future?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: No, Sir; the police had no knowledge of a prize-fight being contemplated on the 29th May; and, so far as they can ascertain, no such fight took place. As regards the last paragraph, I may say that the woods are not patrolled by the police.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: Is not the right honourable Gentleman aware that this is the second prize-fight that has recently taken place in the woods?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: No, Sir, I have given the honourable Member all the information I have, and it is purely relative; the police after inquiries have ascertained that no such prize-fight took place. If the honourable Member can give me any facts I will have further inquiry made.

  DUNGANNON SCHOOL ESTATE.
  Mr. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can yet state what answer, if any, has been given by the Commissioners of Education to the memorial of their tenants on the Dungannon School Estate, praying for a sale of their holdings at a fair price; whether he is aware that numerous tenants on this estate, particularly in the parish of Clonoe, were in March last processed for rent which they have since paid, together with all costs incurred: and that these same tenants, or most of them, without notice or demand, have now again been processed for rent by order of the Commissioners; and whether the forces of the Crown will be placed at the disposal of this Government Board to make evictions of tenants whose inability to pay has arisen through no fault of their own?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Commissioners, I am informed, have not yet arrived at a final decision in the matter of the sale to the tenants of the estate

  763
  mentioned. Proceedings were taken against several of the tenants in March last, with the result that a considerable amount of rent, together with costs, was paid, and further proceedings since taken against a number of tenants, including some who had been processed in March, have led to a similar result. With regard to the last paragraph, it is a duty incumbent upon the Executive to afford protection in the execution of all writs or decrees of a competent court.
  MR. DOOGAN: Arising out of that answer, I would ask the right honourable Gentleman if he is aware that a large number of these tenants live on patches of reclaimed bog; that in good seasons they are very poor, and that in this bad season they are suffering very considerable privation; that, owing to the arrears of rent which have been kept hanging over their heads, they were debarred from the benefits of the Land Acts, and that the rents they are now being sued for are the arrears of unreduced rents which they are utterly unable to pay?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It may be as the honourable Gentleman says, but I have no information and have no control over the Commissioners.

  BELFAST TELEGRAPHISTS' HOLIDAYS.
  Mr. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, in view of the recommendation of the Tweedmouth Committee that in all cases bank holidays occurring within the period of annual leave should be added to the number of days' leave to which the officer is entitled, upon what grounds have members of the staff of the telegraph department of the Belfast post office, who entered on the period of annual leave on last bank holiday (Whit-Monday), been ordered to resume duty on the 23rd instead of the 24th instant; and, whether such members as now desire it will have an additional day added to their present holidays in accordance with the recommendation referred to?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY, ): In arranging the annual leave of 10 of the telegraphists at Belfast for the period including Whit-Monday, it was found inconvenient to reckon that day in the leave; but an equivalent day off will be given later on, as recommended by the Tweedmouth Committee.

  TELEGRAPHIC CHARGES.
  MR. H. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will consider the desirability of abolishing the custom of counting the words "by post," or "by train," when inserted in telegrams as words of the telegram; and whether, in relation to such charge, he has considered the section of the Telegraph Act requiring messages to be delivered by post or handed to railway companies free of charge?
  MR. HANBURY: There is no special reference in the Telegraph Acts to delivery of telegrams by train, and such delivery is merely one form of delivery by special means according to an agreement between the sender and the Postmaster General. The Postmaster General, therefore, sees no reason why any additinal words which are telegraphed in order to give effect to such an agreement should not be paid for by the sender. Delivery by post stands on a different footing, inasmuch as the Telegraph Acts recognise the right of the sender of a telegram to have his message delivered free by that means. The Postmaster General will consider whether, consistently with the other rules of the Service, it is possible to allow the necessary instruction in such a case to be telegraphed free of charge.

  PAINTS BY SAMPLE POST.
  MR. H. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any further steps are contemplated for facilitating the transmission of samples of paints in powder by sample post?
  MR. HANBURY: On the 1st of March last the public in this country were notified that bonâ fide, trade samples of colouring powders might be sent abroad by sample post at the rate of 1d. for the first four ounces, and ½d. for every additional two ounces, provided that they were packed in an inner covering securely closed and a strong outer covering of metal, wood, leather or cardboard—the whole being so made up as to be easily opened for purposes of inspection. Such things may be sent within the United Kingdom at the same rate by the cheap letter post, which has superseded the inland sample post, under the same conditions as to security of packing, but of course for this post they need not be samples nor need they be open to inspection.

  WELSH COAL DISPUTE.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade has inquired into the causes and circumstances of the differences that have arisen between the Associated Coal Owners and other employers and the workmen formerly employed by them in their collieries in South Wales; if not, whether he intends to make such an inquiry, in pursuance of The Conciliation Act, 1896?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): I can assure the honourable Gentleman that every step has been taken by the Department to inform itself as to the circumstances and progress of the dispute.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: Will the right honourable Gentleman say what steps have been taken, where inquiries have been made, and from whom?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: Inquiries have been made in Wales and on the spot. I do not think it desirable to state all the circumstances, but information is obtained through an efficient person on the spot.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: Not through the ordinary labour correspondent of the Board of Trade?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: No. I do not say that we have not received information from our labour correspondent, but the inquiries I speak of have not been made through him.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK WITHDRAWALS.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state in how many instances during the year 1897 depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank employed the telegraph for the purpose of withdrawing sums not in excess of £2; and will he state the average cost to the depositor of each such withdrawal.
  MR. HANBURY: Withdrawals from the Post Office Savings Bank by telegraph are of two descriptions—(1) those where the telegraph is used for giving notice only, the reply being forwarded by post, and (2) those where the telegraph is used both for giving notice and also for advising payments. The average cost to the depositor in the former case is about 9d. and in the latter about Is. 3d. This information was given to the House on the 28th April last. I am unable to state how many such withdrawals during 1897 were for sums not exceeding £2, nor could the information be compiled without very considerable labour and expense.

  LLANSANTFFRAID-GLYN-CEIRIOG (DENBIGHSHIRE) SCHOOL BOARD.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the position of the Board school at Llansantffraid-Glyn-Ceiriog, Denbighshire; (2) whether he is aware the Report of the Department for 1897 stated that, unless care was taken to prevent the average attendance at the school

  767
  exceeding the recognised accommodation, the grant would be endangered; (3) whether the School Board repeatedly pressed for permission to enlarge the premises so as to provide the necessary accommodation; (4) whether he will state the ground upon which the Department declines to sanction the provision of additional accommodation; (5) whether he is aware that the great majority of the children of the locality are Nonconformists, and that there is no other unsectarian school within a distance of three miles; and (6) whether, in the interests of education in the district, he can state the conditions under which the difficulties in the way of sanctioning the increased accommodation referred to will be removed?
  SIR J. GORST: The answers to the first three and the fifth paragraphs are in the affirmative. There is, however, room in the Board school and the National school for all the children in the district, and the Department have, therefore, no power to sanction the enlargement of the Board school at present.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that, where boards of guardians have acquired lands on lease for the purposes of the Labourers Acts, they have no power to purchase the landlord's interest in cases where it is for sale; and that, in consequence of this, where the landlord's estate is being sold to tenants either under section 40 of the Land Act, 1896, or otherwise under the Land Purchase Acts, it is often very difficult to deal with the small scattered plots held by the guardians as tenants; and whether he will take steps to confer on the guardians power to purchase in such cases?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The question of giving power to the guardians to purchase plots already acquired on lease is one which the Government are prepared to consider in connection, with the Local Government Bill.

  SCOTCH ESTIMATES.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when a day will be given to Scottish Estimates?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): It is too early at present to fix a day for taking these Estimates.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: Can the right honourable Gentleman give any indication of a day before which they will not be taken?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: At any rate, they cannot be taken on the next three Fridays.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state when the Report of the Committee on Old Age Pensions will be presented?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am afraid I cannot give the honourable Gentleman the date. I am told that the Report has been presented in dummy, and is now being proceeded with.

  BELFAST RIOTS.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Executive will make any grant to the postman who risked his life in the endeavour to save a policeman from being murdered by the mob in Belfast on Monday night?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Inquiry is still proceeding in the matter, and until the facts have been fully reported upon I shall not be in a position to reply to this Question?

  THE ABANDONMENT OF THE NAVAL, MANŒUVRES.
  SIR E. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the rumour is correct that the

  769
  customary annual naval manœuvres are this year to be dispensed with, and, if so, whether he will be good enough to state the reasons?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): I think the best answer I can give to this question is to read the notice that was sent to the ports:—
  "In view of the continued serious character of the strike among South Wales collieries, it has been decided that it would not be expedient to trench upon the reserve of coal by the naval manœuvres, and the customary partial mobilisation of the Fleet will not take place. The Channel Squadron and the Coastguard Squadron will cruise as usual."
  The Channel Squadron consists of eight battleships and six cruisers, and the Reserve Squadron of six battleships and three cruisers. I may add, to avoid any exaggerations with reference to our coal stock, that we have never, I believe, been in the possession of a larger amount of coal, actually in our hands, than at the present moment, and this measure is taken as a matter of prudence only. Latterly we have been mainly supplied by the non-associated collieries. A certain number of collieries in South Wales are not associated, and the strike has left them free, but when it came to be rumoured that the strike would extend to these non-associated collieries it became a serious question whether the stock we possessed should be decreased to any considerable extent by the naval manœuvres. That is the simple reason of their being countermanded, and I think I may say that common prudence has indicated the course we have pursued.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Is the right honourable Gentleman disposed to state what difference the naval manœuvres make in the consumption of coal?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The statement I saw was that, including the filling up of the bunkers after the manœuvres, it would be 50,000 tons.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I presume that when the right honourable Gentleman speaks of the strike he means the lock-
  770
  out in South Wales. I would ask him whether he is aware of the fact that ever since the stoppage of certain of the associated collieries the exports from Cardiff week by week have been over 100,000 tons.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I am not acquainted with that particular statistic; but I am acquainted with this, to my mind, rather remarkable and significant fact—that there is no stock of coal whatever held by the colliery owners—
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: There never is at any time.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Exactly. I have called the attention of the House to this because it is a very serious point. There is never any stock of coal held by the colliery proprietors or by the coal merchants to speak of. That imposes upon the Admiralty the necessity of being more especially careful, because they cannot, hope to rely upon any stocks independent of what is turned out every week, or I might say day by day. That enhances, of course, the necessity of being careful.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Will the Admiralty reconsider their determination, in view of the possibility of their action being taken as being altogether in sympathy with the colliery owners, and to help them?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: I really must decline to consider any sympathy with either colliery owners or colliery workmen.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Your action has been taken as indicating sympathy with the colliery owners.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Our action has been a matter of common prudence in the public interest, and I should be unworthy of my position at the Admiralty if I allowed myself to be swayed by the interests of either one class or the other.

  MADAGASCAR CONSULATES.
  SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is now intended to fill up the consular offices in Madagascar; whether it will be possible to remove the consulate from Tamatave to the capital; and what is the date of the last consular trade Report on Madagascar?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. N. CURZON,): It is not proposed at present to make any alteration in the existing consular arrangements in Madagascar. It has been decided to retain the consulate at Tamatave on account of the British commercial interests which are there involved. But in the event of the Consul being required at the capital he would, of course, proceed there. The latest Consular Report was issued in 1891. None has appeared since that date owing to the impossibility of obtaining reliable statistics. This obstacle should have been removed since the French occupation, and Her Majesty's Consul will be called upon to send an early Report.

  FIGHTING ON THE MONTENEGRIN FRONTIER.
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to give any information with regard to the fighting on the Montenegrin frontier?
  MR. CURZON: I will give the House the substance of the information that we possess on this matter. It seems that in consequence of a local vendetta a number of Christian villages near Berane, on the frontier between Montenegro and Albania have been destroyed, and that the inhabitants have sought refuge in Montenegro. It is believed that the country between the Montenegrin frontier and the river Lim is held by Albanian Mussulmans. Irregular fighting is said to have taken place for six hours on the 17th on the left bank of the Lim, but we have not heard that Ottoman
  772
  troops have been engaged. A special commissioner, Saadedin Pasha, has been despatched by the Sultan to arrange for the reinstatement of fugitives. He has strict orders to avoid bloodshed and conflict unless actually attacked. On the Montenegrin side the Prime Minister, Bojo Petrovitch, has been sent to the frontier to keep order. The Sultan has assured the Prince of Montenegro that the local authorities will be punished, and that all Christian "insurgents" will be amnestied and compensation paid for injuries. The Prince has contradicted an accusation made in the Montenegrin official news that the Imperial troops had co-operated with the Albanians, and has thanked the Turkish Minister for the prompt action taken by the Sultan.

  EMIGRATION OF PAUPER CHILDREN.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the numbers of children who were emigrated in 1897 to Canada or elsewhere, and whether the Local Government Board has taken any steps to urge upon the unions the advisability of availing themselves of the greater security afforded to children emigrants under the recent Acts passed by the Legislative Assemblies of Ontario and Manitoba?
  THH SECRETARY TO THH LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The number of children emigrated to the Colonies by boards of guardians during the last year was 88. Copies of the recent Acts passed by the Legislative Assemblies of Ontario and Manitoba have been sent to the several boards of guardians in England and Wales, but I fear that the provisions of these Statutes will check rather than encourage the emigration of children to Canada by boards of guardians.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOPS (EMERGENCY PROCESSES) BILL.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): I beg to ask for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Factory and Workshops Acts, 1878 to 1895, as to the time of employment of women and young persons in processes necessary for the preservation of perishable materials. This Bill is brought in in accordance with a pledge which I gave during the Home Office Vote Debate, and is especially intended to apply to the fish-curing trade and trades of a similar nature; but it will also apply, on a smaller scale, to the creameries in Ireland, both of which industries are liable to suffer if work in connection with them is prohibited. The existing exemptions which are at present law are, on the one hand, too restricted, because, if they are strictly enforced in Scotland, they would stop fish-curing altogether, and involve the destruction of large quantities of fish; and in Ireland they would be the means of working some injustice by prohibiting a few hours of Sunday labour necessary for the preservation of the cream. On the other hand, these exemptions are too wide; they are not confined to the necessary alteration of the hours of labour, but they exempt the industries from other provisions of the Factory and Workshop Acts, such as the maintenance of proper sanitary arrangements. I will endeavour to deal with the matter very shortly. This Bill proposes to repeal all existing exemptions, and to enable the Secretary of State to grant new exemptions by orders which are strictly defined. I will tell the House what the regulations are to be. The Measure applies only to hours and days of labour, and not to any other provisions of the Factory Acts. It only applies to women and young persons, and under no circumstances does it apply to children. Further, it only applies to processes where exemption is absolutely necessary to preserve perishable materials from destruction, and will strictly define those processes for each class of factories and
  774
  workshops, and will endeavour, as far as possible, to limit those processes to particular places and particular times. When there has been an extension of hours on particular occasions and for particular purposes this Bill contains provisions to secure that the extra hours will be made up for by working shorter hours whenever it is possible to do so. The orders under the Act are proposed to be laid before Parliament, and will be subject to disallowance by a Vote of the House in the manner provided by the Factory Act, 1878. This is a Bill of a very necessary character—it deals with the subject, or endeavours to deal with the subject, in a practical way—and I hope, at all events, that the House will be ready to give it a fair consideration.
  Question put.—
  "That leave be given to introduce the Bill."
  SIR C. DILKE: Some of us stated, on the occasion to which the right honourable Gentleman has referred, that we should have to offer strong opposition to any proposals of this nature. I will not discuss the proposals of this Bill, because it will be, perhaps, better to do so on the Second Reading, but our main reason for opposing this Bill, as we shall do to the utmost of our power, is that the Government are, as we understand, committed to certain other amendments of the Factory Act, and they have chosen to deal in the present Session only with this relaxation of the law. As a matter of fact they are committed to deal with the Factory Acts in many matters, and in all of them in the direction of greater stringency. To give only one example, the Sweated Districts Clause, that has been, on the admission of the Secretary of State, a complete failure. That is the clause in the Act of 1895, and the right honourable Gentleman has himself, in answer to Questions in this House, admitted that the matter ought to be dealt with in any proposal for Amendment of the Factory Acts. Last Session the Government mentioned many matters in which they intended to amend the Factory Acts. They said that the question which was occupying their attention was,

  775
  should they bring in first a Consolidation Bill, and then amend in it, or should they amend first and then consolidate? And now all we have is this, which I call substantially a Relaxation Bill, relaxing the law on one or two points, and not dealing with any of the points which are necessary in the direction of a greater stringency in the carrying out of the law. I will not, on this occasion, allude at length to those cases where greater stringency is required. Most of us have, I think, seen the desirability of amending the law with regard to the lead processes in the Potteries. We know also during the present Session matters have occurred which have shown the necessity for dealing with the law as regards phosphorus and match factories. On both those points the Sweated Districts Clause has been an absolute failure. To the latter it can never be applied successfully to a single case, and never has been applied successfully. I contend that we shall be able to show on the Second Reading of the Bill an unanswerable case in support of our contention that the Bill should not be allowed to go forward during the present Session.
  Leave given.
  Bill read the first time.

  BENEFICES (No. 2) BILL.
  Consideration of Benefices (No. 2) Bill, as amended, resumed.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 2, after clause 2, insert the following clause—
  "In case the bishop proposes to collate or institute on his own nomination to a benefice situate in a parish in Wales in which the Welsh language is spoken, it shall be lawful within the said period for three parishioners of full age who have resided in the parish for one year, or for two beneficed clergymen in Wales, having given security for costs in the prescribed manner, to apply to the court to restrain the bishop from collating or instituting on the ground that the person proposed to be collated or instituted has not a thorough and familiar knowledge of the Welsh language, and the court shall have jurisliction to grant an injunction on such ground, and from its decision there shall be no appeal."—(Mr. Bryn Roberts.)
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: When I was interrupted the other night I was anticipating a possible objection that might be made to my clause, that objection being that it might be said that the power that already exists with regard to the institution of the clergy is sufficient for the purposes, designed to be met by this clause. I think it is very doubtful whether any such power does exist. Although a caveat might be entered against such a proceeding, it has been held that even on the entering of such a caveat the bishop may present and institute and induct, and after presentation and induction there is no further appeal. But this is certain that, whether there is any power or not, it is admitted by all that the proceeding must be of the nature of an established ecclesiastical proceeding—a proceeding that will be very expensive and very dilatory to such an extent as to be absolutely prohibitory. Under these circumstances I say that we are entitled to a remedy for the grievous evils which now exist in the Church in Wales, and which it is the object of the clause I am proposing to remedy. I beg to move the clause.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: I would like, Sir, to offer a few remarks upon this Amendment, and I am sure that in the remarks which I am about to make the House will acquit me of any desire or any feeling against either the Welsh people or the Welsh language. It is part of my duty as Parliamentary representative of the Charity Commissioners to move from time to time for the translation of certain documents into Welsh. I believe I am the only Member of the House who has public documents translated into Welsh for the benefit of the Welsh people; and I have also, in the discharge of the duties belonging to my office, to discharge the very duty which this clause would establish under this Act. In appointing Assistant Commissioners in Wales we are making it our duty to see that they are gentlemen with a familiar and colloquial knowledge of the Welsh language, but we are placed in this difficulty: on the one side we hear that this man is an excellent Welsh scholar, and on the other hand the friends of some rival say he does

  777
  not know Welsh a bit, and we have to decide whether he is in possession of a familiar and colloquial knowledge of this exceedingly difficult language. Now, Sir, I say myself that I consider it is a regrettable matter that there should be persons in any considerable number who cannot speak, and who will not learn to speak, the language which is certainly spoken by 19 out of every 20 of their fellow-inhabitants. I say that is a regrettable thing, but it is a thing which is not to be escaped from. Those men shut themselves out from much employment which they might receive if they would only take the trouble to learn the English language. It has been the practice of the Government of this country not to encourage the speaking of Welsh only in Wales. It is a rule of the English Education Department not to give a grant to any school in Wales which does not teach the English language; so that whatever Government is in power there is no encouragement such as would be offered if this clause were adopted as to the speaking of Welsh. Then the question arises, How many people are there in Wales who can only speak Welsh? That is a subject which was discussed in this House in 1894, on the subject of the North Western Railway, because it was then stated that a great number of the Welsh employees of that company could not speak English at all. I think that the number was put as high as 87 per cent. But then we heard the other side of the case. We had it explained to us that 73 per cent. of those men also spoke a certain amount of English. The honourable Member who has proposed this Amendment in the interest of the monoglot Welsh has given us, or gave us on the last occasion on which he addressed the House, one or two instances of hardship by the appointment of clergymen who could not speak Welsh in parishes in which Welsh was the tongue. In doing so he went back as far as the year 1773. That was no slip of the tongue for 1873—he actually said and meant 1773, so he goes back 120 years for his illustration of these instances of alleged hardship. One of the instances was that in a village or parish there were only five men who could speak English, and yet an English-speaking clergyman was appointed. But so
  778
  many things have happened since 1773. I daresay in 1773 that famous statute was in force which forbade any man not of the Clan Gregor calling himself Macgregor. It might have been in force then, but it certainly cannot be in force at the present time. If the honourable Member says that those were matters which were regulated by statute and this is a matter regulated by custom, I will say that trial by combat was still a possible method of settling differences; but though that might have existed in 1773 it would be quite impossible now. I mention these instances in answer to his observation that though his illustrations were taken a hundred years ago, yet that the same thing might, and possibly will, occur again. The honourable Member last Thursday went on to give another illustration of the great disadvantages which he alleges will be removed by the passing of his proposed clause. He says there was considerable dissatisfaction amongst the clergy, mainly in consequence of a gentleman being appointed to the post of archdeacon who could not speak Welsh. That gentleman is archdeacon in a district in which there are many Welsh people. But, as I understand, the dealings of an archdeacon are generally with the clergy, so that the force of the honourable Member's contention is this: that there are already in North Wales so many clergy who speak Welsh only, and who cannot speak any other language, that they object to the appointment of an English-speaking archdeacon. That appears to me to be the force of his argument, and if that is so, it goes even further than this clause. It was not proposed by this clause that the clergy to be appointed should be able to speak Welsh only. I suppose the honourable Member has some respect for those who speak English only, and not Welsh. What is to happen to them? If a man is to be appointed who is so much of a Welsh speaker that he objects to his archdeacon not being able to converse with him in that particular tongue we shall be in the same difficulty very much as the court was in San Francisco. There they have an interpreter to interpret Chinese into English. He was objected to on the ground that his interpretations were too free, and his

  779
  explanation of that was that he did not understand a word of Chinese. He was dismissed, and I suppose that would also have happened had he possessed an intimate knowledge of Chinese and have not been able to speak a word of English. So that if this clause were carried out, and you have men who can speak one language only, there would be a minority certainly who would be placed in a very awkward position. Now, Sir, I want to call the attention of the Committee to the actual terms of the clause we are now discussing, because I think that this is a very remarkable Amendment. It says—
  "In case the bishop proposes to collate or institute on his own nomination to a benefice situate in a parish in Wales in which the Welsh language is spoken."
  Sir, what is the interpretation to be placed upon these words, which are to be put into an Act of Parliament, "in which the Welsh language is spoken"? Is that equivalent to the notice that we sometimes see in a shop window, Ici on parle français? Is the parish in which Welsh is spoken to be designated by the fact that one or two people in it are able to speak the Welsh tongue, the same as the enterprising proprietor of a shop who puts in his window, Ici on parle français possesses, perhaps, one assistant who may have some elementary knowledge of the French language. This clause is delightfully vague, because, as it stands, it would apply to any parish in which somebody can speak the Welsh language, and I think the honourable Member should give us some explanation as to the extent to which that language is to be spoken. There is a grave dispute as to how many people there are in Wales who cannot speak English. When we attempted to get at some figures it was said that a very large number of people in Wales were put down as not being able to speak English. An examination took place, and it was found that all the babies who could speak no language whatever were put down by the Welsh enumerators as not being able to speak English. If the honourable Member says that his clause is to apply to parishes in Wales where Welsh is spoken, and that expression is to be interpreted by the number of
  780
  people who speak Welsh in the parish, let it be clearly understood that the figures given are not to include babies. Now, Sir, there is another passage in this clause which has caused me some difficulty. How is it to be settled whether a clergyman, whom it is proposed to collate or institute, has a thorough and familiar knowledge of the Welsh language? How is it to be ascertained? It is to be ascertained by the court, the court being the court as defined under this Act, and as referred to in clause 3; and, as a matter of fact, that court would consist of the archbishop and a judge, and these two gentlemen would examine the clergyman as to his knowledge of Welsh. But what I want to know is, who will examine the archbishop and the judge as to their knowledge of Welsh, because it is they who have to ascertain whether the clergyman whom it is proposed to institute has or has not this familiar and thorough knowledge of the Welsh language? For these reasons, Sir, I think it is obvious that this clause cannot be accepted as it stands, but there is one part of the clause with which I fully agree, and that is its suggestion that bishops are capable of making improper appointments, inasmuch as the clause will deal with the bishop only, and does not deal with the private or lay patron at all. So far as it deals thus with the bishop I agree with it, but so far as it deals with those matters which I have already spoken of I cannot vote for it.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: While I cannot congratulate the honourable Member for Thirsk upon his attitude towards the Welsh language, I must congratulate him upon having made what we do not often hear—a thoroughly old-fashioned Tory speech. The whole of his argument is based upon the old Tory idea, which I thought everybody had got rid of nowadays, that the speaking of Welsh was a great evil, that there are a great number of Welshmen in Wales who only speak Welsh, and that the way to get rid of this evil was by making the speaking of Welsh as unpleasant to everybody as possible. Now, I know that the existence of that view is partly the reason for the unrest which this Act has aroused in Wales, especially in North Wales, because the

  781
  view is believed to be held in very influential clerical quarters in the country. The view which Welshmen, not only on this side of the House but on both sides of the House, take upon this subject is that the knowledge of Welsh and the possession of a second language, so far from being an evil, is a distinct advantage to those who possess it. I know something of those who are connected with Welsh education, both those who are connected with elementary education and those who are connected with secondary education, and they all agree in saying that the knowledge of a second language and the constant habit of translating one language into another is a great intellectual benefit. I know also that so widely dispersed is the knowledge of Welsh, and so important is it in matters of business, that in a secondary school on the borders of Wales the headmaster has been frequently requested by English parents to see that their children learn Welsh, in order that they may be able to do business with their Welsh neighbours. If that is the case in Wales with regard to secular matters, still more is it the case with Wales in spiritual and religious matters. I have had now the experience of nearly a lifetime in studying the feelings of the people on that subject. I know thoroughly well that the language that appeals to the Welsh people in a way that it is absolutely impossible for the English language to appeal to English people is the Welsh language; and I know, moreover, that the Welsh ear is as critical in its judgment of the accent in which Welsh is spoken as the ear, I will not say of an Englishman, with regard to the English language, because I am afraid that does not exist to a very large extent, but I will say as critical as the French ear is in this regard. Now, Sir, my honourable Friend has dealt with the question as if it were one which related only to a few parishes, but the fact is that the number of monoglot Welshmen in Wales is something like one-third of the whole population of 17 millions, and I put it from the point of view of supporters and friends of the Church, what a terrible evil it is to the Church itself that it has identified itself with what it is really regarded as in Wales, as the
  782
  prejudice of our English governors, in attempting to force upon the Welsh people, singularly religious as they are, the consolations of religion in the language which is alien to them. My honourable Friend opposite referred to the case of an archdeacon who was appointed, to whom objection was taken on the ground of his imperfect knowledge of Welsh, and he said that he thought that the archdeacon had only to deal with the clergy, and therefore it was not a matter of great consequence.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: I said the principal dealing.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: Very well, the principal—that is rather a large term, and is generally used to cover a multitude of sins. The honourable Gentleman must know that the archdeacon has a great deal to do with delivering charges, and he also controls the churchwardens, and I have told the House before of the correspondence I have received from Welsh clergymen, and the instances of the archdeacon swearing in churchwardens, or delivering a charge in broken Welsh, was one of those which were brought forward as an instance of the absurdity of the appointment. My honourable Friend says that the Welsh people cannot, or will not, learn English. There I assure him he is mistaken. The monoglot Welshman is disappearing, and he is being replaced by a newer man who regards Welsh as his native language—the language of home and of religion—whilst he still uses English for all those business purposes which my honourable Friend referred to as being important to the Welshman's daily life. It is, therefore, because I think it is for the interest of the Church itself, as well as for the interest of the nationality of Wales, that I shall support the Motion of my honourable Friend the Member for Carnarvonshire.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I entirely agree with the honourable Member who has just sat down that it would be very inimical to the interests of the Church in Wales if it could be alleged with any degree or semblance of truth that the Church was being used as an engine for Anglicising the Welsh

  783
  people. There was a time, no doubt, when it never occurred, or seldom occurred, to the authorities of the Church that a necessary qualification of a clergyman in Wales should be a knowledge of the Welsh language, but that time has now gone by. It has not been alleged by any speaker in this Debate that the bishops are insensible of the duty thrown upon them by Act of Parliament in this particular matter.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I quoted two instances.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have taken some trouble to inquire—I will not say into the particular instances given by the honourable Member—but in order to get a general view of affairs in Wales, so far as this matter is concerned, and I have arrived at the conclusion that no abuse exists which calls for any exceptional legislative treatment either by the Bill before us or in any other Bill. I will pass from that consideration and will came to the proposal of the honourable Member, and I should say that if this clause were to be adopted it ought to be greatly extended in one direction, and on the other hand, so far as the knowledge of Welsh is concerned, it will defeat the very object for which this clause is brought forward. The whole object of the clause is to take out one particular subject in reference to which the bishop might refuse to institute, and say that with regard to that subject, and that subject alone, in the case where the bishop was himself the patron, there should be an appeal on behalf of the parishioners or by other persons from his decision. If that principle be a sound one at all, then that is a question which we shall have to argue practically, and I do not think it ought to be confined to the case of Welsh-speaking parishes alone. If it is to be simply an appeal against the action of the bishop, it should be an appeal stating generally the subjects upon which the bishop is, by the existing law, empowered to refuse institution. On the other hand, my honourable Friend behind me, who has got a clause on the Paper, has challenged that statement. I hope that he will not interpret anything I say as indicating a desire to support his Amendment, but I simply say that if this sub-
  784
  ject is to be dealt with at all, and if we are to have an appeal against the bishop in matters of patronage, it should be on the lines suggested by the Amendment of my honourable Friend behind me, rather than on the lines of the clause we are now discussing. If we are to deal with this subject of Welsh-speaking clergymen, the terms of the clause are far too general. It would never work in the interests of existing charity and local harmony that two or three persons speaking Welsh in a particular parish of which the vast majority were probably monoglot English-speaking persons, should give a right to those two or three parishioners, with perhaps very little interest in the welfare of the Church, to raise all this scandal, which is inseparable, I am afraid, from a question of this character. Therefore, if I were disposed, which I am not, to accept the principle of this clause, the matter would have to be qualified a great deal in detail before it would become a workable scheme. I hope that the honourable Gentleman will not press this Amendment, but will be content to carry out his object, if he desires to do so, by supporting the wider Amendment of my honourable Friend behind me, which covers the whole of the ground covered by him, and which is, I think, a far more radical one than his own.
  SIR W. HARCOURT (): I am glad that the First Lord of the Treasury gives no encouragement to the contention of the honourable Member for Thirsk, who started by saying that the English educational policy had been to make the learning of the Welsh language an accusation against the Welsh people. The fact that the Education Department has pursued that course—and I am sorry to say that I think it does—is, in my opinion, a mistake, because I am acquainted as well as anybody with the very deep attachment which the Welsh people have to the Welsh language.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: In 1894, when the right honourable Gentleman was in power, that was the rule; I do not know what has happened since.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am very sorry to hear it, because it is a very bad rule.

  785
  I can call attention to what is the fact in the Highlands of Scotland, which anybody who is acquainted with them knows perfectly well—that in every place where there are persons who talk the Gaelic language there are two services held in the church—there is the Gaelic service and there is the English service. That is the practice in Scotland, and a very right and just practice it is. I remember becoming acquainted with the practice owing to being at a service in Inverary. I thought that the minister was speaking rather indistinctly, and I did not understand what he was saying; but the person who acted as sexton came up to me and said, "You are not aware, sir, that you have come to the Gaelic service," and that was so. Is nothing of the same kind done in Wales? I do not know whether it is, but in my opinion it ought to be done, and the ministers ought to be capable of doing it. You send clergymen to Wales who have spent a great many of the best years of their life in acquiring the Greek language, which I contend is a less useful knowledge in Wales than the knowledge of Welsh would be; and I remember that a great friend of mine, one of the greatest scholars that ever adorned this country—I mean Bishop Thirlwall—set to work to learn the Welsh language as one of his first duties as a Welsh bishop. Take another example—take the instance of the Foreign Office when it wishes to send a man to a country where some language is spoken which is not generally known, or not known at all. In that case the Foreign Office naturally insists upon his acquiring a knowledge of that language before he goes to take up his appointment. That is exactly what is required here—that the clergyman should have a full and familiar knowledge of the language of the country to which he is going, and we ask that he shall not be instituted unless he possesses this very necessary qualification. The delusion which the honourable Member for Thirsk seems to labour under is that it is not worth while to learn anything excepting the English language; that is his predominating feeling, and I think it is a very injurious feeling, because I think a man ought to know other living languages than his own, and if that principle applies in commercial matters it certainly applies to a much greater extent in
  786
  religious matters, and therefore it seems to me not too much to require that a man who is sent to work amongst these people should be acquainted with the language of those with whom, and amongst whom, he is expected to work. That is all that is demanded by this clause. It seems to me that the clause is a most reasonable one, and I shall certainly vote for it.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: The right honourable Gentleman who has just sat down is regarded, I presume, as a Welsh Member, but he certainly has not a great knowledge of Wales, because if he had he would know that there is not a parish in Wales where Welsh is spoken where there are not both English and Welsh services held. I have lived in Wales for a good many years, and I can assure the right honourable Gentleman that, so far from the tendency being to appoint clergymen who cannot speak Welsh, it is all the other way. If in a parish there are any Welsh people at all, or if they are a small and insignificant minority of persons, care is taken that a Welsh-speaking clergyman is appointed. Therefore I really think we are arguing to-day about a matter which is, in my opinion, quite unnecessary to argue about, because everything that is necessary to be done in this direction is done at the present moment. I entirely agree with the right honourable Gentleman that the clergymen should know the language of the people amongst whom they are called upon to minister, and, if some of the people speak one language and some another, the clergy ought to be able to speak both languages; but it is a fact that I have never heard of a case—certainly the honourable Member who brought forward this Amendment mentioned no case whatever—in which a clergyman has been appointed to a Welsh-speaking parish in Wales who did not know Welsh.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I mentioned the cases of Rhyl and Wrexham, and I said that the Vicar of Rhyl had expressed his regret at having accepted the appointment, and that he thought he had made a mistake in so doing, without knowing Welsh.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: Is that the only church in Rhyl, and is he the only clergyman?
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: He was the vicar; he is dead now. He was appointed by the present Bishop of St. Asaph.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: Then we need not trouble anything further about him, but at the present moment there are clergy in Rhyl who can speak both languages. There seems to be a very great doubt as to what the law is at the present time. As far as I know, in the, case of private patrons presenting a man who cannot speak Welsh, in places where Welsh is necessary, the bishop has the right to refuse to institute him, and that is done. I know it was done in a very well-known case, where the Bishop of Llandaff a few years ago refused to institute a man for that very reason. But the honourable Member proposes to go far beyond that, and to give an appeal against the proposal to institute—not an appeal against the refusal to institute—on the ground that the presentee does not know Welsh. I object to that, because, in the first place, it is going far beyond the scheme of the present Bill, and I object to it because, if you grant it in this case, you must grant it in nearly every other case, and in all cases there must be a right of appeal against the proposal to institute on the part of the bishop. Because it goes beyond the scheme of the Bill, and because I think it will be very unnecessary, I object to it. Even if it were necessary, I object to it on its merits. I am willing to admit that there are private patrons who, perhaps, through ignorance let us hope, have occasionally wished to appoint clergy in Welsh-speaking places who did not know Welsh. But I have never heard of a case of a bishop, at the present time, or, I will go so far as to say during the last half century, that has ever made any such appointment. On the contrary, my experience is that the Welsh bishops go to the opposite extreme, and have appointed Welshmen in places where no Welsh is spoken at all, and these clergymen, if they attempted to speak English, speak it so badly as to be almost unintelligible to an English
  788
  congregation. I remember the case of a clergyman in a parish where there was not a single Welshman whose English was of the most mediocre description, and he used to preach in the following manner. He wrote his sermons in Welsh, and translated them into English as he went along, and the result was that it was a very difficult matter to follow his warnings and his precepts. My experience is that the Welsh bishops are most careful always to provide for Welsh services whenever they are needed, and they go rather to the extreme of having Welsh services in places where they are not wanted rather than not have them at all. I do not say that we ought to discourage the Welsh language; on the contrary, I think we ought to encourage it, but I do not think the proposal is at all necessary. The honourable Member opposite relied upon a variety of cases. He quoted cases from 1773, when I admit persons were appointed who could not speak Welsh, and he gave us the case of the Archdeacon of Wrexham, and he objected to that Gentleman being appointed archdeacon because he could not speak Welsh.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: No, it was a different case. I quoted that as being the culminating point which caused the rebellion in St. Asaph diocese which took place a few months ago.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: I do not know whether the appointment of the archdeacon is the culminating point which induced the honourable Member to put down this Amendment, because this Amendment does not deal with archdeacons at all; and, inasmuch as the Archdeacon of Wrexham is the archdeacon of a district in which far more English is spoken than Welsh, I venture to think that his appointment is a most proper appointment. If the honourable Member knew Wrexham as well as I do he would know that the percentage of people who speak Welsh there is infinitesimal. I do not believe that there is a single person living in the parish who is a monoglot Welshman, and who does not understand English at all. I venture, therefore, to say that although I take the deepest interest in. the Welsh language, this Amendment

  789
  entirely alters the scheme of the Bill, and therefore is not one that we ought to support. But beyond that, it is, in my opinion, quite unnecessary, because all that is wanted in that direction is being done at the present moment.
  MR. HOWELL: I wish to support the Amendment moved by the honourable Member on the other side of the House, and I think that my friends will agree with me that during the progress of this Bill this Session, and the Benefices Bill of last Session, I have done what I could to assist in the passing of those Bills into law. I have not altogether at times agreed with everything that has been done by those Measures, but I do not expect that everybody should come to absolute agreement with respect to the provisions of any Bill which passes through this House. I therefore restrained myself from making any speech of any kind whatsoever with regard to those Bills. But with regard to this matter I believe that I should be absolutely untrue to my convictions if I did not get up and say in this House how absolutely I agree with this new clause which is proposed by my honourable Friend opposite. As regards the remarks which have fallen from the honourable Member for Thirsk, I am not quite sure that he was altogether serious in what he said. I feel that those remarks must be attributed to ignorance of the condition of affairs in Wales. He does not understand the Welshman's attitude towards his native language. He does not understand that above all things Welsh is the language of religion in Wales, and I can refer him to the fact that when Welshmen come even to a great city like London—men who have made their way in business in London—still continue, whilst going forward to the very highest positions in your commercial world, to worship in the national language of their country. These men build their Welsh chapels and churches here amidst you in London and worship at them in their own beloved tongue. I am not what you may term an ardent Nationalist. I do not go as far as a good many of my friends opposite in that direction; in fact, I disagree with some of the instances which have been quoted, where it is said mistakes have been made in connection with patronage. I cannot,
  790
  however, forget, when I think of the history of Church matters in Wales, that there is a chapter which is most dismal reading for anybody who is a true Churchman, and that chapter is one that closed not very long ago. I have heard of a time when bishops were appointed who could not speak the Welsh language, and, beyond that, who were out of sympathy with the Welsh people, and who were unable to understand their attitude in matters of religion. Most of them were estimable men—some of them were most distinguished scholars, and were of a sympathetic nature, but they entirely failed to do for the Welsh Church what the Welsh Church has a right to expect from its bishops. These gentlemen pursued a policy which no doubt they thought to be a correct policy—they assumed that the Welsh language would disappear from amongst the people, and, therefore, they appointed men to livings in which there were Welsh-speaking people to whom those men were unable to minister. No doubt these clergy appointed curates to look after the welfare of the Welsh-speaking people, but I put it to some of my English friends whether they would like to have a Welshman appointed as vicar of their parish, and then for him to appoint an English curate to look after the welfare of the English people of their parish. If there is a substantial number of Welsh people in the parish, there ought to be a Welshman placed there as vicar or rector as the case may be.
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: That is not the Amendment.
  MR. HOWELL: An honourable Member says that is not the Amendment. I will show him how it becomes the Amendment. It is the effect of the Amendment. What has been done in the past we hope and trust will not be done in the future. But we do not only want to hope and trust; we want to have some absolute guarantee that it cannot happen in the future, and the new clause proposed by the honourable Member for Carnarvonshire asks for that guarantee, and if these things are not happening now what possible harm can this new clause do? If there is no grievance with regard to appointments made by bishops, what

  791
  objection can there possibly be to this clause? Because, if they do what is right and just with regard to the Welsh people, then no application will be successful under this new clause. Let me point out to the Souse what exactly will happen under this new clause. Where the presentee is presented, and the bishop is going to institute him, if a lay patron has presented him, the bishop may take the objection that he cannot speak Welsh. But if the bishop himself has placed the man in the incumbency, there is no one who can suggest to the bishop that he has made a mistake, and in this particular instance we will assume there is the case that the people of the parish think they have been unjustly dealt with. An application is made to the archbishop—the archbishop is not likely to lean away from the bishop, but rather towards him, on a question of this kind—and if the application is considered frivolous and refused, the costs have to be paid. The clause provides for security for costs. Therefore, these people who wish to make an application of this kind will know quite well that all they will get for their trouble in a frivolous application will be that they will have to pay the costs of both sides. Therefore, it is a safeguard that no frivolous application will be made. There is one other suggestion that may be made—that you are limiting the discretion of the bishop in making appointments. I know there are honourable Members in the House who do not feel inclined to limit the discretion of the bishops in any way. I understand their position, and I respect it, but I do not agree with it. That does not affect my position in regard to the matter, but I might point out to those honourable Members that they are hardly consistent if they vote for this Bill, because, if this Bill does anything, it limits, most strictly, the bishops with regard to certain matters. Then, as to clause 2, where a bishop may refuse to institute, the grounds are very particularly set out with regard to that refusal to institute. You do not give him a discretion. You strongly define the cause of refusal to institute. Well, in that case, are not you limiting the discretion of the bishop? And then let me point out that the next
  792
  section—section 3—in the very first line, you are not trusting your bishop, or allowing him discretion. You are not allowing the bishop to exercise his discretion; you are telling him that he is not allowed, on the grounds of doctrine or ritual, to refuse to institute. You have limited your bishop again and again in this Bill. You have done it still further, because, in connection with this Bill, you give the right of appeal to the archbishop where the bishop refuses to institute. You are not trusting to the discretion of the bishop absolutely. You are saying that the bishop may make a mistake, and because he may make a mistake you therefore allow an appeal to the archbishop and a judge of the High Court. I do not say it is wrong to limit the powers of the bishops, but again and again you have done it in this Bill. Now, just another word or two. Of course, I do not altogether agree with some instances suggested by honourable Members—mostly from the other side of the House. They have suggested, for instance, the town of Wrexham. Well, with all due respect to honourable Members, I think I ought to know something about Wrexham, seeing that I represent it. With regard to my position there, paying every respect and compliment to the present vicar, I say it is not necessary to have a Welshman there. I say there is a large number of Welsh-speaking people in Wrexham, and that there is a large number of Welsh chapels, and there is a successful Welsh church, and it would be a desirable thing if the present vicar could minister to the Welsh as well as to the English people. But I take the position in point of view of languages as such that I would not put forward the demand for the appointment of a Welsh-speaking vicar. I would not put forward a demand for the appointment of a Welsh-speaking vicar in cases like Cardiff or Swansea, and there are other places; but in none of these cases would a successful application be made under this new clause proposed by the honourable Member for Carnarvonshire. In all these cases the application to the archbishop would be unsuccessful, and those who made the application would have to pay the costs out of their own pockets. Again I would suggest that we should rather keep clear of arguments about appoint-

  793
  ments which have been recently made. Let us look back rather to the time when these things were rampant in Wales. If we do, I think that honourable Members on this side of the House will agree with me that we are not asking too much from the House when we point to what has happened in the past, and we say that what has happened before may happen again. We are entitled to secure that they will not happen again. Even if they are not happening now we are entitled to security, and if honourable Members believe we are entitled to that guarantee—and I think we are—I hope they will support this new clause when the Division takes place. With regard to the suggestion by the First Lord of the Treasury, that this clause should be withdrawn and the next clause supported, of course, I have no influence with honourable Members opposite, but I should have thought it was a proper suggestion myself.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: If I may interrupt the
  honourable Member, I think, if I may say so, he did not quite understand me. What I did say was that those in favour of this clause should withdraw their support of it and adopt a wider scheme.
  MR. HOWELL: I had expected a more sympathetic answer. If the First Lord of the Treasury will assure us that on the withdrawal of this clause he will help us on the other clause, I will do my utmost to have this clause withdrawn, but as long as a Division is to be taken, I hope honourable Members on both sides of the House, who are Churchmen at heart, will say that it is a reasonable clause for us to ask for.
  Question put—
  "That the clause be read a second time."
  The House divided.—Ayes 99; Noes 185.—(Division List No. 145.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Holburn, J. G.

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under-L.)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U.

  Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

  Billson, Alfred

  Kemp, George

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Blake, Edward

  Knox, Edmund F. Vesey

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Labouchere, Henry

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Langley, Batty

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Caldwell, James

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land)

  Souttar, Robinson

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Spicer, Albert

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Leng, Sir John

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Strachey, Edward

  Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Crilly, Daniel

  Logan, John William

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Crombie, John William

  Lough, Thomas

  Tennant, Harold John

  Daly, James

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Digby, J. K. D. Wingfield-

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  McArthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

  Ure, Alexander

  Donelan, Captain A.

  McEwan, William

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Maddison, Fred

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Farrell, Thomas J. (Kerry, S.)

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Yorks)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Milbank, Sir Powlett C. John

  Wilson, H. J. (Yorks, W.R.)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Wol'tn)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carm'then)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Gedge, Sydney

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Woods, Samuel

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

  Gold, Charles

  Owen, Thomas

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Gray, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Pease, Sir J. W. (Durham)

  TELLERES FOR THE AYES—Mr. Bryn Roberts and Mr. Howell.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

  Pryce-Jones, Edward

  NOES

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F

  FitzWygram, Gen. Sir F.

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Flower, Ernest

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Ambrose, William (Middlesex)

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Arnold, Alfred

  Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

  Milton, Viscount

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (C. of Lond.)

  Monk, Charles James

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r.)

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monmouthsh.)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Banes, Major George Edward

  Godson, Augustus Frederick

  Murdoch, Charles Townshend

  Barry, Francis T. (Windsor)

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Myers, William Henry

  Bathurst, Hon. A. Benjamin

  Goschen, Rt Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's)

  Newark, Viscount

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Bethell, Commander

  Graham, Henry Robert

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Biddulph, Michael

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Penn, John

  Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs)

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Greville, Captain

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Hall, Sir Charles

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Brassey, Albert

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Rankin, James

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W.

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Hardy, Laurence

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Houldsworth, Sir W. Henry

  Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (R'nfr'w)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Houston, R. P.

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Howard, Joseph

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hozier, Hon. J. Henry Cecil

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Coddington, Sir William

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

  Spencer, Ernest

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lafone, Alfred

  Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Uny.)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Thorburn, Walter

  Curzon, Rt Hn G. N. (Lanc, S W)

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. E. H.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Usborne, Thomas

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Leighton, Stanley

  Verney, Hon. R. Greville

  Davies, Horatio D. (Chatham)

  Llewelyn, E. H. (Somerset)

  Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

  Denny, Colonel

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Warkworth, Lord

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. J. (Kent)

  Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lucas-Shad well, William

  Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Wyndham, George

  Finch, George H.

  McArthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Younger, William

  Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

  McIver, Sir Lewis

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 4, after clause 4, insert the following clause—
  "In case the bishop proposes to collate a clerk or institute him on his own nomination,
  796
  it shall be lawful within the said period for any parishioner of full age who has been a parishioner for one year, having given security for costs in the prescribed manner, to apply to the court to restrain the bishop from so collating or instituting the clerk on any of the same grounds as those upon which the

  797
  bishop is by this Act himself entitled to refuse to institute, such grounds being specified in writing and made known in the prescribed manner to the bishop and to the clerk, and the court shall have jurisdiction to restrain such collation or institution, and from its decision there shall be no appeal. This application shall be heard in the same way and subject to the same rules as in the case of a refusal of a bishop to institute, and the decision of the court stall be final."—(Mr. Gedge.)
  MR. GEDGE: Although I cannot claim the support of my right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Treasury for this new clause it is, at all events, satisfactory to hear him say that it is logical and covers the whole of the ground, and is not open to the objection that was urged against the last clause. My proposal is a simple one, and I hope to convince the House that it is a right one. There are in England about 14,000 livings, and the patronage of about 2,700, or nearly one-fifth, is in the hands of the bishops by virtue of their sees,, while the patronage of four-fifths is in a great variety of hands, from Her Majesty the Queen, the Lord Chancellor, and the First Lord of the Treasury, down to the parishioners and private patrons. Every one of these latter, whether the Lord Chancellor, the First Lord of the Treasury, the Dean and Chapter, or any private individual, or the parishioners or trustees, is subject to the provisions of this Bill. If any of them makes an improper appointment, application may be made, on specific grounds, to the bishop, who, exercising his discretion as judge, will, or will not, institute the presentee who is presented; and, if he refuses to institute on any ground his refusal may be appealed against to the court which is constituted by this Bill, and the court will have to consider whether these grounds are, or are not, sufficient reason for refusing to institute. Accordingly, the court can either confirm the refusal or direct that the appointed presentee shall be instituted. But with regard to a large number of livings—one-fifth of the whole—of which the bishop is the patron by virtue of his see, there is no appeal. The proposal of my new clause is to give the parishioners of these 2,700 parishes the same right as in the other four-fifths of the livings, to enable them, in case they think the
  798
  wrong man has been appointed, to go to the court and state their views upon it. It will certainly, I think, stand to reason that, if all these other patrons, the First Lord of the Treasury, the Lord Chancellor, and private patrons or trustees, can none of them be trusted to make, in all cases, a proper appointment, it is surely but fair that the inhabitants of a parish should have protection against episcopal patrons. Bishops are not infallible. I speak with the utmost respect for the bishops' bench, but, as the honourable Member who spoke last said we have not only to deal with existing bishops, who may be perfect, but we have to look to the future, and it may be that there will be bishops on the bench who will not be perfect. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Bishops have relatives, and even Lord Chancellors have been accused of giving a good deal of their, patronage to relatives. Bishops have wives, and even a Lord Chancellor has been known to appoint a man whose chief claim was his relationship to his lordship's wife. Family feeling is strong and bishops are but men. I have had very strong letters on this subject, and have in my pocket a letter from a clergyman eminent in the Church of England, in which he complains very strongly of the manner in which bishops sometimes exercise their patronage; and as the bishops are not immaculate nor infallible it seems to me only right that their doings in the matter of patronage should be subject as nearly as possible to the same sort of jurisdiction as in the case of other patrons. Even the Bill recognises that the bishop is not immaculate, because he is obliged to give notice to the parishioners of what he is going to do, and he cannot present until a month has passed. What is to be done during that time? All the parishioners can do is to tell the bishop that they have discovered something which they consider bad, or of evil life—something that comes under the second clause of the Bill, by reason of which the bishop ought not to institute the man. I am told by those who object to this new clause that that is quite enough. I very much doubt that. It would be if the bishops were always infallible. But they are not. I have a case within my knowledge where an

  799
  eminent bishop of the Church of England—a man whom I knew personally, and for whom I had the greatest respect—desired to appoint to a very important living a relative of his own. Representations were made to him that this man was a drunkard, but he would not believe it. He told the remonstrant he had seen the clergyman, who admitted that he had drunk, but had reformed. The bishop decided to present the man, and he was instituted. But he went back to his old habits of drunkenness to such an extent that the bishop had to engage someone to do his work. At last the man's condition got so bad that the bishop was obliged to use his influence as a relative to get the man to retire. That is one case; but if it is possible that such a thing should happen in regard to a living of which a bishop is patron, surely the power of appeal, as in the case of the other patrons, ought to be introduced! The very fact that there is such an appeal will make a bishop more careful not to be led away by family considerations; and, indeed, it will be a very good thing for the bishops to know that there is a higher court to which the parishioners can appeal. It is probable that there will be no appeals, but the possibility will make the bishop more careful not to be influenced by family considerations. The second objection to my clause is that it proposes an appeal to the court against an institution, while under the Bill the only appeal that can be made to the court is when a bishop has refused to institute against his refusal and in favour of institution. I do not think that is a strong argument against this proposal. I am giving to the court no new function. The court has to consider the facts, and determine whether the refusal was right or wrong. Precisely the same facts will come before the court under my clause, and the lay judge will determine what they are. He will also determine the law of the case, and the archbishop will decide whether or not the bishop ought or ought not to refuse institution. The consideration is the same, and the mode of carrying on the investigation is the same in each case practically, and the appeal lies against the bishop. In the one case it lies against his refusal to institute, and in the other case it lies
  800
  against his willingness to institute; and it does not seem to me to be any greater hardship upon the bishop in the one case than in the other. Honourable Members may depend upon it that the sympathy of the archbishop will be rather with than against the bishop, and the bishop will therefore sustain no harm. This Amendment was moved and lost in Committee by a majority of 16 to 12, and of the 12 who voted in favour of it when introduced in Committee more than half were Unionist Members who usually support the Government. This is not a Party matter cat all, but it is a matter in which many honourable Members on both sides of the House agree with me, and I have very little doubt whatever that if the First Lord of the Treasury will not exercise the Government authority in the matter, and will give honourable Members on this side a free band, the clause will be carried. I know that more than one bishop desires the change. I can hardly believe that any bishop will venture in the House of Lords to stand up and say that he objects to an appeal against the exercise of his discretion, such as all other patrons are subject to. It is quite likely that they will say that they are not conscious of ever making a wrong appointment. Perhaps they are not, but I think I may venture to say from what I have heard that some of them are deeply conscious of each other's wrong-appointments, and it is these I wish to obviate in the future. This clause will very much sweeten the Bill to all patrons. I was the other day speaking at a large meeting in London, consisting of some 700 or 800 ladies and gentlemen, about the Bill and this clause, and the whole audience was unanimous, if I may judge from the general cheering, in favour of this clause, and my intention to propose it in the House, and I am sure from the correspondence I have had it will be popular amongst the clergy and very popular amongst the patrons, at a time when they are being put under the control of the bishops. I do not believe for one moment that the bishops will seek to place this burden upon other patrons and decline to touch it with their own fingers. I believe that they themselves will see that this clause is a just one. They cannot wish to be in a Better position than other patrons, and they will

  801
  receive the clause as only enforcing upon them all the grave responsibility which they incur in the exercise of their patronage. There are others upon whom it will have a still better effect. I mean what is called the Palace party, which is too apt to get round the bishop, and having more intimate acquaintance with the individual clergy than his lordship, with all the work he has to do, can possibly have, to influence the appointments unwisely. For these reasons, which I have endeavoured to put as shortly and fairly as possible, and feeling sure that the House thoroughly understands what the effect will be, I beg leave to move my Amendment, and I hope that the Government will allow it to be carried.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: My honourable Friend has made an appeal to me not to exercise any Governmental authority in dealing with this matter. Sir, I hope that I shall be able to persuade the House by argument addressed to the reason of the House that my honourable Friend's Amendment, very taking as it is at first sight, is really not one which should be introduced into this Measure. I admit it is a very plausible proposal, and I admit that it appears at first sight to rest upon the simple principle that equality of treatment should be measured out to every class of patron, whoever that patron may be, and, in vulgar parlance, whatever is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander also. I would venture to observe, in the first place, though that is not my strongest objection to the Amendment, that, in reality, whatever view may be taken of the bishops and their qualifications or disqualifications for the task, they cannot be regarded by this House as on an equality with other patrons, or even in the same category Other patrons have the responsibility which patronage thrusts upon then largely by accident. Sometimes they select themselves by the process of purchase, sometimes they are patrons by the accident of birth, and in no case is there any procedure by which a man is selected from among his fellows as being particularly qualified to exercise a position of authority in the Church, and on that score given large power of patronage Of the bishop, and of the bishop alone is that statement true. The bishop, and
  802
  the bishop alone, so far as I know, among those qualified to exercise patronage, is really selected for that task by his special fitness to exercise governmental functions within the Church. It is therefore, not accurate to suggest, as has been suggested, that the bishop should be classed with those who have by purchase or by inheritance become the patrons of livings, or to suggest that he should be treated n an absolute equality with them. But now, Sir, there is another argument on which I do not wish to lay undue stress, but which I think is not without weight. The bishop, in refusing institution, is acting at least as much ministerially as judicially, if I may so express it. Long before the process comes before him in his capacity as a judge he probably has been making personal inquiries into the case, and has possibly exercised personal persuasion upon the patron or presentee. I imagine that there would be a very large number of cases in which the intervention of the bishop will be found of the utmost utility, which will never become public, there being nothing in the nature of a court at all. But under the process suggested by my honourable Friend, of course, there is no exercise of any ministerial functions by the bishops. If the parishioners, through competent persons, raise any objection to the presentation, it must at once come before a public court and be tried before two judges, with all the inevitable surroundings which must stamp public proceedings of that kind, and all the scandal which must inevitably attach to the machinery proposed by the Amendment, but which will be avoided by the machinery under the Bill. I think my honourable Friend will admit that my argument has a certain amount of force in it which ought not to be lost sight of by the House. But, after all, there is a more serious objection to this proposal which I will venture to lay before the House. The Amendment, if I may so express it, turns the Bill inside out and twists its machinery to a wholly new purpose and function. At present the appeal lies against the bishop, not on behalf of the parish, but on behalf of the presentee. There is no appeal against the indiscreet institution by the bishop of an unfit man, and my honourable Friend does not

  803
  propose to have an appeal in any case except where the bishop is patron. But in that case, and in that case alone, there will be an appeal on behalf of the parish, not against injustice done to the presentee, but against a wrong done to a parish and to its parishioners. I have two observations to make upon that. If my honourable Friend's contention is to be accepted we shall have greatly to extend the scope of the clause and even to remodel the Bill. I think the honourable Member admits the principle that a parish has the right of appeal against the appointment of an unfit person; that appeal ought not to exist solely in a case where the bishop is patron, but ought to be extended to other cases in which the patronage is exercised by a private individual, and in which the bishop, either through ignorance or some other cause, has not exercised his power of refusing presentation in the manner in which, in the opinion of the parish, it ought to have been exercised. Now, Sir, I will go a step further and say that I think, if you are going to extend the clause to every case of patronage, you ought, to be logical, to leave the appointment to the parish itself, though I do not advocate that course, but if you take my honourable Friend's clause to its logical conclusion, that is the result. The extension which my honourable Friend proposes will destroy the whole plan upon which the Bill has been framed; and I am strengthened in my opinion that the House ought not rashly to accept it by the fact that I do not think there can be any abuse against which the Bill is levelled which it will fail to meet even if passed without my honourable Friend's clause. My honourable Friend gave one case in which a bishop, now deceased, appointed a person about whom the parishioners had information which would entitle them to take steps under my honourable Friend's clause. Bishops may make bad appointments; they may, as my honourable Friend suggests, be too fond of appointing their own near relations; but I do not believe that any bishop would knowingly appoint to a parish anybody against whom any statutory objection could be alleged, and if that be so, the difficulties which my honourable Friend fears would not be met by my honour-
  804
  able Friend's clause or by any clause. I do not believe that any bishop would so misuse his position as deliberately to appoint to a living in his gift any person against whom any clause in such a Bill as this could be said to apply. If that is so before the Bill is passed it will be doubly so afterwards, and I beg honourable Members, who may be at first sight enamoured of my honourable Friend's clause, to remember that there is actually a provision in the Bill by which a parish shall have one month's notice of any appointment about to be made, whether the patron of the parish is a lay patron or a bishop. If I am right in saying that no bishop would really abuse his patronage in a way so gross that his case would be dealt with under my honourable Friend's clause, is it not doubly certain that any parish in the position that it will be placed in after the passage of this Bill would bring to the notice of the bishop anything it might have against the proposed presentee, and is it not also certain that no bishop would so scandalously neglect his first duty as to wish to appoint any person against whom these objections could be taken? No bishop, I say, would have the courage to face the public opinion not only of the parish, but of the Church as a whole by making such a scandalous misuse of his patronage. I venture, therefore, to suggest to my honourable Friend that in the first place his clause would in more particulars than one run counter to the general policy, framework, and scope of the Bill, and in the second place that there is no present necessity for it. There is no public need and no public scandal which would require us to alter the theory of our Measure by accepting the clause, which is undoubtedly very ingenious, and has been so ably laid before us by my honourable Friend.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Mr. Speaker, the right honourable Gentleman objected to the last Amendment on the ground that it did not go as far as the Amendment now under discussion. He objects to this Amendment because it does not go still further. The right honourable Gentleman objected to the last Amendment on the ground that, if the absence of a knowledge of Welsh were made the ground for appeal against the induction by a bishop,

  805
  that right of appeal ought to be extended to every ground of objection. He now objects to the present Amendment because, as he says, if you are going to give parishes the right of appeal in these cases you ought to give it in every case. But surely the right honourable Gentleman could object to every Amendment proposed and to every Bill on that ground. It means that unless you propose an Amendment dealing with all conceivable evils, an Amendment dealing with a particular evil ought not to be considered at all. But I may point out to the right honourable Gentleman that he is wrong in one respect. He says if this Amendment is accepted it will really remodel the Bill. I challenge that proposition altogether. What does the present Amendment propose to do? The third clause of the Bill proposes that there shall be an appeal by the patron against the refusal of the bishop to institute his nominee. All the present Amendment proposes is to give parishes the same right of appeal against the person appointed by the bishop. It is not a remodelling of the Bill; it simply extends the right of appeal. The right honourable Gentleman said that a bishop is a totally different kind of patron—a superior kind of patron. Of course he is; I accept that, although, as a matter of fact, private patronage in the Church has worked remarkably well, and persons appointed by lay patrons compare in every respect with persons appointed by bishops. I am not prepared to challenge the right honourable Gentleman's statement on that ground, but he talks of bishops and patrons as if they were the only persons interested. Surely the parishioners are interested; but if the right of appeal is given to patrons whose sole interests are the interests of property, why should it be denied to parishioners whose spiritual interests are concerned in having the right man in the living? As I understand the Amendment, it is to give the same right of appeal against the appointment by a bishop as is given in the case of an appointment by a lay patron. I think there is another point which is of very great importance. I do not wish to criticise the actions of bishops, but at the same time it is a very dangerous thing to increase the powers of one man in a diocese, be he
  806
  bishop, prebendary, canon, archdeacon, or even a private patron. The right honourable Gentleman must be aware of the state of things in the diocese of St. Asaph, where, owing to the arbitrary action of the bishop with regard to presentments to livings, there is something in the nature of a public scandal. These are facts well within the knowledge of everybody. I am not criticising the action of the bishop or defending the action of the clergy, but at the same time the bishop has exercised his right of patronage in a manner which has created a spirit of insurrection among his own clergy, who are mainly dependent on him for promotion. The case is that he has promoted his friends, promoted persons who flatter him, and are most intimate with him, promoted persons with no knowledge of the language of the people—all at the expense of the parishes. This Amendment would affect such a state of things. Eighty or 90 of his clergy presented a memorial to the Bishop of St. Asaph, protesting against the way he exercised his patronage.
  LORD CECIL: How many laymen associated themselves with the action of the clergy?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I know a great number of laymen supported the protest, and when the bishop tried to enlist the sympathy of laymen he could only secure the attendance of a few—Lord Powis, the Duke of Westminster, and a few more. The most popular Churchman in North Wales, Mr. Kenyon, late Member for Denbigh, was not present, and I am perfectly certain that if the diocese of St. Asaph were polled the sympathy of the people would be found almost exclusively, certainly overwhelmingly, against the action of the bishop. I am simply pointing these facts out in order to show the danger of giving more power to bishops, and that there ought to be the right of appeal suggested in the Amendment, and also to show how germane the Amendment is to the action of the Bishop of St. Asaph. One objection is that he promoted friends to livings without any knowledge of the Welsh language. What happened in the diocese of Llandaff? A clergyman was nominated who did not understand the Welsh language, but the bishop instantly refused

  807
  to induct him on that ground. The same bishop, when a private patron presented a person to a living who did not understand Welsh, sent down to the parish to inquire whether any of the parishioners were Welsh-speaking. But suppose that was in St. Asaph: what would have happened? Suppose the bishop had created a vacancy, and that he instituted a friend of his own, would he refuse induction? The right honourable Gentleman, when we were discussing this matter upon the last occasion, said that the proper time to discuss this question would be upon the Amendment of the honourable Member for Walsall, and I agree with him to a certain extent. You would simply have given a right to appeal in one case: the honourable Member for Walsall, by his Amendment, would have given a right of appeal in every case. The Bishop of St. Asaph, who was appointed because of his knowledge of the Welsh language, who is the head of a school the induction of which was to provide for the teaching of the Welsh language in that diocese—
  AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Question, question!
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: This is the question. I say that the Bishop of St. Asaph might exercise his rights to appoint under this Bill clergymen quite ignorant of the Welsh language just as much as if they were fully acquainted with it. I say that no right should, under this Bill be given to the bishop without a right of appeal being given to the parishioners. As I understood the First Lord of the Treasury, he said that if you give a right to appeal to the courts the courts cannot execute the administrative functions, because they are not the proper tribunal for that purpose. That was his contention; but I think, if he had read this Amendment, he would have discovered that that observation was absolutely irrelevant to this matter. The honourable Member for Walsall does not propose that the court should present. As I understand the Amendment, the proposal is that there should be a right of appeal by the parishioners to the court, and then, if the appeal was allowed by the court, the right of presentation comes back to the bishop again. It is not the court which presents. What happens is this: the bishop presents a
  808
  man who does not understand the Welsh language—as he has done; then there is an appeal to the archbishop and to the court. It is decided that the person presented is not a proper person for presentation to this living. What would happen? Under this Amendment the presentation would go back to the bishop, and the parishioners have a right to object again to the next presentation if they think necessary; but if the next presentation is one which suits the parishioners then there is an end to the matter. The Amendment gives the same right exactly to the parishioners as it does to the patrons, and to say it alters the Bill to any great extent is absurd. It does not remodel the Bill—it does not change it or effect any revolution in it. It simply extends it to a very slight extent, and gives equal rights to the parishioners and to the patrons to object and appeal from the presentation. I support very strongly the Amendment of the honourable Member for Walsall. There is one point which was made by the First Lord of the Treasury which, perhaps, I might allude to. He said that no bishop would face public opinion by presenting an objectionable case, but the Bishop of St. Asaph, as the right honourable Gentleman knows perfectly well, has not only faced public opinion in Wales, but in his own church, and has made an exceedingly objectionable presentation.
  MR. H. D. GREENE: If this Amendment goes to a Division I intend to vote for it. This matter was very carefully considered by the Committee, and there was considerable feeling expressed in favour of the principle of the Amendment. I have no doubt a number of persons consider that a mistake was made by the Committee in not carrying such a clause as this in the Bill. Now, when a person is appointed to a living, a freehold for life is given to him, and I think we should take the greatest possible care that when a freehold is given to a man for his life he should be fit for it. I think that when the law is being altered, and more power is given to the bishop to protect parishioners from injudicious and improper selections by private patrons, we ought not to leave too much power in his hands, but that some power should be given to the parishioners to protect themselves from his mistakes. I have vet to learn that

  809
  the bishops are infallible; certainly we have not been told that infallibility imputed to English bishops, and I have yet to learn that they are more free than the rest of mortals from making mistakes, though they may be actuated by the purest motives and the highest aims. The clause which is now brought forward seems to give an opportunity to those honourable Members who, at an earlier stage of this Bill, claimed to advocate the rights of petitioners. During the Second Beading of the Bill we heard it said from the opposite side of the House that the rights of parishioners are the main rights to be considered in this matter. I agree with that, and as the Amendment is to secure the rights of parishioners, and is moved in their interest, I shall support it. This Bill protects the parishioners from everyone but the bishop himself. There are three occasions when the bishop may present or collate. In the case of a vacancy arising from a lapse he must fill the vacancy, and then he collates. He may, besides, as bishop of the diocese, have advowsons, to which, he may present. Then, again, he may, as an individual owner, be a private patron. I ask why, if he is the owner in his private right of an advowson, is he to be subject to some different law to that to which any other private patron is subject s If he were the owner of an advowson he would be entitled to present, and there would be no power to review any exercise of the right of presentation by him. If this Bill passes he will review the exercise of any other private patron's patronage, but his own exercise of patronage cannot be reviewed unless this Amendment is passed. The bishop, when making an appointment, must in future give notice to the parishioners that he intends to appoint a particular person. One month must elapse, within which the parishioners will have a right to make any representations they like to the bishop, but there is nothing in the Bill to show that the bishop need pay the slightest attention to such representations. The representation which is sent in may be at once consigned to the episcopal waste-paper basket. There is nothing to prevent the bishop going on with an appointment which may turn out to be an exceedingly bad one, and the person who is appointed will enjoy his freehold for life. I venture to think that in a
  810
  case where the bishop may exercise his right of collation, or right of institution, as bishop of the diocese, he is much more in the position of trustee for the parishioners than a private patron is, because he cannot sell his advowson or the right of next presentation. There is nobody at present who can compel him to discharge his trust, and there will not be unless the Amendment is earned. In the case of ordinary trusts the Attorney General or the Charity Commissioners can enforce them, but in the case of parishioners—on whose behalf, as trustee, the bishop is supposed to exercise his functions—there is no means of enforcing them unless we adopt this proposal. The bishop is in the position of judge in his own case. The right of patronage is a difficult one to exercise, but it is a pleasant one. You may give the appointment to someone whom you think is deserving of your patronage, though the bishop always has the right to review the appointment. I think it would be right to curtail the powers which a bishop has of pleasing himself while he is acting as judge in his own case. In the second clause we are creating many fresh grounds as to which we are giving powers of refusal to institute to the bishop. How will that act where the bishop collates or institutes by virtue of his office? Assume, for instance, a case where a bishop will have the right to institute through, lapse by a private patron. If this Bill should pass without this Amendment the bishop may continue to appoint persons though they may not have been in Holy Orders five years. It seems to me that if it is thought right that the bishop should, on the presentation of a private patron, refuse to institute persons who have been less than five years ordained, we ought to take away from the bishops the temptation and opportunity of collating or instituting them on their own nomination. I do not suggest that a bishop is likely to select a person who is notoriously leading an evil life. That is not a case against which we need protection from a bishop. We require it in the cases in which a bishop has selected someone without adequate knowledge of that person's disqualifications—somebody, perhaps, who is physically not able to discharge adequately the duties of the office. It is possible that an elderly

  811
  gentleman, who has returned from the colonies as a bishop, is desired to be appointed here as a suffragan or assistant. Take the case of a man who is far advanced in years, whom it is desired to put into a living with a large emolument, in order that he may have adequate means to assist as coadjutor the bishop of the diocese. The parishioners may think—and ought to be allowed to say, if they choose—that they do not wish to have the rectory, or the vicarage of their parish left to a gentleman of advanced years, and whose vocation it is intended shall be followed somewhere outside the parish. Take another case. A bishop may appoint someone who is in a state of pecuniary embarrassment. Pecuniary embarrassment is a ground upon which a bishop may refuse to institute if a private patron presents. But why, if the bishop has the right to fill up the appointment, is he to be allowed to put in a person who is in pecuniary embarrassment? Suppose a person had been guilty of, I will not say ritualism, but of a breach of his duties with regard to public worship, and had adopted practice which are inconsistent with, and contrary to, the law of England. The bishop, according to recent decisions, has a right to refuse to institute him if presented by a private patron unless he will undertake to give up violating the law. But suppose a bishop acts as patron, with no one to test or to question the appointment that he wished to make, there may be somebody brought forward by him who, in a way most disagreeable and offensive to the parishioners, will continue to persist in observances which are breaches of the law. Will a bishop, having once given a notification to the parish that he intends to appoint a particular individual, be at all likely to listen to remonstrances which may be addressed to him, particularly if there is no way of bringing the matter before a court to be tested? My hypothesis is that the bishop has not complete knowledge of the person whom he is appointing, and that when representations are made to him which he is not bound to notice he may and probably would say, "I believe the statements which my presentee has made to me with reference to the alle-
  812
  gations of the parishioners; I believe he is an honest and upright man, and I think he is slandered." But, nevertheless, the statements may be true. If we are to require bishops to give a notification of their intention to appoint one month before institution, we ought to give an effective opportunity for the suitability of the presentee to be tested by a proper tribunal. I am not going into the question of nepotism on the part of the bishop—I will suppose there may be occasional nepotism—but what I wish to secure an opportunity of testing the action of the bishop for is to prevent bonâ fide mistakes on his part in persisting in being insufficiently informed, when the truth would be ascertained if a tribunal were constituted. The bishop is protected abundantly by the Amendment. It assumes that his action was right. It provides that the parishioners shall have to give security before they can attack his action. No step can be taken by an aggrieved parishioner unless security for costs is given in the prescribed manner, and, therefore, a bishop will not, in all probability, be harassed by unnecessary or speculative action. He will be secured. It is assumed that he is right until the contrary is shown. It gives him the advantage of immunity from expense, which is an advantage for the bishop, and there is no reason to suppose that this provision will be unnecessary, or with undue frequency applied. There was one observation made by the First Lord of the Treasury to which I should like to refer. He told us, as I understood him, that the clause would not often come into operation; that it was not wanted; that there was no grievance. If there is no grievance it is quite true it will not often come into operation; but if there is a grievance the Amendment will provide a remedy. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will support the Amendment. I hope that Nonconformists will not assume an attitude which in earlier parts of these proceedings was taken up by them, but that they will assist in this matter. It seems to me—I may have done them an injustice—that they regard this Bill as a matter merely concerning the internal government of the Church of England,

  813
  and as one which does not concern them. Let me remind them that in almost every parish there are Nonconformists. They ought to feel an interest in the clergyman of their parish, who is frequently the person with whom they have to be associated as the head of charitable or philanthropic work, and of work of various kinds. I do think that when it comes to be a question of whether a person is or is not fit to discharge pastoral duties in a particular parish, that Churchman and Nonconformist ought to feel an equal interest in seeing that the right person is appointed, and equal powers should be given both to Churchmen and Nonconformists, to see that only a suitable man is put into the living. Under these circumstances, as no injustice would be done to any class whatever by the Amendment, with my whole heart I shall support it.
  MR. H. S. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the words which have fallen from the honourable Member who has just sat down, and shall certainly support the clause of my honourable Friend the Member for Walsall. I can only hope that the First Lord of the Treasury will consent, on behalf of the Government, to make a graceful concession in the matter. I venture to express the hope, because a very special appeal has been made by my honourable Friend the Member for Walsall; he expressed the wish that the Government would not exercise the pressure of the Government Whips in the Division; and my right honourable Friend said that he would rather rely on moral suasion than anything else, adding that he did not consider, even if this clause were passed, it would be vital to the Bill. Well, Sir, we had a great deal of contention in Committee with regard to the clause, and there was one incident to which I should like to call attention. After a very full discussion the clause was defeated by only four votes. There were four gentlemen in the minority who had consistently supported the Government in every other division in the Committee, but so strongly did they feel the justice of this demand that they did what I suppose must have been contrary to their own feelings, by voting for the minority in this particular matter. What, Sir, is the claim upon which this Bill is brought
  814
  forward? It is to ensure that fit men only shall be presented to livings. So anxious are the Government to ensure that that they would not only give the bishop power to refuse the presentee on one ground, but they even allow him, under the Act, to amend his ground, so that if, a week or a month afterwards, he heard of something else of which he ought to have been informed before, the Government give him the power to change his ground of refusal. In the case of private patronage the bishop is made the most convenient guardian in the interests of the parish, but in the case of his own nominee obviously a man is not fit to be the judge in his own case, and there may be many grounds of objection to the presentee of which the bishop may not himself know, and in ignorance of which he has acted. The First Lord says, and says quite truly, that the Bill provides that every nominee, whether a private patron or a bishop, is to have his nomination posted on the church door for a month. But I want to know what is the value of that if, in the case of the bishop's nominee, it is not to be followed by effective action? A bishop is not obliged to respond to any representation made to him. A notice is to be put on the church door, but unless a full opportunity is afforded the parishioners to state their grounds of objection it may well be that the bishop may set aside as unworthy every representation which may be made to him, when, perhaps, a full inquiry would satisfy him as to their truth in substance. The bishops themselves have not done the injustice to this proposed clause which has been done by some of those who claim to represent their interests. The Bill was very fully discussed in the Upper House of Convocation, and the Archbishop of Canterbury said—
  "I wish to say something here about a proposal which has been made, and which I have very little doubt will be made again, that the bishop himself should be subject to this Act in the same way as any other patron, with a difference that the parishioners where the bishop collates shall have the power of going to the court direct instead of appealing to the court to prevent the bishop collating the person whom he proposes to collate if the parishioners think that they are able to prove that in one of the particulars mentioned in sub-clause (b) there is good ground for arguing that the man ought not to be collated. There are a good many people who think that they

  815
  ought to have the power of proceeding before the court to prevent the bishop from collating, so as to put the bishop as regards livings in his own patronage in somewhat the same position as other patrons are. It seems to me, I confess, that such a proposal would not be quite in accordance with the general spirit of this Bill, because the general spirit of this Bill is to put the admission of persons to livings under the authority of the bishops and to trust to the bishops to look after the patronage in their own dioceses."
  Well, Sir, a discussion took place on that proposal. The Bishop of Southwell said—
  "I should think it would be better to admit such a clause if it is desired—not to raise any objection to it. I do not know whether the parishioners are a body of sufficiently defined persons."
  "The Archbishop: It would be any parishioner, of course. As far as the actual powers given by this Bill are concerned the bishop might collate to a living in his own gift a person to whom any or all these objections were applicable, and of course it is obvious that if there is a power of appeal against him, there is this absurdity, that he is to be trusted to decide whether a man should be instituted, but he is not to be trusted to institute the man whom he himself has chosen.
  "The Bishop of Salisbury: Would not the proper way be to give a general power of appeal to the bishop first to hear the case against himself?
  "The Archbishop: You could add a clause which would give the parishioners a right to appeal to any court against the bishop's refusal to collate.
  "The Bishop of Bristol: Could not we have it that a churchwarden might present an appeal—not any parishioner? I would rather not have an appeal, but, if we must have it, we might have it by the churchwarden.
  "The Bishop of Ely: I think, if it is given at all, we should have to give the parishioners or somebody a right to appeal against the bishop's decision to institute.
  "The Archbishop: I am quite clear it is better to let it alone; but I think it well that it should, be mentioned here, because it is tolerably certain that some such clause will be proposed, and those who object to any clause of the kind will have more weight by saying so now beforehand. Of course, if it were put in, we could resist it in the House of Lords, but that is not quite the same thing.
  "The Bishop of Salisbury: I think I ought to say I should not at all object to the parishioners having this power, but it should apply to all cases, institution as well as collation.
  "The Bishop of Southwell: I think it would be very much better that it should be understood that if people in the House of Commons thought the right a fair thing we did not oppose it."
  816
  It appears to me that the trite saying that "what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander" will be applied with telling effect to this Bill if it does not contain this very fair and very just proposal. If a parishioner comes forward and gives proper security for costs, and is prepared to prove, even at his own risk, that the bishop's nominee is not a fit man for the parish, I do not think the House ought to deprive him of that opportunity, cither in justice to the parishioners or in justice to the bishop himself.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I desire, Sir, to say one or two words to express my views upon the clause moved by the honourable Member for Walsall. Mr. Speaker, I propose to go into the same Lobby as the honourable Member, if he goes to a Division, as I think he will, on the broad ground that the men who are to be subject to the disabilities pointed out in the second clause ought to be considered without any reference at all to the person who collates or nominates or presents them. You give the bishop the sole right of saying whether the person proposed to be presented shall be presented or not. I venture to assert that it is not right to say that every man the bishop may appoint is a man fit to be appointed without any inquiry being made at all, or any right given to the parishioners to institute any inquiry of the kind. Now, I am not a Churchman myself, and I do not wish to characterise bishops as positively indiscreet persons or persons who are not fit persons to nominate. I desire to read to the House some words used by Mr. Gladstone on the Public Worship Regulation Bill with reference to this matter. I much prefer, of course, that the House should take the opinion of the most eminent Churchman of this century as to the nature of the duties to be entrusted to bishops rather than the opinion of a person who is outside the pale of the Church. With regard to the discretion which was given to the bishops Mr. Gladstone said—
  "I pledge myself to take the opinion of the Committee—if the Bill goes into Committee—upon, the question whether a legal charter to break the law is by an Act of 1874 to be given to bishops. I desire that what I say should not be interpreted as meaning more than what

  817
  I have said. I have a reasonable respect for bishops. For the appointment of some of the present bishops of the Church of England I am in a degree responsible, and I am not in any way ashamed of the recommendations which I made as to appointments to bishoprics. But if instead of bishops they were saints or angels I would not be a party to pass an Act of Parliament to enable them to break the law without the consequences which follow a breach of the law."
  Now, Sir, I just want to read one more passage in support of the argument that you have no right to trust bishops in presenting livings or anybody else. The Pope claims infallibility, but I am not aware that the bishops claim it in this country. Mr. Gladstone, further said, having remarked that they were a most laborious and a most conscientious body of men, with which I entirely agree—
  "I believe that, on the whole, they are in no ordinary degree a discreet and a wise body of men. But we have 27 or 28 diocesan bishops and archbishops in England. The discretion of these bishops is not collective but single. Now, I want to know what security we have that every bishop shall at all times be discreet, and then I want to investigate the consequences which would arise, and to expose those consequences to the view of the House, and to the view of the right honourable and learned Gentleman, if, at some period or other, there should happen to be one bishop who is not discreet. I have no individual in my eye, but I am making a general assumption. Even in a Cabinet of 16 members one member may prove to be indiscreet, and it is a very fair allowance if I admit that 26 of the bishops are certain to be discreet, but that there may be a fear as to the 27th. Even if all the 27 bishops of the present day are discreet, still there will come some fussy bishop, or some bishop who loves power, or some bishop who is fond of meddling, or who does not join to discretion the quality of courage, and who dare not say 'No' when to say 'No' would be unpopular. And therefore my anticipation and assumption that at some time or other there will be an indiscreet bishop."
  That is Mr. Gladstone's description of bishops, and if that be an accurate description—and I assume nobody here will deny it—are you going to allow an "indiscreet bishop," or a bishop "who loves power," to act in cases where he himself is the patron, and in. a totally different way from which you would act in cases where a living is presented by a private patron? Well, Mr. Speaker, I assume that in all cases the bishop cannot possibly know personally the clergyman who is nominated for a particular benefice. There may be
  818
  representations made to him by persons in very high authority in favour of certain clergymen, and he may, relying upon those representations, collate, or desire to collate, a man to a benefice whom he does not know personally at all. Well, it is very hard to say that the persons who are to be administered to by the beneficed clergyman are to have no right to represent to the authority that this man is not fit to be collated to the benefice, according to the terms of the Act of Parliament. For my part I desire to see this Measure very much widened. I desire that parishioners should have the right in every case, if not themselves to select, at any rate to represent to the bishop what their views are with reference to the fitness of a clergyman for a particular parish. There may be two excellent men—excellent in moral character, and excellent in every way—but one man may be perfectly fit for one parish, and he may not be so fit for the other parish. You are, under this Bill, perpetuating in the Church of England this monstrous injustice to the parishioners—that a private patron or a bishop, as the case may be, shall have the right to say, "So-and-so must be the clergyman of a particular parish," whether or not he is the man who would be selected in the ordinary course of things if the parishioners had the right of appointment. The Bill does not go so far as I should like to see it; but, Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as this new clause does extend the right of the parishioners to some degree, I shall have very great pleasure in supporting it.
  MR. LEWIS: The appointment of bishops is not upon such a very safe foundation that the House will feel absolute and unlimited confidence in the bishops in the future in regard to the question which we are discussing. But apart from that, the First Lord of the Treasury appealed to us to discuss the questions raised by the clause of my honourable Friend the Member for Arfon, and this particular clause upon no narrow ground, and that is the reason why I wish to say a few words upon the new clause we are now discussing. Sir, there are some of us on this side, Nonconformists, who feel bound to take an

  819
  interest in this question, because, after all, we represent our constituencies as a whole, we represent a certain number of Churchmen, and we represent a certain number of clergymen as well, and we know what the opinions of those Churchmen and clergymen are. The noble Lord the Member for Rochester, when this subject was last before the House, said that the Leader of the Opposition did not know what was contained in the private correspondence of the bishops. Well, there are some things in the private communications of the clergy which the bishops do not see, and some of us have received communications from the clergy with regard to this Bill, clergy who could not possibly be affected by it in any way, clergy whose character and position are as high as those of any other clergy in the Church of England, who detest this Bill—in fact, from clergy who have actually gone so far as to say that they would rather see the Church of England disestablished and disendowed than see this Bill passed into law.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order! The honourable Member is now discussing the whole Bill. The question now before the House is whether this new clause shall be added to the Bill.
  MR. LEWIS: I was about to refer more particularly to one of the grounds upon which I support the clause moved by the honourable Member opposite, because in Wales there is a very strong feeling among the clergy that the principle of the clause moved by the honourable Member for Arfon, which is also contained in this clause, ought to be carried into law. In obedience to the right honourable Gentleman I am discussing it now rather than at an earlier stage. I am glad to think that not only many Unionist Members from Wales support us in the contention—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The honourable Member is not in order in discussing that matter now.
  MR. LEWIS: I was trying to follow the advice of the First Lord of the Treasury. [Mr. BALFOUR expressed dissent.] Well, I thought it was his advice; I apologise to the right honourable Gentle-
  820
  man if I have mistaken him. But the main question, after all, in connection with this Amendment is this, whether the parishioners are or are not to have a say in regard to the appointment of clergymen to their parishes. We, as Nonconformists, are accustomed to have that matter entirely left in our own hands. Well, I will only venture to suggest that the member of the Established Church surely ought to have the same right; that if he is not actually to select his spiritual pastor and master, at all events he should have the right to say with regard to such and such a man, "That man is objectionable, and I appeal against the decision of the bishop." It is possible that the bishop may have been inadequately informed with regard to any particular individual, and surely it is a reasonable thing that the inhabitant of a parish should have the right of drawing attention to the appointment which has been made, and that before a man is fixed in his parish for the whole of his life, to be the spiritual guide for perhaps 10 or 20 or 30 years, the parishioners should have a right to say that the objection he raises shall be investigated in the first instance. I hope, Sir, that a great number of Members of the House will support the new clause which the honourable Member has moved, and that the feeling of the Grand Committee upstairs will be reflected in this House.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I have taken the interest of an outsider in the discussion which has taken place on this clause. It seems to me at first that the clause was calculated chiefly to promote litigation, which, considering the source from which it has come, one would never have expected. Secondly, it seems to me to diminish the responsibility of the bishop in making the appointments which are particularly aimed at by this clause. Consequently I was inclined to vote against the new clause, but I have been converted into a supporter of it. What does this Bill do? It seems to me, so far as the Bill is active, that it proposes to restrain the possible misdeeds of the incumbent. There are three authorities—first, second, and third—each of whom controls the

  821
  one beneath. I think if the patron makes a mistake, the bishop controls him, and then appeal—
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir R. B. FINLAY,): There is no appeal against admission.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Precisely; but against refusal. In this case, it seems to me, one of the three is eliminated. In the case where the bishop himself is patron and bishop rolled into one there is no appeal, because there is no power of appealing to the court. Therefore two of the three authorities to whom this appeal is committed disappear in the particular case which is referred to by this section. But, Sir, there is another reason—and a much more important and serious reason—why I think this clause should be added to the Bill. It has been laid down by a very great judge that a parson exists for the ease and comfort of the parish, and not the parish for the ease and comfort of the parson. That is a true, sound, constitutional doctrine; but the effect of this Bill, so far as it goes, is to diminish the popular element in the Church of England. It tends to restrain lay patronage. It tends to diminish the action of the outside, lay, popular element. I admit that this clause has inconveniences. I think it may possibly lead to increased litigation. I think it is possible that instead of its being given to one parishioner
  to put in force the whole of this machinery, it ought to be given to a number or a majority. That is possible; but I believe the principle of the clause to be sound in that it tends to reintroduce into the Church of England the lay or popular element. Sir, I cannot conceive why any objection should be made to this. If affairs had been left as they were before, had the lay patron been left where he was without any further restraints than have existed with regard to him up to this time, I for one should have been inclined to resist any clause of this kind; and had the honourable and learned Member for Walsall introduced this clause as a separate Bill of one clause I should have opposed it. But by reason of the enormous changes introduced by this Bill into the ecclesiastical system of this country, and of the increased sacerdotalism which I think has been imported into the Church of England, and the great dangers, ritualistic and otherwise, that have arisen, I think some corrective is needed in the sense of the clause suggested by the honourable and learned Member for Walsall, and therefore I, as a convert made during the Debate, shall certainly vote for the clause.
  Question put—
  "That the clause be now read a second time."
  The House divided:—Ayes 117; Noes 204.—(Division List No. 146.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Holburn, J. G.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

  Holden, Sir Angus

  Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under-L.)

  Colville, John

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. Henry

  Crilly, Daniel

  Houldsworth, Sir W. Henry

  Austin, Sir J. (Yorkshire)

  Crombie, John William

  Howard, Joseph

  Baker, Sir John

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Howell, William Tudor

  Banes, Maj. Geo. Edward

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Dunn, Sir William

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Sw'ns'a)

  Billson, Alfred

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U.

  Blake, Edward

  Ferguson. R. C. M. (Leith)

  Kinloch, Sir J. G. Smyth

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Knox, Edmund F. Vesey

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Langley, Batty

  Burns, John

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Gold, Charles

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Caldwell, James

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Leng, Sir John

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

  Logan, John William

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

  Lough, Thomas

  Cawley, Frederick

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Macaleese, Daniel

  McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

  Robertson, E. (Dundee)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  McArthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Wallace, Robt. (Edinburgh)

  McEwan, William

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Maddison, Fred

  Shaw, C. Edw. (Stafford)

  Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  Williams, John C. (Notts)

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

  Wilson, Charles H. (Hull)

  Morley, C. (Breconshire)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Owen, Thomas

  Souttar, Robinson

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Spicer, Albert

  Woodall, William

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Steadman, William Charles

  Woods, Samuel

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

  Price, Robert John

  Strachey, Edward

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Pryce-Jones, Edward

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Tennant, Harold John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Sydney Gedge and Mr. H. D. Greene.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Curzon, Rt Hn. G. N. (Lanc. S W)

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  Ambrose, Wm. (Middlesex)

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead)

  Arnold, Alfred

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Daly, James

  Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Houston, R. P.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Davies, Horatio D. (Chatham)

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

  Baird, John George A.

  Denny, Colonel

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Barry, Francis. T. (Windsor)

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Joliffe, Hon. H. George

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)

  Edwards, Gen. Sir James B.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lafone, Alfred

  Bethell, Commander

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

  Biddulph, Michael

  Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Bigwood, James

  Finch, George H.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Bond, Edward

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Loder, Gerald Walter E.

  Brassey, Albert

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

  Brookfield, A. Montagu

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Brown, Alexander H.

  Forster, Henry William

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

  Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. (C. of Lond)

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Butcher, John George

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  McIver, Sir Lewis

  Cecil, Lord Hugh

  Godson, Augustus Frederick

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Goschen, Rt Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's)

  Maxwell, Rt. Hon. Sir H. E.

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon Henry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Milton, Viscount

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs)

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Coddington, Sir William

  Gretton, John

  Monckton, Edward Philip

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hall, Sir Charles

  Monk, Charles James

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants)

  Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hardy, Laurence

  Mount, William George

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G

  Murdoch, Charles Townshend

  824

  825

  Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

  Myers, William Henry

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Warkworth, Lord

  Newark, Viscount

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Sharpe, William E. T.

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

  Shee, James John

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Pease, Arthur (Darlington)

  Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Penn, John

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Smith, Hon W. F. D. (Strand)

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

  Wodehouse, Edmd. R. (Bath)

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Pym, C. Guy

  Stephens, Henry Charles

  Wyndham, George

  Rankin, James

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.

  Younger, William

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Sutherland, Sir Thomas

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

  Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Uny.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Rothschild, Baron F. J. de

  Thorburn, Walter

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)

  Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

  The following new clause stood on the Paper:—
  "Before the declaration set forth in the schedule to this Act is taken sections 1 and 2 of the Clergy Resignation Bonds Act, and section 1, sub-section 3, of this Act shall be read to the person making the declaration."—(Mr. Herbert Lewis.)
  MR. SPEAKER: The new clause standing in the name of the honourable Member for Flint Boroughs is not in order as a new clause. It should come in as an Amendment at the end of sub-section 4.
  Amendment proposed—

  BENEFICES (No. 2) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.
    "Page 1, line 6, after 'valid' insert 'if it has been for any monetary consideration; nor.'"—(Mr. Carvell Williams.)
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: It is not because I wish to perpetuate any of the abuses found in the Church establishment that I submit the Amendment which stands in my name. On the contrary, I claim to be a more determined opponent of abuses in that Church than the promoters of this Measure. They are simply seeking to abate what they call the grosser scandals in patronage. I am for getting rid of them altogether, by striking at the root of the evils complained of—namely, the permission of the right of sale. I am for ending that, and not for mending it, which is the object of this Bill. Honourable Members who support this Bill have convinced
    826
    themselves, I presume, that there is a difference between the sale of next presentations and the sale of advowsons. They have not convinced me. I feel satisfied that they have not convinced the public. The public consider that selling is selling, whether the sale be that of right of next presentation only, or whether it be a sale of the right to present in perpetuity. The only difference between the two seems to me to be this: one is selling wholesale and the other is selling retail. This Bill admits that the right of presenting ministers of the Gospel to parishes in this kingdom is property; and, if I am not mistaken, the right of appointing ministers of the Establishment is the only right which is purchasable, now that we have got rid of purchase in the Army. It is surprising that those who profess to desire the good of the Church should look on this Measure as one of great importance, and yet I find that the Church Reform League says with reference to this matter that it—
    "does not regard the Bill as in any way a final settlement of the question, but it is of immense value in that it secures legal recognition of the principle that ecclesiastical patronage is not mere property, but essentially a trust to be exercised for the advantage of the Church, and not for that of the patron and holder."
    How is it possible that this Benefices Bill can establish the principle that the right of presentation is a trust, and not a property? All that the Bill attempts to do is to minimise the mischief of the existing system, but in the very act of doing that the Bill gives a new sanction to the practice complained of. I

    827
    cannot help, Mr. Speaker, expressing the opinion in regard to one point, that this is an insincere Bill, and I make that remark in reference to the second subsection in clause 1 of the Bill. I observe that the Bishop of Wakefield, speaking in York Convocation, said that this Bill would get rid of the scandals connected with sales by auction, but the Bill does nothing of the kind. This subsection of clause 1 says—
    "It shall not be lawful to offer for sale by public auction any right of patronage."
    Then it goes on—
    "save in the case of an advowson to be sold in conjunction with any manor or hereditament."
    It allows a distinction to be drawn between sale by auction in one case and sale in another. Where the possessor of advowsons has estates there may be sales by auction, but the possessor of advowsons and no estates is denied that right. If the Bill passes in its present form sales by auction will not be prohibited, but will continue. And not only so, these advertisements with regard to the sale of advowsons, which I admit scandalise honourable Gentlemen opposite quite as much as they do those who sit on this side of the House, will also continue; and so you will find, after this Bill is passed, in the Miscellaneous column of the Times, among the advertisements of the sale of old china, secondhand plate, and talking parrots, the announcements of the sale of advowsons, and, in addition to that, the traffic will go on as busily as before in the offices of the private agents. I have spoken of the privileges given to the owners of estates when advowsons are associated with the estates, and that leads me to say that in my opinion this is a rich man's Bill. There are nearly 7,000 curates in the Establishment. How many of these 7,000 gentlemen will have the best chance of promotion? Will it be the man of the most brilliant talents, the greatest piety, or the greatest zeal? No, it will be the man who has some rich relative; a father-in-law or friend who has money to go into the market and purchase an advowson. So those who have the advantage of rich connections will, in very many cases, have a greater chance of securing the best offices in the Church
    828
    than those who are less favoured by fortune. Now, I admit that the supporters of this Bill have shown that they are conscious of the difficulties they have in defending it. It is alleged that you cannot totally abolish the practice unless you provide means of compensation. But it does not lie in the mouths of the supporters of this Bill to advance that argument. It comes consistently enough from the honourable Member for Lowestoft to urge that the Government by this Bill are diminishing the value of the rights of patrons without giving them any compensation. There has been circulated among Members of this House a statement, which contains this passage—
    "The Government Bill, it is true, does not deliberately, and in so many words, take away the whole rights of vested property, nor forbid the sale and purchase of such property. That would have been too barefaced without compensation. It provides a more subtle and plausible argument, that it is not taking away rights; it is only introducing regulations as to the exercise of those rights—in other words, it is whittling them away. The advowson owners are to be improved off the face of the earth."
    So that the promoters of this Bill are practically admitting that it is intended to interfere with these rights of presentation and to diminish their value without giving compensation to the owners, and in doing that they have provided a precedent which will be of great value at some future date. Unless you remodel the whole system of Church patronage you will take away altogether the more careless and indifferent patrons. So far from being an inducement to the owners of patronage, and as regards the exercise of it, the owner of an advowson, if this Bill should pass, would be obliged to hold on to it for the purpose of recouping himself. Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that I am advocating principles which are held by a large number of members of the Church of England, and I have evidence of the fact. Mr. Torr, speaking at the Shrewsbury Church Congress in October, 1896, gave out this sentence, which I highly commend to the consideration of the House—
    "I will only express the very earnest hope that when the recent Benefices Bill next comes before us, its authors, warned by past failure,

    829
    will have done with half measures, and base their Bill firm on the fundamental principle that spiritual patronage is not property at all, but a trust, and therefore subject to the doctrine governing all trusts—to wit that it is immoral for the trustee to derive any pecuniary benefit from his trust. The prohibition of all sales of advowsons, as well as of next presentations—this is the only sound principle worth fighting for."
    I have no doubt a great many Gentlemen opposite concur in these sentiments, and this, I hope, will afford them the opportunity of giving expression to their views, and so enable this Bill to become a genuine measure of reform.
    SIR R. B. FINLAY: Mr. Speaker, I hope I shall be pardoned if I address myself for a few moments to the question raised by the honourable Gentleman as to the sale of an advowson being prohibited. The effect of those remarks, if carried into effect, would be to produce an absolute stagnation in advowsons in the eyes of those who at the present moment, happen to hold them. You may have the case where a man holds land in the parish where the benefice is situate. As circumstances change, and that is the principle of your parish—the advowson could not pass into the hands of those who acquired property—
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: Why could they not transfer it?
    SIR R. B. FINLAY: The honourable Member asks why could they not transfer it. I think if you could transfer it for any valuable or pecuniary consideration the effect would be to put it into stagnation if the advowson were to be sold along with the other. If you say the advowson cannot be sold, the advowson will in 99 cases out of 100 be exempt from sale, and it will remain in the hands of those who have no particular interest in its welfare. The truth is that a proposition of this sort is only put forward as part of a larger scheme. If you bring forward a scheme like, this you must devise some new machinery to work it altogether different from that which you at present have; and the abolition of the sale of advowsons, apart from some such constructive measure as that, will not merely be useless but positively mischievous. In the
    830
    advowson lies the privilege of exercising a trust. The trust is that, as vacancies from time to time occur, the owner of the advowson may present some suitable person to the bishop for this institution. That is the nature of an advowson. Then, apart from that is the privilege of exercising this trust from time to time. It is a privilege one nay well desire to exercise, particularly if one is resident in the district where the benefice is situate. Now, I would appeal to the House to say whether there is any difference in the world between presenting the privilege to a man who acquires in perpetuity, and who from time to time is appointed as the vacancy occurs—whether there is any difference between him and the conduct of a man who retains the adowson merely in order that he, as his successor in title, may, from time to time, sell the right of exercising that sacred trust. The two things are absolutely and entirely distinct. All the worst scandals in the Church have been connected with this sort of thing; all the worst scandals in the way of advertisement have been in connection with these sales, and the reason is not far to seek. The man is a sort of milch cow, who sells it as the right of presentation. What we propose to do is to abolish the sale of presentation as a source of scandal in the Church.
    MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I venture to say that, so far as it is intelligible to me, the attempt of the honourable Member to make his meaning clear is not apparent to a single person in the House. He called the sale of a next presentation a right, while he called the sale of an adowson a privilege. Then he says there is no distinction. The case is simply this: both are a trust; a next presentation is a trust, and a subsequent presentation is also a trust. There is no possibility of making a distinction between one and the other. The only possible distinction that I can see is that one may take place this generation, and the subsequent presentation in the subsequent generation. But to say that that is a distinction is, to my mind, entirely unsound. Mr. Speaker, it has come upon me entirely as a matter of enormous surprise that in matters ecclesiastical there seems to

    831
    be a tone of utterly low morality. I ask the House to consider how matters of this kind would be regarded if they were to be introduced into legal affairs. Supposing the right of appointing county court registrars were sold by auction, and an attempt was made to distinguish between the right of next presentation to a county court registrarship and a perpetual registrarship, one would be as ridiculous as the other would be absurd. There is not a lawyer in the world that would attempt to make a distinction between the two, and I ask the House, is the administration of the law less sacred than the cure of souls? I ask, is it more important? I say you must not dream of such a thing. I have no doubt that hundreds of years ago there were appointments made in consideration of pecuniary payments; but the tone of morality in affairs in every walk of life is raised except in matters of ecclesiastical importance. It is the duty of this House to alter this state of things, and to infuse into matters ecclesiastical the same high tone of morality that we find elsewhere; and if the Church Members, whose duty it is to look after the interests of the Church, hear me, I would urge them, whatever following they belong to, and my honourable Friend in particular, to strive to endeavour to instil these higher principles into the affairs of the Church of England.
    MR. LEWIS: Mr. Speaker, I understand you to rule on the point of order—the word "value" to be inserted before "monetary," before the Amendment is put to the House.
    MR. SPEAKERreplied.
    MR. LEWIS: I make that Motion, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest its being put in that form, as the word "value" is wider and more appropriate than the word "monetary." I am sure what my honourable Friend desires is to do all he can to strengthen his Amendment, so as to put the law in a very much more satisfactory position than it is now. I would ask my honourable Friend whether, under the circumstances, he would not accept the Amendment which I now suggest.
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I quite recognise the distinction which my honourable Friend has drawn between the use of the two words. My Amendment would have reference simply to the payment of money. His Amendment would cover more than that, because it is possible to conceive that a consideration for an advowson might be the gift of land or of other property. Therefore, I cheerfully accept the Amendment.
    MR. SPEAKER: I understand the honourable Member wishes to withdraw his Amendment in order to substitute the other.
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 1, line 6, after 'valid' insert 'if it has been made for valuable consideration.'"
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: There is one point made by the learned Solicitor General which I think was not referred to by my honourable Friend. He argues that the effect of the Amendment of my honourable Friend would be to stop the sale of advowsons in connection with the State—what he calls a stagnant barter. That has been dealt with, Sir, effectually. That is exactly what we propose to do—to make this market as stagnant as possible, to put an end to it. We object to the sale of livings altogether. We object to abuses in the Church of England; and whenever we criticise a Bill like the Clergy Discipline Bill or the Benefices Bill, although we propose Amendments, we never oppose in the sense of opposing them altogether. We simply aim the Amendments in the direction of strengthening the Bill. Every Amendment we moved to the Clergy Discipline Bill was to that effect. Every Amendment on this Bill has been in that direction. Every Amendment has been designed to prevent the nefarious sale, the traffic in presentations to livings. I would point out that this Amendment would not necessarily have that effect, and that, consequently, the objection made by the Solicitor General would not be valid. What he is afraid of is this:

    833
    that if an estate passes from one family to another, unless you give the right of selling the advowson you will have the right to present to a living in a parish in the hands of one family which has no interest in the parish, which has disposed of every acre of land it held in that parish, and which, consequently, has absolutely no interest in the welfare of the people there more than anybody else in the kingdom. I point out to the honourable and learned Member, and to the House as well, that it would not have that effect. If you sold an estate, I have not the remotest fear that if an advowson were attached to it that would be an element in the transfer of that estate. If it were known that on the sale of the estate the advowson would be transferred, without any nominal consideration, because that would be contrary to law, but that the advowson would follow as a matter of course, the result would be that it would be taken into account in fixing the price to be paid for the estate. I am simply answering the argument advanced. You would avoid the scandal, there would be no public sale, and yet the advowson would pass. There would have been no market, but there would have been a transfer. It would pass exactly as the scenery passes; that is not a tangible thing. You cannot sell a good scene, but, at the same time, it is an element which you take into consideration when you fix the value of the property. You cannot sell the contiguity of the estate to a particular industrial district, and yet that is an element which passes at the same time. In the same way, exactly, the advowson would pass. It would be an element in the consideration when the value is fixed, and, therefore there would be no stagnation at all except in the market.
    MR. LEWIS: Mr. Speaker, I must say, Sir, I am greatly astonished that there are Members only on this side of the House who are opposed to traffic in livings. There are a great number of Churchmen outside the House who are very strongly opposed to it, and who have expressed their opposition in the strongest possible terms. Sir, it is a long time since we have seen the abolition of purchase in the Army, and it is an astounding thing to me that purchase
    834
    in the Church should be maintained up to the present day. I hope that honourable Gentlemen opposite will see that they have an opportunity on the vote that they shall give now of putting an end to the greatest scandal in connection with the Church. I daresay that honourable Gentlemen opposite will not believe, perhaps, that Nonconformists would like to see that Church purified from this scandal. Sir, there are Nonconformists who would desire to see the Church purified in that respect, and I hope that there are honourable Gentlemen opposite who will feel, in the depth of their consciences, that there is something utterly wrong with this trade in livings and appointments to livings. There are honourable Gentlemen who scoff at it on the other side of the House, but I would ask, is it consonant with the spirit of Christianity, is there a single grain of Christianity in it? How can it be justified on Christian principles? There is not a word from the beginning of the New Testament to the end that would justify the continuance of a scandal such as this is in connection with the Church of Christ. I hope, Sir, that honourable Gentlemen opposite will even now take this opportunity, an opportunity which lies within their grasp and within their power, of abolishing, once for all, this nefarious traffic in livings. Alas, that the name of living should be attached to it! It should be a vocation, and nothing but a vocation; and when every living in the Church has become, not a living but a vocation, then only the Church will occupy a higher position than she has ever occupied before in the history of this land.
    MR. S. EVANS: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that honourable Members who desire to prepare the way for reform in the Church have not the courage of their convictions. Now, Sir, I desire to make it perfectly clear to the House and to the country what everyone will do who will vote against the Amendment of my honourable Friend. Every Member opposite who goes into the Lobby against my Friend's Amendment will be voting for the continuance of the traffic in livings in the Church. What will be the result of a small peddling Measure like this Rill being brought forward?

    835
    The result will be that those who desire to see the Church really reformed, not merely on the surface but down to the roots, will come to occupy the time of Parliament again next year and again the year afterwards. It is well known that most of us who sit on this side of the House have our views as to the right reform, the most thorough reform that is needed. We believe that you will never get the reform that many desire until you disestablish and disendow the Church; and I agree that the present is not the time when we could expect the Church to be either disestablished or disendowed; but I protest, when Members come here with Bills of this kind, against the time of the House being wasted with small Measures—I protest that when we desire that the reform should be real we should be told from the other side that we desire to defeat the Bill, and not to see any reforms carried at all. Now, you come here, and you say, There are certain sorts of livings—
    SIR J. BRUNNER: Divide, divide!
    MR. S. EVANS: I am glad to hear the sonorous voice of the honourable Baronet behind me, but notwithstanding that he desires to depart for an evening meal I have a few observations to address to the House. Now, you come here and say, we will prevent certain small trafficking. At the same time you say, we will allow certain great abuses to remain in the Church without any effort at all to deal with them. You say in this Bill, we desire that you should prevent sales by public auction. Yes, whiten the sepulchres by all means. Let there be no sale by public auction, but traffic as much as you like in any other way. Do not let the auctioneer's hammer be used, but use public advertisement as much as you like. Now, do the Churchmen desire to see a continuance of that state of things? Now, Sir, I have a few in stances, not many, given by the late Archbishop of Canterbury. The late Archbishop of Canterbury, dealing with this matter in the year 1893, said—
    "When a man buys an advowson and presents himself it is very often because he takes a fancy to the house and garden attached to the
    836
    living, and to the shooting and the fishing of the neighbourhood, and he puts himself in possession of those means and opportunities of sport, and having put himself in possession of that sport by a violation of the law, he very often re-sells the living to someone else."
    Now, do you desire to see that state of things continue? If you do, vote against the Amendment of the honourable Member behind you; if not, vote for it. Then he goes on—
    "I admit that a good man may under this system put himself into a living with the firm resolution of exercising his ministry most purely, but that is no reason why we should sanction evasion of the law. Even a good man who buys himself into a living in that way starts upon his ministry with a taint, and he never gets over the taint. Whatever other reasons his parishioners may have for thinking ill of him or lightly of his influence, they are extremely aggravated by the fact that he is exercising the office of priest among them"—how?—"by purchase. The existing state of things leads, of course, to the establishment of shops for the sale of benefices."
    Now, we have heard about the open door in other parts of the Empire; you desire to keep these shops open for the sale of benefices which we desire to see shut. "The livings," says the archbishop, "are sold to the highest bidder." These livings are frequently sold by public auction, and the practice was condemned in the strongest terms in the House of Lords in 1893. Now, under this Bill, these abuses are going to be continued. Now, we desire to put an end to these abuses, and prevent the purchase of livings altogether; but honourable Members opposite say: Let there be these abuses; let there be purchases by public auction and traffic in livings as long as you like. Other advertisements announce—
    "An attractive living, not far from a fashionable sea-side resort"—
    and—
    "Population 1,500; congregation small."
    That is the kind of thing put forward; actually gloating over the inefficiency of the place which is offered as an inducement to an idle man. Another advertisement runs—
    "The price is £2,500; the age of incumbent, 76; but we hear this morning that he is very seriously ill."

    837
    Of course, it may be said, and no doubt will be said, by the supporters of the Measure that in some degree you deal with that kind of advertisement in this Bill, and you prevent the sale of the next presentation. That is the state of things. Another reads—
    "The doctor says he cannot possibly last more than six months."
    Now, Mr. Speaker, really Session after Session, ever since I have had the honour of being a Member of this House for eight years, since 1890, we have had introduced in the House of Lords or in the House of Commons Bills of this kind. But now you have gone back upon the Bill of 1893, which was more far-reaching than the Bill you now bring forward. And yet you tell us, with regard to the abuses we desire to remove, that we are obstructing reforms of the Church when we bring forward these arguments for reforms, the effect of which would be to purify the Church. Is the noble Lord himself one of those who desire that there should be no sales of livings by public auction?
    LORD HUGH CECIL: Yes.
    MR. S. EVANS: If the noble Lord brought in a Bill to abolish the sale of these livings I could support it, but who are the people who are now preventing reforms in the Church of England? Why, those on the Ministerial side, because honourable Members on this side would support such a Measure. If the Government are afraid to bring such a Measure forward, they are afraid of honourable Members on their own side of the House. I am sorry to have kept the honourable Baronet behind me waiting so long, but I repeat that I wish to make it clear to the House and to the country that everybody who votes against this Amendment of my honourable Friend on this side of the House will vote for the continuance of these abuses in the Church of England, which we, at any rate, desire to see done away with.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 74; Noes 182.—(Division List No. 147.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Holburn, J. G.

    Samuel. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Allen, W. (Newc. under-Lyme)

    Holden, Sir Angus

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Austin, Sir John (Yorks)

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Shee, James John

    Baker, Sir John

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Billson, Alfred

    Kinloch, Sir John George S.

    Souttar, Robinson

    Brunner, Sir J. Tomlinson

    Labouchere, Henry

    Steadman, William Charles

    Burns, John

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

    Strachey, Edward

    Burt, Thomas

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Caldwell, James

    Leng, Sir John

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Cawley, Frederick

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Tennant, Harold John

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Lloyd-George, David

    Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Clark. Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

    Logan, John William

    Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

    Colville, John

    Lough, Thomas

    Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

    Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Wallace, Robert (Perth)

    Crilly, Daniel

    Maddison, Fred.

    Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Denny, Colonel

    Moss, Samuel

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Wilson, J. W. (Worc'r, N.)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

    Doogan, P. C.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Woodall, William

    Duckworth, James

    Priestley, Briggs (Yorks)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

    Pryce-Jones, Edward

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Randell, David

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Carvell Williams and Mr. Spicer.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    NOES.

    Aird, John

    Gedge, Sydney

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (C. of Lond.)

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Ambrose, William (Middlex.)

    Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

    More, Robert Jasper

    Arnold, Alfred

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Gilliat, John Saunders

    Mount, William George

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Godson, Augustus Frederick

    Murdoch, Charles Townshend

    Baird, John Geo. Alexander

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r)

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

    Myers, William Henry

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Newark, Viscount

    Banes, Maj. George Edward

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Bethell, Commander

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W.

    Pym, C. Guy

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Helder, Augustus

    Rankin, James

    Bigwood, James

    Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Bond, Edward

    Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Hobhouse, Henry

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Brassey, Albert

    Houldsworth, Sir W. Henry

    Rothschild, Baron F. J. de

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Howard, Joseph

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

    Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham)

    Brymer, William Ernest

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

    Hughes, Colonel Edwin

    Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

    Butcher, John George

    Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

    Savory, Sir Joseph

    Cecil, Lord Hugh

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

    Johnstone, J. H. (Sussex)

    Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Kimber, Henry

    Stock, James Henry

    Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Knox, Edmund Francis V.

    Sturt, Hon. Humphry N.

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Lafone, Alfred

    Sutherland, Sir Thomas

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Laurie, Lieut. -General

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

    Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Uny.)

    Colomb, Sir J. Charles Ready

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Thorburn, Walter

    Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Lees, Sir E. (Birkenhead)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

    Leigh-Bennett. Henry Currie

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

    Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

    Curzon, Rt Hn G. N. (Lanc, S. W)

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Loder, Gerald Walter E.

    Ward, Hon. Robt. A. (Crewe)

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

    Warkworth, Lord

    Dane, Richard M.

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

    Lowe, Francis William

    Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

    Donkin, Richard Sim

    Lowles, John

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

    Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

    Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

    McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

    Wodehouse, Edmd. R. (Bath)

    Firbank, Joseph Thomas

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Marks, Henry Hananel

    Wyndham, George

    FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

    Flannery, Fortescue

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

    Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Milner, Sir Frederick George

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Milton, Viscount

    MR. H. S. FOSTER: I beg leave to move—
    "Page 1, line 8, leave out 'two' and insert.
    840
    The object of my Amendment is for the purpose of extending the time of registration in sub-section A of clause 1, from

    841
    two months to six months. The Bill provides—
    "A transfer of a right of patronage of a benefice shall not be valid unless it is registered in the prescribed manner in the diocesan register within two months from the date of the transfer, or within such extended time as under special circumstances the bishop may think fit to allow."
    I think the Government will probably agree that the time-limit may be fairly extended without in any way impairing the object of their Bill. I find that the Archbishop of Canterbury in Convocation himself expressed the opinion that two months was not sufficient, and he said that for his own part, whether it was two months, three months, or four months, in his opinion it was not a serious matter. He mentioned cases, and other members of Convocation mentioned cases in which it would be advisable if the two-months rule had been extended. The Archbishop said that really there might be cases in which it is a mere formality that he has to go through, and it is not necessary at all, and there might be many other cases such as the man being abroad. That is the point I wish to submit to the Government, that two months is not a sufficient and reasonable time to make inquiries; but if the Government think that six months is too long, possibly they will meet the case by suggesting a shorter period. Now, the matter is not one upon which I wish to detain the House. The point is whether, instead of compelling the parties, as they may have to do in most cases, to go for an extension of time, the Government will not meet the case by extending the time, and save them the trouble of making such applications. I beg leave to move my Amendment.
    SIR R. B. FINLAY: The extended time of two months has been selected as quite adequate. With regard to the observations which my honourable Friend has made, I have to repeat that he seems to have overlooked the part of the clause in which it provides—
    "within such extended time as under special circumstances the bishop may think fit to allow."
    That will meet every case of possible hardship. I hope the House will agree
    842
    with me that registration under these circumstances should be properly carried out, and I ask my honourable Friend not to press his Amendment.
    MR. D. BRYNMOR JONES: By way of remedying the evils which my honourable Friend apprehends, I should like to call attention to the word "may." The case, I think, that my honourable Friend opposite has in view is the case of some miscarriage of a letter, or accident which might cause some injustice if the clause remains as it is. I should like to see the word "shall" introduced in case of accident or mistake.
    MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member is rather anticipating matters. The present proposal is two months.
    SIR R. B. FINLAY: The words are—
    "as under special circumstances the bishop mar think fit to allow."
    MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I only desired to provide for cases of accident.
    MR. S. EVANS: I hope the Solicitor General will adhere to his original proposal on this matter.
    MR. H. S. FOSTER: Under the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. LEWIS: I beg leave to move—
    "Page 1, line 8, leave out from 'transfer' the following words, 'or within such extended time as under special circumstances the bishop may think fit to allow.'"
    The Solicitor General has said that the transfer should be prompt, and the honourable Gentleman opposite has stated that in the event of the registration not being effected the transfer would be invalid. But, however that may be, it is quite unnecessary to add these words, because two months is a reasonable time, and will cover every possible contingency, and if the words were left in the clause they would only encourage laxity.
    MR. GEDGE: Seeing that the matter will remain in equity in reference to another transfer which may be registered after the time, the parties mil be put to a little expense, and that will be enough to make the transferee careful to get his transfer done as soon as he can, and therefore what the honourable Member who has just sat down anticipates will not result.
    SIR R. B. FINLAY: I hope the honourable Member will not press his Amendment. I agree with him that the registration ought to be looked well after, but there will be only cases of accidental delay. Under these circumstances there would be a little hardship if there were no power of extending. That is the view of the clause as it stands, and I would respectfully ask the House to adhere to that view.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not see how these words will have the effect claimed for them. If it is the transferor, then it is two months after the execution, of the document. It may be that two months will not be sufficient. If it is the transferee, then the document will be in another position, and it is for him to see that the thing is carried through. These are words which might be taken to cover a much wider area, and they cover all sorts of things. They have simply to send an application if they are satisfied that there ought to be an extension. It may be a pure indulgence on his part, and it may be favouritism, and that he is anxious to help some particular individual, some transferor or transferee. But in this Amendment there is an absolute limit to his discretion. In ordinary cases I quite admit the force of the remark of my honourable and learned Friend. It is possible that the solicitor's clerk may put by the document and forget all about it, but in those cases there are regulations at Somerset House covering them especially, and you must prove almost by a declaration that something of the kind has happened. Then there is a certain indulgence given in certain limited cases, but those are specifically enumerated by the Somerset House authorities, where you are told of the cases that are applicable, and you must have your declaration elaborately
    844
    prepared to prove to the authorities that it is not a case of fraud. Now, what provision is there made in the Bill to guard against fraud? There is no regulation made, and it is left entirely to the bishop. A letter may be written by the transferee saying, "I have made a mistake; I wish you to extend the time." That is all that is necessary, and the Chancellor may say, "This is a very hard case, and we might grant an extension." Now, that is absolutely inconsistent with the whole object of the Bill, which is to put an end to the sale of next presentations. The Government have anticipated that there will be every possible attempt made to evade the Act by bringing in all sorts of provisions about two months, six months, and 12 months. Now what is the object of all these terms? Why, to prevent any evasion of the Act. Here you will have the door open for all kinds of subtleties to creep in. Therefore I support my honourable Friend the Member for Flintshire in moving the omission of these words, and if the Government propose to introduce other words they ought to support it upon the authority of an affidavit and declaration which would make a person liable criminally for any false statement he made. It is to prevent any evasion of the Act that you want an Amendment of this kind in this matter. That is really, a very important illustration, and it is a case in point. In the case of a bill of sale you say that you must register within five or seven days. But there you can have no extension of time. That contention is perfectly right, and you cannot go outside of it. They are commercial deeds. A great many of them are bonâ fide, and in a great many cases they are very desirable for commercial purposes; but the law thinks these bills of sale lend themselves to commercial fraud, and therefore they say, "We are going to stamp these commercial transactions which bear the impression of fraud, and in order to do that we lay down a rigorous rule, outside which you cannot travel, that these bills of sale must be registered within so many days." But have they done so? That is very germane to this Bill. You lay down a rule that they must be registered within seven days, so as to prevent the bills of sale being executed after, say, an act of

    845
    bankruptcy. Now, everything depends on the date. The date is vital when you come to inquire whether the transaction is a fraudulent or bonâ-fide one. Is that not an analogous case to the one we are dealing with? It is not an act of bankruptcy, but the death of the holder of the living for the time being, and you have to inquire into the whole transaction. Now, if that is important in the case of a bill of sale, it is a hundred times more important in the case of the sale of a living of this kind. If you are going to prevent fraud you must make a rule, and a rigid one, and you must not allow the discretion of any person, however important or whatever confidence you repose in him, to interfere. I am not suggesting that the bishops should lend themselves to any conspiracy to defeat the Act. I am perfectly willing to believe that they are in favour of this proposal, as it enlarges their powers. But that is not the point, for there are many bishops who might be taken in by the assurances given and the circumstances of the bill of sale under which it is transferred, for it is a bill of sale transaction, under which it may be executed. They might be taken in by a false statement, which they might probably accept, and I do not think the bishops ought to be put into that position. I am sure if you would consult the bishops themselves they would say that they would prefer the Bill as it was originally drafted, and I think the Government themselves must have unforeseen this point. That was the form in which they originally applied the Bill. According to the admissions of the Attorney General which have been discussed in this House, the Government themselves must have contemplated the danger which would arise unless they
    had a rigid rule for one or two months fixed, and in response to the pressure brought to bear upon them by the owners of advowsons the Government have introduced words of this character, which, I venture to say, will make the Bill from that point of view perfectly worthless.
    MR. S. EVANS: There is one point I should like to put. If a bishop refuses to extend the time, can he define what are, or are not, special circumstances? For my part, I hope that the Government will strictly adhere to the words of the Bill.
    SIR R. FINLAY: I do not think it is possible to define what are special circumstances; I think it must be left to the discretion of the bishop. But, if it can be shown that there are special circumstances which would justify the suggested course, the Government may consent to it.
    MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I hope the Government is not going to yield to my honourable Friend's proposal, and that the words will remain. My point is that the words do not sufficiently protect against accidents or mistakes. Instead of leaving the matter to episcopalian discretion, I should like to have some definite words put in saying that if the delay in registration is due to accident it shall be the duty of the bishop to rectify the error. I do not think, approaching the matter from that point of view, that those words are sufficient to meet the possible circumstances of the case.
    The House divided: —Ayes 163; Noes 52—(Division List No. 148.)

    AYES.

    Aird, John

    Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Ambrose, Wm. (Middlesex)

    Bethell, Commander

    Cecil, Lord Hugh

    Arnold, Alfred

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

    Bigwood, James

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

    Bond, Edward

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Baird, John Geo. Alexander

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Cochrane, Hon T. H. A. E.

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r)

    Brassey, Albert

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bris'l)

    Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

    Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

    Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M.W.

    Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

    Hughes, Colonel Edwin

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Johnstone, J. H. (Sussex)

    Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

    Dane, Richard M.

    Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

    Savory, Sir Joseph

    Donkin, Richard Sim

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Kimber, Henry

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Shee, James John

    Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward

    Lafone, Alfred

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Firbank, Joseph Thomas

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a)

    Stock, James Henry

    Flannery, Fortescue

    Loder, Gerald W. E.

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

    Strauss, Arthur

    Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Lowe, Francis William

    Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Uny.)

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Lowles, John

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Gedge, Sydney

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Thorburn, Walter

    Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H. (C. of Lond.)

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Gilliat, John Saunders

    McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

    Ward, Hon. Robt. A. (Crewe)

    Godson, Augustus Frederick

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Warkworth, Lord

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Melville, Beresford V.

    Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

    Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's)

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

    Goschen, Geo. J. (Sussex)

    More, Robert Jasper

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Morrison, Walter

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Mount, William George

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

    Wilson, J. W. (Worc'r, N.)

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Myers, William Henry

    Wodehouse, Edm. R. (Bath)

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W.

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Helder, Augustus

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Wylie, Alexander

    Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

    Yerburgh, Robt. Armstrong

    Hobhouse, Henry

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Houldsworth, Sir W. Henry

    Pryce-Jones, Edward

    Howard, Joseph

    Pym, C. Guy

    Hozier, Hon. J. H. Cecil

    Rankin, James

    NOES

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Allan, William (Gateshead)

    Hedderwick, T. Charles H.

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Allen, W. (Newc.-under-Lyme)

    Holburn, J. G.

    Souttar, Robinson

    Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Spicer, Albert

    Baker, Sir John

    Knox, Edmd. Francis Vesey

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Lloyd-George, David

    Tennant, Harold John

    Billson, Alfred

    Logan, John William

    Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Burt, Thomas

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

    Caldwell, James

    McLaren, Charles Benjamin

    Wallace, Robt. (Edinburgh)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Maddison, Fred.

    Wallace, Robert (Perth)

    Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

    Moss, Samuel

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Colville, John

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)

    Daly, James

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Woodall, William

    Denny, Colonel

    Priestley, Briggs (Yorks)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Doogan, P. C.

    Randell, David

    Duckworth, James

    Rickett, J. Compton

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Lewis and Mr. Samuel Evans.

    Farrell, T. J. (Kerry, S.)

    Roberts, John B. (Eifion)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    After the usual interval,
    MR. H. S. FOSTERmoved—
    "Page 1, line 11, leave out sub-section (b)."
    MR. ALLEN: I beg to call your attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present.
    MR. SPEAKER: I have satisfied myself that there are 40 Members within the precincts of the House.
    MR. H. S. FOSTER: This sub-section provides—
    "It transfers the whole interest of the transferor in the right except as hereinafter provided."
    No especial information has been given for that provision beyond the general statement that, in the first place, there are certain evils which have arisen in connection with the sale of advowsons; and secondly, that those evils are supposed to attach themselves more particularly to the sale of a part interest—namely, the sale of next presentation. If that be so, and if there be any of those evils existing, what I desire to know, and what the House is entitled to ask, is that before steps be taken to abolish what is undoubtedly an existing right, and abolish it by Parliamentary enactment, some clear statement should be made to the House to justify the very strong course which it is proposed to take. I hold that, however strong the case may be, and however expedient it may be to abolish the sale of next presentations, it ought not to be done, seeing that it is a legal property, without fair treatment to the owners of those next presentations, and, at any rate, some cause should be shown if the abolition is to take place, either with or without compensation, beyond the mere statement which has been made. Some honourable Members who have spoken have advocated the abolition altogether of the traffic in reference to advowsons, but that will not be done away with under the Bill. This clause does not propose to abolish the right of sale, or any evils that may attach to that right, and I believe the reason given is that it cannot honestly be done without compensation. At any rate, that would be an intelligible proposal, and it would be a whole-hearted proposal, which, if it provided that justice should be done in this way, would command the support of honourable Members on this side of the House as well as on the other side. For my own part, I should be glad to see
    850
    some proposal brought into the House which would abolish entirely the right to sell a presentation of a fit and proper person for the cure of souls. The proposal is that, if a person does sell, he shall not sell a part of his interest, but shall sell the whole of it. But, before a proposal of that kind is seriously put to the House, I submit some further grounds should be given. We should be told what are the abuses which attach to the sale of a partial interest, and something else than the whole of the life interest of the person selling, or what advantage will be gained by a clause of this kind. The object of one clause of the Bill we shall have to discuss is to ensure the fitness of the presentee. What I wish to ask the Attorney General is, if he is going to reply on behalf of the Government, to tell us how the provision will secure the presentation of a better man to the bishop, or introduce a better man to the living. Unless that is ensured, all that is being done is without any corresponding advantage, or the correction of any abuse. If the result of the introduction of a clause of this kind can be shown to be that we shall have a better class of men presented than those who are presented under the existing powers, then, high-handed as these proceedings may seem, there will be some moral grounds to urge in favour of it. Up to the present time no statement has been made in this House, or in the Committee, to show what were the abuses which this sub-section was designed to remedy. For these reasons, and because I think that, under any circumstances, to take away a right of this kind without just treatment of the persons affected is very unjust, however expedient it may be thought, I object to the section.
    MR. CALDWELL: I think we ought to have some reply from the Attorney General on this question, on the evils that may be said to apply to the sale of next presentations. I ask him, does it apply equally to the case of presentations altogether, and if what applies to one applies equally to the other? Now, as I always understood the policy of

    851
    honourable Members opposite, it is never to interfere with vested interests without giving compensation. That was always the principle of the Tory Party. Now, what are you doing here by this clause? Why, you are undoubtedly interfering with the vested interests of the people, and you are not giving any compensation. The right of a patron is not merely to present now and for ever, but to present at the next presentation. That is his present right, and are you going to take away his right? You are going to say, "We will restrict you from a right which by law you have at the present moment." It is very fair to ask the other side this question—Are you now going to establish a precedent that you are going to interfere with the rights of property? I am opposed to any interference with the rights of property, and when we come to an Amendment of this kind and find them dealing with the right of property, and taking away the right to sell the next presentation, or part of it, we are perfectly entitled to ask the question—Do you propose to do that without compensation? Is there any thing in your Bill to give compensation? No, there is not a word about it. Now observe another absurdity. What is the effect, supposing a man does give a next presentation for a certain sum of money? You propose to say that that sale shall not—
    DR. TANNER: I beg to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that there are not 40 Members present.
    MR. SPEAKER: This is the second time that my attention has been called to the fact since the resumption of the Debate, and I have already satisfied myself that there are 40 Members within the precincts of the House.
    MR. CALDWTELL (resuming): Of course, if a man at the present moment is the owner of a legal contract he still will have the right of presentation. You have not any clause in your Bill to the effect that in the event of him gelling his right—?
    DR. TANNER: Mr. Speaker, I beg to call your attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I have already given my decision on that point.
    DR. TANNER: I beg to call your attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! If the honourable Member persists in interrupting the proceedings of the House I shall have to request him to withdraw.
    DR. TANNER: Oh, yes, you can always do that.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Mr. Caldwell is in possession of the House.
    MR. CALDWELL: I do not think there is anything in the former part of this Bill which will take away his right of presentation, but if he is required to enter into a contract, such contract will be illegal; he can make the presentation in his own name, and if he makes the presentation in his own name I do not find anything in this Bill, or anything in law, that would be contrary to an arrangement of that kind; and therefore there is no way he can get over the difficulty and circumvent it. He might sell the whole thing to the purchaser, and after the presentation is made you have no provision for him reselling it back to the original holder. Everyone knows perfectly well that transactions of that kind are perfectly competent to be made. A man may make the presentation on the suggestion of another, and I do not think you have made any provision for that. There is nothing to prevent him from transferring the whole right, and then in a year or two after, or whatever the time may be, it might be transferred again. It does not seem to me that there is any particular reason why you should strike at next presentations specially, because everything that can be said against the sale of next presentations applies with equal force against the sale of advowsons.
    Question put.
    Mr. H. S. POSTER was appointed a Teller for the Noes, but no Member being

    853
    willing to act as the Second Teller, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it.
    MR. H. S. FOSTER: I move the omission of sub-section "c," and I desire to point out that, beyond that exceedingly short debate upon the Second Reading of this Bill, the House has not had an opportunity, as a whole, of consenting to this proposal. I do think, Sir, it is dud to the House that some reason should be given for the alteration which it is proposed to make in this sub-section. The sub-section proposes that a transfer shall not be valid unless more than twelve months have elapsed since the last institution or admission to a benefice. That may be a very good or a very bad proposal; at any rate, the House is entitled to know upon what ground the Government propose to make this grave alteration in the law. The question is a serious one, for this reason, that, although it is proper for the bishop to prevent what I may call a quasi-corrupt bargain, yet we ought to have something more than a mere statement. But, assuming that the clause is drawn up for the purpose of preventing these so-called corrupt bargains, it may at the same time affect a number of innocent people. From the very nature of the case, from the uncertainty of human life, it must occasionally happen that these vacancies arise through sudden illness, or through the death of an incumbent, apparently in good health and vigour. The result will be under the provision of this clause, in connection with which there is no saving proviso, that, if a vacancy arises by reason of death, or some unexpected or unlooked-for change, a transfer is not to be valid, if that vacancy arises within twelve months since the last institution. No matter how fitting the patron of the living may be to exercise the right of patronage, yet, as this clause stands, an ironbound clause without any exception or saving rights, that man is to be deprived of his rights of exercising patronage. In cases of that kind, what is to happen? The clause proposes that, when the right has been acquired and a vacancy arises, a transfer shall not be valid unless more than twelve months have elapsed since the last institution or admission. To whom is the right to go? Let me take a case that would arise under the Bill.
    854
    "A.B." is the patron of a property. A vacancy arises, he presents to the living, and his presentee is admitted. Within nine months, say, his presentee dies. Upon what ground is it to be said that A.B. has not the right again to present a fit person to that benefice? And to whom is the right of presentation to go? I assume the answer is, to the predecessor in title. But supposing that a transfer has been executed, that "A" has transferred to "B," but that for some reason, namely, the reason given in sub-section "c," "B" cannot register his transfer, and it is, therefore, invalid. Being invalid, I assume it will revert to "A," but if the title does not revert to "A," who, ex hypothesi, has transferred to "B," upon what principle is it to be said that you are likely to get a more fitting person as presentee from "A," who has parted with his interest, than from "B"? It appears to me that a provision of this kind is a dangerous one. The very man whose right you want to preserve under this Bill will be affected by the restrictions you propose, but the unfit patron, the man who at present, ex hypothesi, is guilty of making a corrupt bargain, his conscience will not be in the least degree affected; he will find means of evading the restrictions. It has been said that a carriage and four can be driven through any Act of Parliament ever framed, and the remark applies to these restrictions. They will prove unreal and illusory for the purpose of preventing any real abuse, and will hurt and injure these men who, the Government will admit, are the last men whose rights they desire to restrict. I cannot conceive for what purpose, for the reform of what abuses, and with what possible advantage to the Church, the Government has adopted this private Bill, and I have heard no good reason why this subsection should be inserted. I maintain that harm will come from it and no sort of good; therefore. I move its rejection.
    Question put.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): As this question has been discussed before Committee, it is scarcely necessary to go through it all again. I would remark, however, that the honourable Member

    855
    who has moved the rejection of this subsection, does not quite appreciate its purpose. It says that a transfer shall not be valid unless more than twelve months have elapsed since the last institution to the benefice. The honourable Member asks, "What will become of the rights of the patron in the case of the death of the presentee?" The answer is, if the transfer is invalid, the rights will remain with the person who has effected the transfer. I think this is a really important section of the Bill, and I ask the House to accept it.
    MR. CALDWELL: The Attorney General has admitted the fact that if a transfer is invalid the right will be exercised by the original transfer. Let me show the absurdity of this. The man who is the original patron of the living sells to another man. He sells for, say, £100, and gets the money, but when a vacancy arises within 12 months the seller, who has already pocketed the £100, will be able to present again. Take a case in which a vacancy occurs within 12 months. The patron who has already sold the presentation and pocketed the money will have the right to make the next presentation.
    MR. BRYNMOR JONES: The real question raised by this sub-section is, why should the honour and right of patronage be limited in the way proposed? The Attorney General says the sub-section will be a check upon dangerous simoniacal practices. If that, be the case, and if this sub-section will act as a check upon these practices, I think it ought to remain part of the clause. I have only this qualification to make—and honourable Members on the other side will no doubt think this is a curious remark to come from an occupant of these benches—that the proposal of this section constitutes a very serious interference with the rights of property and with the rights of patronage. You are not bringing under these transactions the very people who, in my judgment, ought first of all to be considered—I mean the congregation and the parishioners.
    Question put.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. H. S. FOSTER: I do not propose to move the next Amendment, but I move the one following—
    "Page 1, line 14, at end, insert 'or such lesser period as under special circumstances the bishop may think fit to allow.'"
    Circumstances might arise in which it might be better for the interests of the parish that the proposed transfer should take place, that perhaps a weak patron should be replaced by a strong patron, that one who had left should be replaced by one who had taken an interest in the neighbourhood, or other circumstances, in which the authorities might be of opinion that, notwithstanding the 12 months had not elapsed, it would be in the interests of the parish to allow a transfer. I hope the Government will not consider this Amendment in any sense hostile to this Bill.
    Question put.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: The honourable Member will see that there is no necessity, public or private, for this Amendment. If there were any real necessity the Government would consider the Amendment, but there is none.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. LEWISmoved—
    "Page 1, line 15, leave out sub-section (2)."
    He said: I have had considerable doubt as to what was the right thing to do in connection with this sub-section; whether, in any circumstances whatever, cue was justified in taking any part in allowing the continuation in the Church of such an open and flagrant scandal as the sale of the cure of souls by public auction.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: Not the cure of souls.
    MR. LEWIS: Well, the sale of advowsons. As a matter of fact the traffic, in my humble judgment, is in itself so bad that it ought to be kept before the public, as it is now, so that public feeling might be allowed to sweep it away altogether. That is a right and just view to take with regard to questions of this kind. At the same time I admit I am open to conviction upon this question,

    857
    and I should like to hear the views of other honourable Gentlemen upon it. We are now going to abolish sale by public auction of the rights of patronage, and in doing that the Government do not propose to carry their proposals to a logical issue. They do not propose to abolish the sale of the rights of patronage by private treaty. If the traffic is so bad that the Government are thoroughly ashamed to lay it bare in public, why in the world should they continue it in private? I do not believe they will ever abolish the advertisements which appear, and which give a certain amount of publicity to the sale of livings. If it is such a shameful traffic that you are obliged to banish it from the open market, why not abolish it altogether by abolishing sale by private treaty?
    Question put.
    MR. BRYNMOR JONES: My difficulty is as to how this is to be enforced. Subsection 2 states—
    "It shall not be lawful to offer for sale by public auction any right of patronage, save in the case of an advowson to be sold in conjunction with any manor or hereditament."
    With regard to the patronage covered by the clause, the word used in other parts of the clause is the word "invalid." I do not understand that if a right of patronage is offered for sale by public auction, and is sold as a result of public auction, that the sale is invalid. It says it is not to be lawful. What is the sanction for this provision? That is the difficulty that I have in regard to this sub-clause. I do not know that I am greatly impressed by the observations made by my honourable Friend. I do not think that there is any such great scandal connected with the transfer of advowsons and rights of patronage, but I cannot help thinking that it is inexpedient that they should be transferred with all the circumstances which usually attend public auctions. It is not the substance of the clause that I object to. My objection is that in this clause I see nothing excepting mere verbiage. According to the provisions of sub-clause 5—
    "If any clergyman is knowingly party or privy to any transfer, presentation, or agreement which is invalid under this section he
    858
    shall be guilty of an offence in respect of which proceedings may be taken under section 2 of the Clergy Discipline Act, 1892."
    The effect, therefore, of taking part in a sale by auction is not to make the transaction invalid, but to make it unlawful. Therefore this sub-section 2 does not come under clause 5, and I cannot discover any sanction for this merely mechanical provision.
    SIR R. FINLAY: I think I can satisfy my honourable and learned Friend as to this clause. If any act is forbidden by Act of Parliament, then, if you commit that act it is unlawful, and people who offer for sale by public auction any right of patronage are liable to indictment, and people who enter into any contract for a sale by auction are also liable to indictment, inasmuch as that is in pursuance of an unlawful act.
    MR. MOSS: In making my first speech in this House upon a Bill of this character I had much rather that we had before us a Bill further reaching, and one which went deeper into the matter than the Bill which is now before us. I would much rather that we should look upon a citizen—upon a member of the community—merely from the view of citizenship rather than that we should regard him from any religious standpoint whatever. While there remains a connection between the Church and the State I think no apology is due from me in interposing very shortly upon this subject. The Bill proposes, as I take it, to stop the sale by public auction of the right of patronage. Why does the Bill propose to stop the sale of rights of patronage by a public auction? Is it because the sale is wrong, or is it because it is only wrong when there is a sale in public? It seems to me that if the principle of the Bill goes to the fact of the sale of advowsons being wrong at all, it ought to provide for prohibiting the sale of advowsons altogether. You may, if you like, permit private sales, but so long as you have this Bill condemning the thing as wrong in principle it seems to me that it is falling short of the remedy which is demanded by the most ardent reformers in your Church when you

    859
    allow the sale by private treaty to continue. It seems to me, as has already been said by the honourable Member for Glamorganshire, that you are really allowing a sort of perpetuation of a whited sepulchre. You are perpetuating what is absolutely wrong in principle, and you are establishing by this Bill that which every ardent reformer of the Church, as I understand it, condemns.
    MR. VICARY GIBBS: May I be permitted to say one word upon this whited sepulchre argument? I observe that that argument has come out again. Of course, it looks very effective at first to honourable Members, but when they use it they overlook the fact that when a man sells a thing by public auction he sells it to the highest bidder, however unfit that man may be to exercise the rights of patronage. When, however, he sells it by private contract, it may, I think, in charity, be assumed that he takes the trouble to see that the man is a fit and proper person to exercise patronage, and in my opinion there is a very broad distinction between the two; and when honourable Members allege that in supporting this Bill we are recognising what they call the sale of the cure of souls—really the sale of advowsons—they should remember that if they stop the sale of advowsons altogether the inevitable result would be that they would drift sooner or later into the hands of men who could not dispose of them, and who would not be able to part with them to a man who would be more fit to exercise that patronage. They also assume—very unfairly—that every time a man sells a right of patronage he does something of which he ought to be ashamed. Let us take the case of a man who has been in a place a long time, and has exercised his patronage worthily. Circumstances change, and he leaves the country—he sells his property. That man is going to cease to have any connection with the place at all. He wishes to sell the place, the advowson, and everything belonging to it, and to go to America and to Australia. Why should not he be allowed to dispose of that property, provided that he recognises that he has got to see that the next holder
    860
    of the advowson is a proper person to administer it? I would ask honourable Members to consider the matter, and approach it from the point of view which I have ventured to suggest.
    MR. ALLEN: The honourable Member for St. Albans has tried to draw a distinction between public and private sales, and he has tried to make us believe that members of the Church of England holding advowsons are so careful in selling to those who would buy them, that there would not be any danger of their getting into unfit hands in the future; but the very fact of people owning these advowsons, and putting them up to public auction, shows clearly that there are those who wish to get hold of the next right of presentation. The only care of those wishing to sell is to get as much money as they can into their own pockets, and it is to guard against this selling of advowsons—to guard against the advowsons of the Church of England being sold for money, and to ensure men being put into the various churches throughout the country who go there, not simply because they have money to buy the livings, but because of their love for the work—that my honourable Friend has moved this Amendment; and everyone who votes against this Amendment is voting for the sale of livings, he is voting for men being put into the churches of this country who have got the longest purses; and we on this side, who are opposing that state of things, are voting for purity in the Church and for the best interests of the Church of England itself.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The honourable Member who spoke last on the other side, as my honourable Friend has already pointed out, did endeavour to distinguish between public auction and private treaty, but I will put to him, one point which I think he will approve of, if he has any acquaintance with the conditions of sale generally attached to public auctions, and I have not the least doubt but what he has seen such things. In a sale by public auction the property goes to the highest bidder, but the honourable Member must know that the very first condition—at any rate, it is so in every condition of sale that I have ever seen—is

    861
    that the highest bidder shall not be the purchaser. Surely that can apply to an advowson, and, if so, the point of the honourable Member is absolutely wrong. His sole point was that the highest bidder is the purchaser in the case of a public auction. That is not the case; in the case of the sale of any property, the vendor has the right to decline to accept the bid of anyone, although he may be the highest bidder for the time being and in the case of a sale of an advowson by public auction, it is perfectly competent for the auctioneer to institute inquiries as to who the person was who had made the bid, and as to his fitness to be patron of any living. I do not think the honourable Member gets rid of the difficulty by substituting private treaty for public auction. My honourable Friend has pointed out at the present time that you have the sale of advowsons now carried on by means of an advertisement inserted in the Church papers. I ask the honourable Member what will happen in a case of that kind? You insert your advertisement, you invite tenders, you give all the circumstances, you give the particulars. At the end of the advertisement you say: "For further particulars apply to Mr. So-and-so, Solicitor, or Commission Agent," as the case may be. The particulars are applied for. There may be a dozen people who are anxious to purchase an advowson, and who send in tenders. We contend that in a case of that kind there will be the same dangers as exist in the case of a public auction. Supposing one man offers £1,500, another offers £2,000. Is not there the same inducement to the commission agent to accept the £2,000 offer as there would be to the auctioneer in a public auction? The fact of the matter is this: that in the case of public auction you are in a much better position to judge of your patron. What happens in the case of a private treaty? You are dealing with a man you never saw. You have simply got letters from your agent, or somebody else, saying, "I have got a client, and I am prepared to offer £2,000 for the advowson." You are dealing with a man whom you do not know, and whom you have never seen. You may institute inquiries about him, but it is a case simply of an agent acting
    862
    for an unseen person. At a public auction the person is present, you see whom you are dealing with, and you are in a much better position in that respect.
    MR. VICAR Y GIBBS: Not necessarily.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: If not, why not? In what better position are you in the case of a private treaty than if you are dealing with an agent in the case of a public auction? All that solicitors and agents are concerned for is to get the price, and as long as the money is good sound money that is all they care about. They are bound to do the best they can for their clients, and consequently they will accept the highest offer. That is what happens in the majority of cases with regard to the sale of these advowsons by private treaty, and not by public auction. But then, the honourable Member says if you do away with this subsection altogether, you cannot transfer an advowson. As I understand his argument, it is this: Supposing a man owns an advowson which he has in connection with an estate. He leaves the country; he goes to Australia, or America, or elsewhere, and if you cut this section out the honourable Member says he can never part with this advowson. A man who is in Australia, or who is going to Australia, wishes to part with every interest he has got in the community, and my honourable Friend says, cut this section out, and he cannot sell his advowson. Surely the honourable Member cannot have read this Bill, or he would not have come to this conclusion. The Bill says—"It shall not be lawful to offer for sale." That is not parting with his interest. Of course, he could not advertise the sale of his advowson, but there is nothing to prevent him from transferring it in connection with the estate.
    MR. VICARY GIBBS: I said so.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Very well, then what becomes of the argument of the honourable Member?
    MR. VICARY GIBBS: The honourable Member is saying things which are nonsensical, because he is stating as my argument that which I did not say.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am trying to state the argument of the honourable Member, and I said that it was subject to correction. Calling my argument nonsense is not a correction, nor is it a courteous interruption. However, perhaps it is worthy of those whose support is given to this Bill.
    MR. VICARY GIBBS: I beg the honourable Member's pardon.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will accept that. However, I still say that I am unable to apprehend his argument; but, if what I have stated is his argument, there is nothing in the point at all, because if you cut this sub-section out there is nothing to prevent the parting with an advowson. All you do is to prevent the scandal of these things being advertised, and I say that that is as great a scandal as a public auction. Take the case mentioned by the Archbishop of Canterbury when he introduced the Bill into the House of Lords. That was not a case of public auction, but of private letters by commission agents, in answer to private inquiries which were instituted. Not one of these cases will the Bill deal with at all, and it is on those grounds that I support the Amendment of my honourable Friend, because this Bill does not touch those scandals of which we have heard so much.
    COLONEL MILWARD: Honourable Members opposite are very anxious to make it clear that we who are against the Amendment are arguing in favour of the retention of the sale of livings in England. I do not suppose that any person on this side of the House is, in the abstract, in favour of the sale of livings or of the cure of souls; but on the other hand they are amongst the things which have been handed down to us from our forefathers, and we have to consider other questions besides the mere abstract question, and the most important consideration is that of the unfortunate persons who are the owners of the property. It is not as if we were only considering the case of large estates, or heads of colleges or of the Crown itself. We have, in addition to these, to consider the cases of a great
    864
    many private individuals, whose fathers, perhaps, 40 or 50 years ago bought for them the advowsons of livings which are, perhaps, now the only property they possess. Personally, I should be only too glad to abolish the sale of livings altogether, but when you consider the question of abolishing the sale of livings there comes in the question of compensation, and then the question arises where is the compensation to come from? That is the practical point at issue under this Bill. This Bill is not all we could wish, but it goes a long way. At any rate, we have restricted the sale of livings to this extent, that they cannot be sold by public auction, and they cannot be given away for a certain number of months after the sale has taken place, and that you cannot sell a next presentation; and this, we believe, is to go as far as a Bill can at present go in a spirit of reform. If it were possible, we should be only too thankful if it could be made to go further, but the fact of the matter is that private rights and private interests must be regarded, and it is simply impossible to go at this moment further than this Bill goes. We are already dealing heavily with property in advowsons, and I for one am certainly not prepared to go further than that. I venture to appeal to honourable Members opposite not perpetually to throw across the floor of the House the insinuation that if we do so-and-so we are voting in favour of perpetuating certain abuses. It may as well be said that because we voted against, say, the Motion brought forward by the honourable Member for Flint, saying that the question of ritual is altogether outside the scope of this Bill that we approve of the extravagant ritual which takes place in certain churches. I believe the fact to be exactly the opposite. Members on this side of the House tell me privately that they would only be too glad if the question of the sale of livings and other questions could be dealt with, but in this Bill we are going as far as we can, and we hope by this Bill to stop those scandals which are taking place. At present we are not prepared to entirely do away with those rights of private property in advowsons which have grown up with our

    865
    ancestors and which we are powerless to touch.
    MK. McLAREN: I think that the speech of the honourable and gallant Gentleman admirably justified the Amendment of my honourable Friend. We are accustomed in this House to hear the rights of private property spoken of as something altogether sacred, but I must say that I never heard before a more unblushing statement of the principle that in a matter so sacred as the sale of a cure of souls the rights of property are to be considered more sacred still. The honourable and gallant Member admitted the argument which we used on this side of the House, that this sale of advowsons is a wrong and a scandalous practice, and yet he says that he feels unable to do away with it altogether because the rights of property are paramount. We say that either the sale of livings is right or it is wrong. If it is right, why do you touch it by this clause? If it is wrong, why do not you do away with it altogether? Why do you put in this sub-section, which practically, by making legal a certain form of sale, justifies and gives the sanction of this House to every other form of traffic in livings whether publicly or privately. There seems to be some magic in the minds of the promoters of the Bill which attaches to the words "sale by public auction." As my honourable Friend the Member for Carnarvon points out, the mode of sale is of no importance at all. You can advertise the sale of livings, you can say that on such and such a day the vendor will at tend at a certain hotel, and there he will discuss the price with any purchaser who likes to offer himself by the operation of private tender. You now effect the same tiling as you would if the auctioneer mounted the rostrum and offered the advowson under his hammer. I do feel, Sir, that this clause justifies the criticisms that have been passed upon this Bill—that it is not a sincere attempt to deal with what is called a scandal. It is a miserable attempt to gloss over certain facts which are unpleasant to the laity as well as to the clergy of the Church of England, but I deny that it is an attempt—an honest
    866
    attempt—to do away and abolish altogether the admitted evil. I suppose that among the constituents that many of us represent on this side of the House there are many who regard a race-horse or a horse-race as as great an evil as some honourable Members regard the sale of advowsons. There are plenty of people who would consider it wrong to allow any dealings in a horse that is intended to run a race. I know that it seems absurd, but there are thousands of people who take that view. But what would they say if we should bring forward a Bill and say that although the sale of a racehorse privately is allowable, it shall be an indictable offence to send a racehorse to Tattersall's to be sold? That seems to me to be exactly the same state of things as will exist under this Bill. You profess by this Bill to put a stop to the free exercise of the sale of advowsons, and yet you put in a clause, the effect of which is not to interfere with it excepting in one of its most remote incidents. The learned Solicitor General in his speech said that this clause will make the sale of advowsons by public auction an indictable offence, that everybody concerned in the sale will be liable to prosecution at quarter sessions—but it is a very dangerous distinction to draw, because the person attending any sale which may be held to be a sale by public auction—the landlord in whose house it was held—the lawyer who attended it on behalf of his client—all might be chargeable under this section, if the judge of assize or the chairman of quarter sessions held that an offence had been committed. I think that we ought really to take a division upon this Amendment for the purpose of showing who of the Members of this House are in favour of the sale of advowsons and who are honestly in favour of doing away with them altogether.
    MR. LOGAN: The honourable Member has said that those who vote against this Amendment would be voting in favour of the principle of the sale of advowsons. As I understand the Amendment, it is to leave out the words—
    "It shall not be lawful to offer for sale by public auction any right of patronage, save in the case of an advowson to be sold in con junction with any manor or hereditament."

    867
    It is admitted on all hands that it is desirable to do away with the sale of patronage if possible, and this proposal under the Bill at any rate is a step in the right direction. I regret very much that the Government have not seen their way to put an end to the sale of advowsons by private treaty, as well as by public auctions, but if I vote against this Amendment as I intend to do, it must not be understood that I am in favour of the sale of these livings at all. I wish personally that the Government had gone further, but as they have gone one step in the direction in which I desire them to go—as they have gone one step in showing that the sale of these advowsons is not right, I feel bound to support them, and I also feel bound to enter my protest against the statement made by the honourable Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, that in voting against this Amendment I shall be voting in favour of the sale of patronage.
    MR. WALLACE: I am going to vote for the Amendment, because, after listening to the speeches, it seems to me that this clause is really a piece of surplusage, because from the distinction drawn by the honourable Member for St. Albans, it seems to me that it will be of no good whatever. He drew a clear distinction between the sale by public auction and the sale by private treaty, and I drew from his distinction the conclusion that persons who put up advowsons for sale by public auction are a very much less conscientious class of people than those who enter into private negotiations for the disposal of that species of private property. The honourable Member thinks that a sale by public auction implies almost necessarily that the person selling it was only anxious to get the highest possible price and that he would give it to the highest bidder without inquiring into his character or his reliability for the exercise of the rights which he has purchased. Well, Sir, supposing that public auction were abolished, would that alter the character of the person who wanted to sell by public auction?—because it is there that the pinch of the question arises. I admit that there are patrons who really endeavour conscientiously to discharge a duty under very difficult circumstances
    868
    —to sell by public auction according to the principles laid down by the honourable Member opposite. But I want to know what effect will the abolition of sale by public auction make upon the character of those who are engaged upon such a sale, or who if they had the opportunity would engage in such a sale. That seems to me to be the true position of the matter, and, therefore, to abolish sale by public auction is really no tribute whatever to the faithful discharge of the duties of the patron, and I am driven back to the conclusion that by the abolition of sale by public auction you will do no good whatever between the faithful and the unfaithful exercise of the right of patronage. The man who would have sold by public auction will just be the same class of man in point of moral character, although they are compelled by your legislation to enter into a private bargain, and in the case of their being driven by your legislation to private treaty, they will act in precisely the same manner as they would have done had public auction been open to them. They will strive to get the very highest price possible, irrespective of the character or the trustworthiness of the person to whom they sell. I am one of those persons who do not want to waste my time in doing nonsensical things. I do not want to waste my time by helping to pass a clause like this. It is useless—it is worse than useless, because it is a pretence held up before the public as an endeavour to whitewash that which in itself possesses no colour at all, because it is black.
    MR. PHILLIPS: The honourable Member opposite, and my honourable Friend the Member for Leicester on my left, have said that they intend to vote in favour of this clause, because it is a step in the right direction. If I thought that this clause was a step in the right direction I should vote for it myself, but it seems to me, as far as I understand this Bill, that the whole Bill is based on the theory that a sale of Church preferment is wrong in itself, and, that being so, we, on this side of the House, are prepared to go the whole way, whilst right honourable Gentlemen and honourable Gentlemen on the other side of the House are not

    869
    prepared to go the whole way. Now, Sir, for these reasons, if the Bill did away with one sale of one living, it would, to that extent, be a step in the right direction, and I should not be prepared to vote against it. But this clause, if passed, would not do away with one single sale. If you abolish sales in one county—in Middlesex, or Wiltshire, or any other county you like, pro tanto—you will be doing good; you will be ending, in that county, the sale of ecclesiastical preferment, and you will be taking a step in the right direction; but by this Bill you do not end one sale—you do not prevent the sale of one living, and, therefore, you do not take one step, however small, in the right direction, or, indeed, in any direction at all. You do one thing, and one thing only—you hide the knowledge of the evil. We all admit that these sales of rights of patronage are an evil, and what honourable Gentle-
    men opposite are doing by this clause is this, that while they are not taking the smallest step to lessen the number of evils, they are taking a step to hide up the evil.
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I wish to say that this is an Amendment that I shall support, because the clause seems to me to be very contradictory. If you read the second part first, it contradicts the first part, and if you read the first part it contradicts the second. I regard the sub-section as a piece of hypocrisy. It will allow the doing of that in secrecy which could not be prudently done openly.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 192; Noes 69.—(Division List No. 149.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Arnold, Alfred

    Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Helder, Augustus

    Baird, John G. Alexander

    Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

    Hobhouse, Henry

    Balcarres, Lord

    Dane, Richard M.

    Houldsworth, Sir W. Henry

    Balfour. Rt. Hn. A. J.(Munch.)

    Denny, Colonel

    Howard, Joseph

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Donkin, Richard Sim

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Doughty, George

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)

    Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

    Drage, Geoffrey

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r)

    Johnstone, J. H. (Sussex)

    Bethell, Commander

    Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

    Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

    Bigwood, James

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Bill, Charles

    FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

    Kemp, George

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Flannery, Fortescue

    Kimber, Henry

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Folkestone, Viscount

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Brassey, Albert

    Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

    Lafone, Alfred

    Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Fry, Lewis

    Lawrence, Sir E Durning- (Corn.)

    Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

    Garfit, William

    Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Butcher, John George

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

    Gilliat, John Saunders

    Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh

    Godson, Augustus Frederick

    Loder, Gerald W. Erskine

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Logan, John William

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

    Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool)

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's)

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Lowe, Francis William

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Lowles, John

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Colomb, Sir John C. Ready

    Greene, W. Raymond- (Camb)

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Maclure, Sir John William

    MacNeill, J. Gordon Swift

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Thorburn, Walter

    McArthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Tomlinson, W. Edw. Murray

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

    Wallace, Robert (Perth)

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Ward, Hon. Robt. A. (Crewe)

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Round, James

    Warkworth, Lord

    More, Robert Jasper

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

    Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelt'm)

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Whiteley, Geo. (Stockport)

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Morrison, Walter

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Savory, Sir Joseph

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Mount, William George

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Murdoch, Charles Townshend

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Wilson, J. W. (Worc'r, N.)

    Myers, William Henry

    Sidebottom, W. (Derbysh.)

    Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks)

    Newark, Viscount

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks)

    Wylie, Alexander

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Souttar, Robinson

    Yerburgh, R. Armstrong

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

    Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Stock, James Henry

    Younger, William

    Pryce-Jones, Edward

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Pym, C. Guy

    Strauss, Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Rankin, James

    Talbot, Rt Hn. J.G. (Oxf'd Uny.)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Holburn, J. G.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Allen, W. (Newc. -under-Lyme)

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Austin, Sir J. (Yorkshire)

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Shee, James John

    Bainbridge, Emerson

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Baker, Sir John

    Kinloch, Sir J. George Smyth

    Spicer, Albert

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Kitson, Sir James

    Steadman, William Charles

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Knox, Edmund Francis Vesey

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Lambert, George

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Billson, Alfred

    Leng, Sir John

    Tennant, Harold John

    Brigg, John

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Burt, Thomas

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)

    Caldwell, James

    McLaren, Charles Benjamin

    Cawley, Frederick

    Maddison, Fred.

    Wallace, R. (Edinburgh)

    Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

    Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Moss, Samuel

    Williams, John C. (Notts)

    Colville, John

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Crilly, Daniel

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

    Daly, James

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Woodall, William

    Doogan, P. C.

    Priestley, Briggs (Yorks)

    Woods, Samuel

    Duckworth, James

    Randell, David

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Evershed, Sydney

    Roberts, John B. (Eifion)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Lloyd-George and Mr. Philipps.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Hazell, Walter

    Roche, Hon. J. (East Kerry)

    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE,in moving, on behalf of Mr. Lewis, the insertion of the words to provide that "any agreement for the resignation of a benefice in favour of any person" shall be invalid, said that at the present time the law allowed a person to enter into a living for a certain period upon his signing an agree-
    872
    ment. The Bill as it at present stood proposed to abolish any agreement for the nomination of any particular person. So far as it went the Bill was no doubt good, but in his opinion it wanted strengthening in one particular. These agreements, entered into for the purpose of compelling the resignation of a person

    873
    appointed to a benefice, were simply for the purpose of enabling a person under age at the time of the nomination to step into that position when the time arrived. It might be that the person intended for the living was a relative of the patron of that living, and that that living was secured to him without any qualification. He might not possess the spiritual or moral qualifications for the cure of souls, and yet it might be part of the family arrangement that he should be appointed to the living when the time came. He might not be ready at the time the living became vacant, in which case another person was put in as a sort of warming-pan, and had to resign when the time arrived for the other person to take his place. He thought such things ought not to be allowed. A person should be appointed to a living on the ground of fitness, and if he was fit for a period of six months he was equally fit for six years. Yet a person who was qualified for the living was inducted upon the understanding that he should resign in a few months in favour of a person who might, or might not, be fit for the position.
    SIR R. B. FINLAYsaid it had been decided by the House of Lords that resignation agreements were invalid—that it was contrary to the common law of the country for a clergyman to give a bond to resign his living, either generally or in favour of any particular person. In 1828 a law was passed rendering it valid for a clergyman appointed to a living to give a bond to resign at a certain time, but that Statute was rather repugnant to their ideas of justice, and he, on behalf of the Government, was prepared to accept the Amendment, which, in effect, repealed the old law of 1828.
    The Amendment was agreed to.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEmoved that at the end of the sub-section should be added—
    "Before the declaration set forth in the schedule to this Act is taken, sections 1 and 2 of the Clergy Resignation Bonds Act and section 1, sub-section 3, of this Act shall be read to the person making the declaration."
    SIR R. B. FINLAY,in opposing the Amendment, said he hoped that the House would not accept it, as it was quite unnecessary to insert words of that kind—that, if these matters were to be dealt with at all, they had better be dealt with by rule. The honourable Member could not suppose that the law would be made any clearer to the clergy by this Amendment. If the sections referred to were to be read by anybody, it had better be the person making the declaration.
    MR. LEWIS,in supporting the Amendment, said that the Solicitor General had pointed out that, if this matter were dealt with at all, it should be dealt with by rule. He would suggest to the Government that if they made rules to govern this matter the Amendment might be withdrawn.
    MR. S. EVANSpointed out that the Amendment could hardly be considered a good one, because it had been brought clearly to his mind that if a clergyman made a false declaration he was liable to punishment as for perjury.
    Question put—
    "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided:—Ayes 82; Noes 202.—(Division List No. 150.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Burt, Thomas

    Doogan, P. C.

    Allen, W. (Newc. -under-Lyme)

    Caldwell, James

    Duckworth, James

    Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Evershed, Sydney

    Bainbridge, Emerson

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

    Baker, Sir John

    Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Hazell, Walter

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Colville, John

    Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

    Billson, Alfred

    Crilly, Daniel

    Holburn, J. G.

    Brigg, John

    Daly, James

    Holden, Sir Angus

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Owen, Thomas

    Tanner, Charles Kearns

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Kinloch, Sir J. G. Smyth

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

    Kitson, Sir James

    Randell, David

    Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

    Knox, Edmund Francis V.

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Wallace, Robert (Perth)

    Labouchere, Henry

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Lambert, George

    Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs)

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    Williams, John C. (Notts)

    Leng, Sir John

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Lloyd-George, David

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

    Logan, John William

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Woodall, William

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

    Woods, Samuel

    McArthur, W. (Cornwall)

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    McLaren, Charles Benjamin

    Souttar, Robinson

    Maddison, Fred

    Spicer, Albert

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Herbert Lewis and Mr. Moss.

    Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

    Steadman, William Charles

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Strachey, Edward

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Sullivan Donal (Westmeath)

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Dalbiac, Col. Philip Hugh

    Howell, William Tudor

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Dane, Richard M.

    Hozier, Hon. James H. C.

    Arnold, Alfred

    Denny, Colonel

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

    Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Doughty, George

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Baird, John George A.

    Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Balcarres, Lord

    Drage, Geoffrey

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r)

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Johnstone, J. H. (Sussex)

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

    Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

    Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r)

    Kemp, George

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Fisher, William Hayes

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)

    FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

    Lafone, Alfred

    Beresford Lord Charles

    FitzWygram, General Sir F.

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Bethell, Commander

    Flannery, Fortescue

    Lawrence Sir E Durning- (Corn.)

    Bigwood, James

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

    Bill, Charles

    Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

    Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Lees, Sir E. (Birkenhead)

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Fry, Lewis

    Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Garfit, William

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Brassey, Albert

    Gedge, Sydney

    Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. Sit. John

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Loder, G. W. Erskine

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Gilliat, John Saunders

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

    Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

    Godson, Augustus Frederick

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Butcher, John George

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

    Lowe, Francis William

    Carlile, William Walter

    Goschen, Rt Hn. G. J. (St. G'rg's)

    Lowles, John

    Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Cecil, Lord Hugh

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs)

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

    Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

    Greville, Captain

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Melville, Beresford Valentine

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.

    Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Colston, C. E. H. Athole

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Milner, Sir Frederick G.

    Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Hardy, Laurence

    Milward, Colonel Victor

    Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

    Hatch, Ernest F. G.

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

    Helder, Augustus

    Monk, Charles James

    Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

    Hermon-Hodge, R. T.

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hobhouse, Henry

    More, Robert Jasper

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Houldsworth, Sir W. H

    Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

    876

    877

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Round, James

    Warkworth, Lord

    Mount, William George

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Murdoch, Charles Townshend

    Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelt'm)

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Myers, William Henry

    Savory, Sir Joseph

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Newark, Viscount

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

    Wilson, J. W. (Worc'rsh., N.)

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Sidebottom, W. (Derbysh.)

    Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks)

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

    Pryce-Jones, Edward

    Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks)

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

    Wylie, Alexander

    Rankin, James

    Stock, James Henry

    Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Strauss, Arthur

    Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Younger, William

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Thorburn, Walter

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Thornton, Percy M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Amendment proposed—
    "Page 2, line 18, after 'passes' insert 'or a transfer to trustees of rights of patronage when there is no power of sale.'"
    MR. H. S. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, the Amendment which I now desire to bring forward is one which the Solicitor General stated to the Committee the Government would be glad to consider between the Committee and Report stage. The object of it must, I am sure, commend itself to every Member of the House. It is to except from the definition of the term "transfer," within the meaning of the Bill, not only the appointment of a trustee, where no beneficial interest passes, but also the transfer to trustees of rights of patronage, when there is no power of sale. The object of the exception is to protect such bodies as the Church Patronage Trustees, and other similar bodies, who acquire rights of patronage, but who have no powers of sale, and who, having no powers of sale, cannot be under any of the disabilities which the provisions of the Act are designed to check. The object of these restrictions is to prevent improper and corrupt bargains. Where such bodies as the Patronage Trustees, having no powers of sale, acquire rights of patronage, there can be no possible public object in requiring them to be put under the restriction as to dealing and trafficking. The Committee showed a very strong disposition to insert the proviso, and the Solicitor General stated
    878
    that between the Committee stage and the Report stage it should be considered.
    SIR H. B. FINLAY: I hope my honourable Friend will not press this Amendment. He proposes to except the transfers to trustees when there is no power of sale from the operation of this section. What object is there in authorising such trustees as my honourable Friend has in view to purchase the next presentation? As a matter of fact, they will never want to purchase the next presentation. If they want to buy at all they will buy the whole advowson, and my honourable Friend will see, I am sure, that it will be very undesirable to authorise the sale of next presentation to such trustees. The only possible provision excepted is the provision as to 12 months since the institution by the bishop to the benefice. I do not think that a provision which can be taken to have any serious consequences, but I do suggest to my honourable Friend not to press this Amendment, for this reason; I am not at all sure that, as it is framed, it provides for the bodies my honourable Friend has chiefly in view. In a good many cases the trustees who buy these advowsons must have power to sell, because they might be desirous of getting rid of one advowson in order to obtain another where there might be more necessity for the appointment of a fitting man to the living. I would suggest to my honourable Friend that, having regard to the

    879
    extremely limited effect of the Amendment, and to the question whether it would not introduce a most invidious distinction between certain classes of trustees and other trustees, he should hot press this Amendment.
    MR. S. EVANS: Is it not the fact that the whole of the first clause of this Bill would be defeated if this Amendment were carried? All the transferor of a right to next presentation would have to do would be to transfer the right to next presentation to trustees, taking care to provide in the instrument of transfer that the trustees shall have no power to sell. Thereupon, the section would not operate at all. That would defeat the whole object of the section. I would urge, therefore, that the Amendment should not be sanctioned.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE,in moving to omit the last words of the clause—"or in a mortgage the reservation of the right of redemption"—said he objected to the words because they contemplated the principle of mortgaging an advowson. He objected to them because all the way through he had a very great objection to anything in the nature of a traffic in presentations, and their being used for money-lending purposes. To mortgage, particularly, a spiritual work, for the benefit of some impecunious squire, or somebody who happens to be financially in a bad way, ought not to be allowed. The person presented might be more or less competent, but it gave an opportunity for a person to enter into the vocation of a clergyman by a wrong method. First of all, a property was created in a right of presentation to a living, in a man financially bad. He goes to the Jew money-lender—it was the case before the Money-lending Commission over again—and it was mortgaged to a Jew moneylender for the purpose of this impecunious person. It was the worst form of trafficking imaginable. Persons, as a rule, would go to a money-lender to mortgage an advowson, or they might go to a financial corporation or bank. Fancy a board of directors having to consider such a question as who should be the clergyman for a particular living which had fallen into their hands. He thought it would
    880
    be most advisable if the Government would accept the Amendment. He did not know what the usual practice was as to the valuation of property for the purposes of mortgaging it, but he doubted very much whether it was of a form which would commend itself to the House of Commons. They might find the right to a presentation to a benefice put upon the same footing as sporting rights, and a valuer might be sent down to value it in the same way as the sporting and other rights appertaining to the estate. Then, again, if it was mortgaged, it would be to someone who had no interest in the community beyond the interest upon his money, and he would make the most of it. He moved the Amendment, in the first place, because he did not think the mortgage of a living ought to be permitted, and he urged the Government to accept it, and by that means prohibit absolutely the power of mortgage; and, in the second place, because he thought that the exercise of a right of this kind, in the hands of a clever solicitor, might lead to an evasion of the provisions of the Bill, for there was nothing at present to prevent a transfer in the shape of a mortgage. The Attorney General was of opinion that the Amendment would not have the effect and attain the object that its proposer had at heart, and the suggestion that to leave out those words would prevent the traffic that existed was a mistake. There were oases where the owners were the incumbents, and borrowed money for the purposes of repairing the parsonage house and other buildings connected with the church, and the words of this clause were absolutely necessary to preserve existing rights.
    MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid he was not quite sure that the Attorney General was right in his suggestion that there was no meaning at all in the Amendment. Surely, if it were read in connection with sub-clause 7, it would be seen that the words were most important. If, however, a right to sell advowsons were going to be conceded, he did not see how the right to mortgage them was going to be withheld. The argument he adopted was that the system of lay patronage had not worked badly upon the whole.

    881
    He admitted there were scandals, but if it were looked at from all sides there was something to be said in its favour, having regard to the fact that it was exercised by all sorts and conditions of people.
    MR. ROBSONpointed out that the Attorney General had not said a word in defence of the mortgage of advowsons. All he did say was that they were indefensible. He thought the instances of the mortgage of an advowson mentioned by the right honourable Gentleman must be very rare, so much so that they were almost inconceivable. He did not see any great utility in preserving a right which was in itself indefensible, such as this was. The only question, so far as he was concerned, was whether it would not be advisable to evolve some scheme by which could be promoted the borrowing of money upon advowsons. Whatever scandal there had been in the sale of next presentations, there was no less in the sale of advowsons. He did not think that they should be a subject for traffic, and should therefore support the Amendment.
    MR. GEDGE: I am inclined to think, after the speeches we have listened to, that "there are more things betwixt heaven and earth than are dreamt of in the philosophy" of the honourable and learned Member for South Shields. Had he practised upon the equity side of the courts, instead of upon the common law side, he would know that an express proviso for redemption is not essential to mortgage. The court on being satisfied of the real nature of the transaction, of which slight evidence is sufficient, will give effect to the intention of the parties, and allow redemption. But it is better to insert a proviso, stating the exact terms of redemption, than to leave it to the court to determine them; and if the honourable Member, instead of being a distinguished Queen's counsel, were a solicitor, he would have known that these mortgages, instead of being inconceivable, are of common occurrence, especially where the incumbent is himself the patron. It is the commonest thing in the world for the incumbent under those circumstances to borrow money for the purpose of repairing the chancel, or the
    882
    rectory house or for the purpose of building a new one. I can assure the honourable and learned Gentleman that the Amendment before the House will not stop the mortgaging of an advowson.
    MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Clause 1, subsection (b) says that it transfers the whole interest of the transferor in the right excepting as provided for hereafter; so that if there was any reservation that was not expressly permitted, that would make the entire transfer invalid. The transferor must transfer the whole interest. That, I think, meets the point raised by the honourable Member for Walsall, who seems to suggest that the word we now object to would still enable a mortgage to be made only by the method of reserving the right of redemption in another document, or reserving it verbally. That is not so, and therefore the declaration in the schedule to this Bill makes the transferor say that he is not aware of any breach of the law, or any breach of this Act, which would be an effectual stoppage in the case of an honest man at any rate, and we trust that the clergy will be honest enough not to make a declaration which was not true. It seems to me, therefore, that the objections raised by the other side against this Amendment are totally unsound.
    MR. S. EVANS: I think it would be very undesirable if the arguments were to become purely legal because there is really a very broad argument underlying the Amendment of my honourable Friend. We have taken the position both in Standing Committee and in the House, that clause 1, so far from being limited at all, ought to be extended in its operation. We desire to prevent the sale of certain rights, namely the rights of next presentation. We desire to extend the clause still further, and say that you are not to transfer them by way of mortgage. Now, it is perfectly obvious that if the right of redemption is permitted to exist, there would never be a mortgage of these advowsons at all.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: The mortgage would be within the words of the clause a transfer of rights. There can be no mortgage of next presentation.
    MR. S. EVANS: The clause, as I understand, and the Bill as I understand, is not a Bill dealing with advowsons at all. It deals with the transfer of next presentations, and although you prevent the sale of right of next presentation, you allow the mortgage to be executed to the reservation of right of redemption to the next mortgagor. Do you desire that it should be permitted to patrons in the future, as in the past, to mortgage their right of next presentation? Do you, or do you not? If you do, then you ought to specifically say so; if you do not, then you ought to have no difficulty in accepting the Amendment of my honourable Friend. The effect of the acceptance of the Amendment would be that you would really never have a mortgage at all. That would have the effect, no doubt, of limiting the traffic in these livings. The learned Attorney General said that it was a useful thin to be able to mortgage advowsons, but as a matter of fact, or rather as a matter of law, the mortgagee has no right to make any pecuniary profit out of the transaction at all. That has been the position of things for many generations. The legal position is this, that the mortgagor may get money upon his mortgage, but that the mortgagee has no right to make anything out of it, and the mortgagor still in law has the right to nominate, although the right to transfer has gone to the mortgagee.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: No.
    MR. S. EVANS: I beg the honourable and learned Gentleman's pardon. His
    opinion is given without due consideration; mine is given after due consideration of the opinion of the honourable and learned Gentleman behind him, the Member for Gloucester. I said that the mortgagor reserves the right to nominate, although the right to present is transferred by the mortgage to the mortgagee. That is so. I said it was the law and had been the law for a very long time, that the mortgagee ought not to make any profit out of these rights. What was the case before Lord Hardwicke? Why it was distinctly laid down that the mortgagor ought not to make any pecuniary advantage out of the presentation. I am very much afraid that I have been drawn into a somewhat legal argument, but I will now revert to the position taken up by my honourable Friend behind me, that if you adopt the Amendment now before the House, you will be giving the death blow to the mortgaging of the rights of these advowsons. My honourable and learned Friend the Member for Swansea does not desire that to take place. I have known him to be an Erastian in these matters for years, and he is perfectly right to argue that if you have the power of sale you ought to have the power to mortgage. I think the mortgage ought to be accepted because it will extend the operations of the Act, and consequently will limit the power of the patron to the traffic in these livings.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 209; Noes 83.—(Division List 151.)

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Bethell, Commander

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Bill, Charles

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Arnold, Alfred

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Chelsea, Viscount

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Bond, Edward

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Bagot, Captain J. FitzRoy

    Brassey, Albert

    Colomb, Sir John C. R.

    Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Colston, C. E. H. Athole

    Baird, John G. Alexander

    Brookfield, A. Montagu

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Balcarres, Lord

    Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

    Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r)

    Bullard, Sir Harry

    Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

    Butcher, John George

    Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Carlile, William Walter

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Barnes, Frederic Grorell

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Cecil, Lord Hugh

    Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (Lanc S W)

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)

    Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

    Dalbiac, Colonel P. Hugh

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Chamberlain, Rt Hon J. (Birm.)

    Dane, Richard M.

    Davenport, W. Bromley-

    Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

    Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

    Denny, Colonel

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Rankin, James

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

    Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)

    Rasch, Major Frederic C.

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

    Renshaw, Charles Bine

    Doughty, George

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Rentoul, James Alexander

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Kemp, George

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Dyke, Rt, Hon. Sir W. H.

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Lafone, Alfred

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Lawrence, Sir E Durning- (Corn.)

    Robertson, E. (Dundee)

    Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r)

    Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

    Robertson, H. (Hackney)

    Finlay, Sir Robert B.

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Robinson, Brooke

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lanc.)

    Round, James

    FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

    Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

    Royds, Clement M.

    FitzWygram, General Sir F.

    Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

    Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenh'm)

    Flannery, Fortescue

    Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a)

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Savory, Sir Joseph

    Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

    Loder, Gerald Walter E.

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

    Sharpe, William E. T.

    Fry, Lewis

    Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfr'w)

    Garfit, William

    Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

    Sidebottom, W. (Derbysh.)

    Gedge, Sydney

    Lorne, Marquess of

    Smith, J. P. (Lanarks)

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    Lowe, Francis William

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

    Gilliat, John Saunders

    Lowles, John

    Stock, James Henry

    Godson, Augustus Frederick

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Thorburn, Walter

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. Geo's)

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

    Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

    Tritton, C. E.

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Verney, Hon. Richard G.

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Milbank, Sir P. C. J.

    Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Warkworth, Lord

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Milner, Sir Frederick George

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs)

    Mil ward, Colonel Victor

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

    Greville, Captain

    Monckton, Edward Philip

    Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

    Gull, Sir Cameron

    Monk, Charles James

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G.

    More, Robert Jasper

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.)

    Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

    Hanson, Sir Reginald

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Hardy, Laurence

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

    Mount, William George

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Helder, Augustus

    Murdoch, Charles T.

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

    Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh. N.)

    Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

    Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

    Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

    Hobhouse, Henry

    Myers, William Henry

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Houldsworth, Sir W. Henry

    Newark, Viscount

    Wylie, Alexander

    Howell, William Tudor

    Newdigate, Francis A.

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

    Hozier, Hon. James H. C.

    Nicholson, W. Graham

    Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

    Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Younger, William

    Hudson, George B.

    Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    Pollock, Harry Frederick

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther

    Jameson, Major J. Eustace

    Pryce-Jones, Edward

    Jebb, Richard Clayerhouse

    Purvis, Robert

    NOES.

    Abraham, W. (Rhondda,)

    Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

    Hazell, Walter

    Allen, W. (Newc.-under-L.)

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Hedderwick, T. C. H.

    Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

    Colville, John

    Holburn, J. G.

    Bainbridge, Emerson

    Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

    Holden, Sir Angus

    Baker, Sir John

    Daly, James

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Doogan, P. C.

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Duckworth, James

    Kinloch, Sir John G. S.

    Billson, Alfred

    Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

    Knox, Edmund F. Vesey

    Brigg, John

    Evershed, Sydney

    Labouchere, Henry

    Burt, Thomas

    Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

    Lambert, George

    Caldwell, James

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

    Leng, Sir John

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

    Lewis, John Herbert

    886

    887

    Logan, John William

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Roberts, J. H. (Denbighsh.)

    Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)

    McArthur, W. (Cornwall)

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

    McLaren, Charles Benjamin

    Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

    Wallace, Robert (Perth)

    Maddison, Fred.

    Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Morley, C. (Breconshire)

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Moss, Samuel

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Williams, John C. (Notts)

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Souttar, Robinson

    Woodall, William

    Owen, Thomas

    Spicer, Albert

    Woodhouse, Sir J T (Hudd'rsf'ld)

    Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

    Steadman, William Charles

    Woods, Samuel

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Strachey, Edward

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Robson and Mr. Lloyd-George.

    Randell, David

    Tennant, Harold John

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Thomas, A. (Glamorgan)

    MR. MOSS: I beg to move an Amendment pro formâ, in order to ask the Attorney General a question in regard to a clause of the Bill, and my Amendment is—
    "Provided always that every sale of an advowson may be subject to the same provisions as to registration as a transfer."
    I am not quite sure from the meaning of the Bill whether these Bales are to be registered, because I notice that clause 1 says—
    "A transfer of a right of patronage of a benefice shall not be valid unless (a) it is registered in the prescribed manner in the diocesan register within two months from the date of the transfer, or within such extended time as under special circumstances the bishop may think fit to allow; and (b) it transfers the whole interest of the transferor in the right."
    I do not wish to take up the time of the House, if the Attorney General says that the mortgage shall be registered.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: Under clause 1, sub-section (a), the transfer of a right of patronage must be registered.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I would point out to the learned Attorney General that it is a little doubtful. The clause deals with the transfer of the right of patronage unless it is registered in the prescribed manner in the diocesan register, or unless more than 12 months have elapsed since the last institution or admission to the benefice. "Transfer" refers not to transfer by way of mortgage, but to a transfer of the whole interest. Later on, the clause says—
    "The expression 'transfer' in this section shall include any conveyance or assurance, and so on, but shall not include (a) a transmission at marriage, death, or bankruptcy, or other-
    888
    wise; nor (b) a transfer on the appointment of a new trustee where no beneficial interest passes,"
    and finally the clause says that nothing in this section shall prevent the reservation of a right of redemption. I venture to suggest at any rate that it is a little bit doubtful as to whether that does not exempt the mortgagee from all burdens placed upon him which would otherwise be imposed upon him by this section, and if the learned Attorney General says that a mortgage ought to be registered, there can be no objection to my learned Friend's Amendment being inserted. There seems to be a doubt upon the point; it is not perfectly clear, and I cannot see what possible objection there can be to accepting the Amendment.
    SIR R. FINLAY: The words cannot be accepted, and there is not the slightest reason to doubt that the opinion of the Attorney General is correct, and, besides that, to insert these words relating to registration only would suggest that the other provisions of the section did not apply as they now do apply.
    MR. MOSS: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 2.
    "Page 2, leave out clause 2."—(Mr. Brynmor Jones.)
    MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I do not wish to introduce any lengthy discussion on the Motion to omit the clause, because the Amendments that have been put down will subsequently give us an ample

    889
    opportunity of raising substantially any question that we desire to raise as a consequence of the action which I myself and some other Members took in the Standing Committee. This clause 2 of the Bill really is the clause to which my principal objection applies. I have not the slightest objection, as I said when I moved the rejection of the Bill on the Second Reading, to any reasonable Measure for putting down simoniacal practices in the Church or any real abuses. So far as clause 1 is concerned, beyond what I have already said with regard to it, I have no real objection to it at all. But when you come to clause 2, I wish the House to notice that you are entering upon a totally different order of topic—a totally different arrangement of ideas in regard to Church government. Clause 2 has nothing at all to do with the putting down of any mere simoniacal or corrupt practices of any kind in regard to the sale of advowsons or right of next presentation or anything of the kind. Clause 2 deals with a totally different kind of matter; that is to say, it deals with the grounds upon which a bishop may refuse to institute a clergyman who is presented by a lay patron, whether that lay patron happens to be the Prime Minister, or First Lord of the Treasury, or Lord Chancellor, or any of the collegiate bodies to whom I have more than once referred, or the ordinary owner of an estate to which an advowson is attached. Now, as I have ventured to point out, that has nothing to do with the general objects with which this Bill was originally introduced by the Government. As I understood the words of the First Lord of the Treasury, when he introduced the Bill, it was a Bill brought in in pursuance of the recommendation of certain Royal Commissions, and in accordance with the very general desire which has been represented year after year by Bills being introduced for putting down certain definite corrupt practices with regard to the sale of livings. What I assert is that this clause 2 practically changes the whole ground and object of
    890
    the Measure. Let us see what are the grounds upon which a bishop may refuse to institute or admit a presentee. Before, however, I call the attention of the House to that matter, I should like honourable Members to notice that there is, or I believe there is, no statute which lays down the grounds upon which the bishop may refuse to institute the presentee of the patron. That is the case as I understand the law, and I state it with very consideraable confidence, because I have had to listen to the exposition of the law on several occasions, not only from the Attorney General, but also from my honourable and learned Friends. The bishop has discretion to refuse admission of a clergyman when he is presented by a patron, but that right is only a right that can have any interest from an ecclesiastical point of view. In a court of common law the right of the bishop to exercise his mere discretion by refusing to institute the presentee of a lay patron is not admitted, and if a lay patron objects to the refusal of the bishop to institute a presentee, he has a right at the present moment to commence an action in the High Court in order to try the question whether the bishop has or has not rightly exercised his discretion. In other words, while the the ecclesiastical law gives an absolute discretion, subject, of course, always to ecclesiastical action of a remote and uncertain character, the common law has preserved a right to the patron by giving him this right of action, which is exercised in accordance with the ordinary forms of the High Court of Justice. The point is this, that if a patron, when the bishop has refused institution, brings an action in the High Court of Justice, the matter ultimately comes before a really civil tribunal, and any civil tribunal under the circumstances is particularly advantageous to the lay patron, because the bishop has to give particulars of the reasons for which he refuses to institute a particular presentee.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    It being midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.

  PARISH FIRE ENGINES BILL.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): This is merely an amending Act to the Act of 1867, by which parishes were authorised to purchase fire engines, but in many cases they have not done so, and under that Act there is no power to make any contract with the neighbouring places for the loan of an engine, so that where a big fire takes place, great loss often occurs through this inability to contract, and the simple object of the Bill is to allow the authorities to make contracts with neighbouring authorities. I hope that the Measure will be allowed to proceed to a Second Reading, because it supplies a want which has been felt for some time.
  DR. TANNER: I object.

FINANCE BILL.
SIR C. DILKE: On the second reading of this Bill some of us called attention to the discrepancies in principle between the reduction proposed by this Measure and the speeches of Ministers. We contended that the reduction of taxation appeared to be quite inconsistent with some of those speeches. The proposed reductions seem to say, "Keep your tobacco dry"; whilst in their speeches Ministers tell us to "keep our powder dry." I do not propose to revive on this occasion matters which we discussed on that occasion, except as regards the principal one among them. On the evening of the Second Reading words were used by the First Lord of the Admiralty which went to show that he had already at that time the intention of probably
892
coming to this House with a view to asking for supplementary Estimates in the course of the present Session. The words used by the First Lord of the Admiralty were almost exactly the same words which he used last year when he foreshadowed the supplementary Estimate, which was proposed in July. In dealing with this Bill to-night we stand in a most curious position, because we are to have what everybody understands to be supplementary Estimates of the Navy, which are to be presented to us in the middle of July, without having the least knowledge as to what sources are to be drawn upon for those supplementary sums. It seems to me that this position emphasises the absurdity—for I can call it nothing else—of hurrying through the present Bill before we know—and we do not know even now—what are the full naval and military proposals of the Government. I do not think we ought to part with this Bill to-night without pointing out that it is most unusual that the House should be asked to express its general views by passing the Finance Act, when we do not know the full proposals of the Government with regard to the military and naval proposals which are to be made to the House in the course of the present Session.
SIR J. LENG: On more than one occasion during the earlier stages of this Bill I have remarked on the fact that upwards of a million sterling is to be given away by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that we have had no clear explanation that that sum will distinctly benefit the consumers of tobacco in this country. Since I adverted to the question before I have received a letter from one of the wholesale dealers in Scotland who supplies a large number of the retail dealers, and I will give a short extract from his letter, which is in confirmation of what I have said in this House—
"I have been in communication with some of the Scotch makers urging them to give effect to the full reduction of 4d., which we consider the consumer fully entitled to. A large Glasgow firm reply that 'there is no room for,

893
and that there ought to be no reduction in, the retail price.' They decline to reduce their prices to us beyond the penny per pound already advised. They decline to let us have the quality we used to sell at 3d. an ounce at a price which would enable us to sell it at 2¾d., thus confuting the Chancellor of the Exchequer's presumption that the working man would get his tobacco of a better quality and a farthing an ounce less. Another firm took up exactly the same position, and in a conversation I had with the principal, he assured me that a change of duty was, in his opinion, a great mistake. The manufacturers were not asking for it, neither were the public. The new condition as to moisture had completely upset all established methods of production, and the likelihood was that the makers would have a difficulty in conforming to the 30 per cent, limit, and would incur from time to time prosecutions and fines."
This confirms the opinion I have already expressed that the reduction in tobacco duty will prove a mere trifling with a large sum of money, which should have been, and could have been, remitted in half a dozen other ways more beneficially to the community. The sacrifice of more than a million sterling of revenue should surely have been made in some way that would have been a direct and lasting advantage to the community, whereas I think the only thing that this will do is that fully half a million of money will be intercepted by the manufacturer and the wholesale dealers, and that the consumer—especially the consumer of the lower priced tobaccos, such as used by the working classes—will derive no benefit whatever.
MR. VESEY RNOX: I beg leave to inform my honourable Friend that I get my tobacco 1½d. a quarter of a pound cheaper than I used to do. I shall be glad to give my honourable Friend—privately, of course—the name of my merchant, but I may tell him that the tobacco which I smoke is known as "Navy Cut."
MR. GODDARD: I suppose that when this Bill has passed its Third Reading, we shall no longer have an
894
opportunity of protesting against it. This Bill has introduced into it a principle which should be protested against on every and any occasion that admits of its being done in this House. It has introduced into it the principle of relieving the taxation of real estate, and putting it upon the shoulders of the ordinary tax-payer of the country, and especially of the poor. That is a principle that should be protested against on every occasion. It is no answer to say that the amount involved is only a small one. We know that in the clause which the Chancellor introduced into this Bill relating to the land tax of those who were exempted from income tax, that only a sum of something like £25,000 was involved, and on the Report stage of this Bill another clause was accepted by the Chancellor which exempted those who received an abatement of income tax on incomes up to £400 a year of half of their land tax. That was said to only involve a sum of something like £15,000. The amounts may not be very large ones, but it is not a question of the amount involved, it is the question of principle, and I repeat the principle involved in this Measure is one which is really taking away a burden from the shoulders of those who are better able to afford to pay, and placing those burdens upon the shoulders of those who are earning very small wages, by making them pay for it on ordinary articles of consumption of every-day use. On these grounds I feel obliged to oppose this Bill on every occasion that I can, and I hope that the House will go to a Division on the Third Reading.
MR. ALLEN: Before this Bill is read a third time, I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might give us some explanation as to how he is going to raise the additional money which he will certainly need. He promised that the Egyptian Government should receive some help on account of the Khartoum expedition, and that help is not to come out of

895
the taxes. Then there is also the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of "The Attorney General v. Beach," which will make a very big hole in the revenue which he expected to receive from death duties. In the third place, there is to be this supplementary Estimate which we have been promised by the Government. We do not know how much that is to be. Probably, the noble Lord the Member for York may be able tp indicate to us the amount that the country ought to spend this year, in order to make our Navy perfectly safe. At any rate, there will be these large charges upon the revenue of this country, and before we part with this Bill I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might give us some explanation as to how the money is to be raised.
DR. CLARK: We cannot allow this change to be made without some protest. I think this is the third attempt of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to whittle away another portion of the land tax—twice in the Budget and once in a supplementary form. I am glad, that he has attempted to remedy some of the inequalities which existed, and I wish he had the courage to place it upon a thoroughly proper basis. The land tax is probably the most unjust tax that we have got in this country at the present time, and the reason of that is because it is being imposed upon a valuation made 200 years ago, and during that 200 years there have been very great changes on the values. Where you had a flourishing and prosperous place one or two centuries ago, now you have got nothing but miserable depression, and the land tax there bears hardly—relatively it is hard, compared to the tax in districts which have improved, where you have a great increase in values, due to increased commerce. The old agricultural districts are still paying heavy taxes for corn-growing lands, which might have paid some years ago, but which do not pay now, nor anything like it. The first
896
change the Chancellor of the Exchequer made was that the old 4s. was not to be paid—that is, that where 4s. in the £ on the valuation of 200 years ago is more than a shilling in the £ upon the present valuation, then you are only to pay 1s. By that means you reduce the tax from 4s. to Is. upon the present valuation. Now, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had carried that out in every case there would have been a few millions to spare. But he did not, and that is why I think he has acted very unwisely, because while he has placed the burden of this taxation fairly upon those lands which are well able to bear the burden—lands round about towns that have increased a hundredfold in value from what they were 50 or 100 years ago—I know some that have increased a thousand fold in value—he has placed it unfairly upon these lands which cannot bear it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer (who voted for the Amendment) said he would allow the House to decide the issue. The "poor" people who are getting £400 a year from their land, which they do not work for, have only to pay half their land tax; the other class, who have to work, and who are getting twelve or fourteen shillings a week, will not get the advantages. The House, I think, will have much more sympathy with the latter class than with those who are getting £400 a year. We will, however, sooner or later, have the land tax what it ought to be.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have heard and the House has heard the same speech from the honourable Member several times, and I can only respectfully reply that he is proposing a policy with regard to the land tax which I do not think he will find any House of Commons will carry out. Honourable Members opposite have really answered one another. If the honourable Member for Dundee believes that in some cases Scottish manufacturers of tobacco will decline to lower their

897
prices, they will soon be met by English and Irish manufacturers, and I can mention the names of some willing to do so. Sir, as to the question of the honourable Member for Pembrokeshire, and the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, I am not aware that it is customary to make provision in the Budget for Supplementary Estimates. I
hope the House will now deal with the question.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That the Bill be now read the third time."
The House divided—Ayes 159; Noes 39.—(Division List No. 152.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Arnold, Alfred

Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St G'rg's)

Monckton, Edward Philip

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

More, Robert Jasper

Asquith, Et. Hon. H. H.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morgan, Hon. F. (Monm'thsh.)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Graham, Henry Robert

Morrell, George Herbert

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzR.

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness)

Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

Baird, John George A.

Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

Balcarres, Lord.

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs)

Myers, William Henry

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r)

Greville, Captain

Newdigate, Francis A.

Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

Nicholson, William Graham

Banbury, Frederick George

Gull, Sir Cameron

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

Beresford, Lord Charles

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Bethell, Commander

Hanson, Reginald

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Bill, Charles

Hardy, Laurence

Pryce-Jones, Edward

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Helder, Augustus

Purvis, Robert

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Rankin, James

Brassey, Albert

Hobhouse, Henry

Rasch, Major Frederic C.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Houldsworth, Sir W. H.

Rentoul, James Alexander

Bucknill, Thomas Townsend

Howell, William Tudor

Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hozier, Hon. James H. C.

Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

Carlile, William Walter

Hudson, George B.

Ritchie, Right Hon. C. T.

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Robertson, H. (Hackney)

Cecil, Lord Hugh

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Round, James

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Royds, Clement M.

Chamberlain, Rt Hon J. (Birm.)

Johnstone, J. H. (Sussex)

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Seely, Charles Hilton

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Kearley, Hudson, E.

Seton-Karr, Henry

Chelsea, Viscount

Kemp, George

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Colomb, Sir John C. R.

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Knox, E. Francis Vesey

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

Lafone, Alfred

Sidebotham, J. W. (Cheshire)

Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

Lambert, George

Sidebottom, W. (Derbyshire)

Cotton-Jodrell, Col. E. T. D.

Lawrence, Sir E Durning- (Corn.)

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Cranborne, Viscount

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

Smith, J. P. (Lanarks)

Dane, Richard M.

Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lanc.)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Davenport, W. Bromley-

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Stock, James Henry

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Tomlinson, W. E. Murray

Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S.

Loder, Gerald Walter E.

Verney, Hon. Richard G.

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Fart

Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

Ward, Hon. R. A. (Crewe)

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Evershed, Sydney

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

Finlay, Sir Robert B.

Lorne, Marquess of

Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

Fisher, William Hayes

Lough, Thomas

Willox, Sir John Archibald

FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

Lowles, John

Wilson, J. W. (Worc'sh., N.)

Flannery, Fortescue

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

Folkestone, Viscount

Maclure, Sir John William

Wylie, Alexander

Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

McArthur, C. (Liverpool)

Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

Garfit, William

Maple, Sir John Blundell

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther:

Godson, Augustus F.

Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.

Gordon, Hon. John E.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

NOES.

Abraham, W. (Rhondda)

Hazell, Walter

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under-L.)

Hedderwick, T. C. H.

Sullivan, D. (Westmeath)

Baker, Sir John

Holburn, J. G.

Tanner, Charles Kearns

Billson, Alfred

Horniman, Frederick John

Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)

Brigg, John

Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'land)

Caldwell, James

Leng, Sir John

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Cawley, Frederick

Lewis, John Herbert

Wedderburn, Sir William

Channing, Francis Allston

Macaleese, Daniel

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Clough, Walter Owen

Morley, C. (Breconshire)

Wilson, John (Govan)

Daly, James

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Woodhouse, Sir J T (H'dd'rsf'ld)

Davitt, Michael

Pirie, Duncan V.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Randell, David

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Goddard and Dr. Clark.

Doogan, P. C.

Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Duckworth, James

Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale-

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Bill read a third time.

The House then went into Committee, Mr. GRANT LAWSON in the Chair.

TRAMWAYS ORDER IN COUNCIL (IRELAND) LONDONDERRY AND LOUGH SWILLY RAILWAY BILL.
(In the Committee.)
Question put—
"That clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
Agreed to.
Question put—
"That clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
Agreed to.
Question put—
"That the schedule stand part of the Bill."
Agreed to.
On the return of Mr. SPEAKER the Bill was reported to the House.
Question put—
"That the Bill be read a third time."
DR. TANNER: I object.
AN HONOURABLE MEMBER appealed to the honourable Member for Mid Cork to withdraw his objection.
ANOTHER HONOURABLE MEMBER: I think we ought to have some explanation regarding this Bill. We have rushed through the clauses in a most extra-
900
ordinary manner, and I think the Bill ought not to be taken until to-morrow night.
MR. VESEY KNOX: The Bill is one that is only a formal proceeding, and is introduced because the railway company offered a formal objection. I believe there is no objection on public grounds from any section in Ireland, and I do hope that my honourable Friend will withdraw his objection.
MR. SAMUELalso objected without explanation.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. ATKINSON): I will give an explanation now. This Bill to promote tramways in the distressed districts of the West of Ireland is introduced owing to the fact that a petition was presented against it. Under the Order in Council £290,000 will be spent in one of the most distressed districts in the West of Ireland, and it is most essential that the work should be commenced as soon as possible.
MR. SAMUEL: If it is to be spent in the west part of Ireland I will withdraw my objection.

VEXATIOUS ACTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read a second time.

FISH FROM PROHIBITED WATERS (PREVENTION OF SALE) BILL.
Read a second time.
House adjourned at 12.40.

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLORtook his Seat on the Woolsack at Ten minutes past Four of the clock.
NEW PEER.
SIR ARTHUR LAWRENCE HLLIBURTON, G.C.B.,having been created Baron HALIBURTON, of Windsor, in the Province of Nova, Scotia and Dominion of Canada—was (in the usual manner) introduced.

THE LATE RIGHT HONOURABLE W. E. GLADSTONE.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)read the following letter from the Prime Minister—
"Foreign Office, June 16, 1898.
"My Lord Chancellor.—I have the honour to transmit with a translation the accompanying message of condolence from the Chamber of Peers of Portugal on the occasion of the death of the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone.
"The Portuguese Minister at this Court, through whom the message was conveyed, has been requested to inform the Portuguese Chamber of Peers that it has been forwarded to its destination.
"I have the honour to be, etc.,
"SALISBURY.
"To the Lord High Chancellor."
The message was to the effect that in the Portuguese House of Peers it was proposed by Antonio C. R. da Costa, seconded by Ernesto H. Ribeiro, and supported by Veiga Beiras (Minister of Foreign Affairs) and by Luiz do Soveral (Portuguese Minister in London), that there be recorded in the Journals of the House a vote of profound regret for the death of Mr. Gladstone, and that in homage to his memory the day's Session should be closed. This was agreed to.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Veiga Beiras) associated himself in the name of the Governments in the vote of regret, and begged that it might be communicated to the English Governmental Parliaments and to Mr. Gladstone's widow.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with—
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2). [H.L.]
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2).
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3).
    Also the Certificates that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills—
  LOCAL, GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4).
    PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER.
    Also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with—
GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY (PENSIONS). RHONDDA AND SWANSEA BAY RAILWAY.
  RHYMNEY AND ABER VALLEYS GAS AND WATER.

    GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY.
    GAINSBOROUGH GAS.
    Also the Certificates that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills—

  GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY.
    CRYSTAL PALACE COMPANY.
    And also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have not been complied with—
CROMER GAS.
  DROGHEDA GAS.

    NORWICH ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS.
    GLASGOW CORPORATION (SEWAGE, ETC.)
    The same were ordered to lie upon the Table.

    BELFAST CORPORATION (HOSPITALS) BILL. [H.L.]
    Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
    CROWHURST, SIDLEY AND BEXHILL RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
    Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
    SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
    Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
    ROCHDALE CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
    TODMORDEN CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
    CARMARTHEN IMPROVEMENT BILL.
    Reported with Amendments.
    PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
    Reported with Amendments.
    WINDSOR AND ASCOT RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
    The Queen's Consent signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.
    LEICESTER FREEMEN BILL. [H.L.]
    Reported with Amendments.
    STAINES RESERVOIRS JOINT COMMITTEE BILL.
    Orders made on the 17th of May and 10th June last discharged; and Bill committed.
    FOREIGN BONDHOLDERS' CORPORATION BILL.
    Read the second time, and committed.
    GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (NEW WORKS) BILL.
    Read the second time, and committed.
    BRISTOL TRAMWAYS (ELECTRICAL POWER, ETC.) BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read the first time, and referred to the Examiners.
    BRISTOL TRAMWAYS (EXTENSIONS) BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read the first time, and referred to the Examiners.
    EASTON AND CHURCH HOPE RAILWAY (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read the first time, and referred to the Examiners.
    MIDDLESBROUGH CORPORATION GAS BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read the first time, and referred to the Examiners.
    TORRINGTON AND OKEHAMPTON RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments made by the Lords to the Amendment made by the Commons agreed to.
    ENFIELD GAS BILL.
    Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
    MILFORD DOCKS BILL. [H.L.]
    Returned from the Commons agreed Co, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
    GENERAL POWER DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, that the Lord Sherborne be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of Lord Stanmore; read, and agreed to.
    CHELSEA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, that the Lord Sherborne be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of Lord Stanmore; read, and agreed to.
    METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, that the Lord Sherborne be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of Lord Stanmore; read, and agreed to.
    MANCHESTER CARRIAGE AND TRAMWAYS COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, that the Lord Sherborne be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of Lord Stanmore; read, and agreed to.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL. [H.L.]
  The order made on Friday last for commitment of the Bill to a Committee of the whole House discharged, and Bill committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL. [H.L.]
  Committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL. [H.L.]
  Committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order); Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Read the second time (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL
  Read the second time (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Read the second time (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the second time (according to order).
  LEITH BURGH PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Read the second time (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Read the second time (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
  Brought from Commons; afterwards read the first time; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners. [No. 109.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
  Brought from Commons; afterwards read the first time; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners. [No. 110.]
  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  Brought from Commons; afterwards read the first time; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners. [No. 111.]
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (NORTH WESTERN DIVISION).
  General Report for the year 1897, by the Rev. F. F. Cornish, Chief Inspector.

  TRADE REPORTS, 1898.
  I. Annual Series: Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance:
  No. 2125. Turkey (Tripoli);
  No. 2128. Persia (Resht).
  II. Miscellaneous Series:
  Reports on Subjects of General and Commercial Interest:
  No. 464. Galveston Harbour (Improvements).

  DUBLIN HOSPITALS.
  Fortieth Report of Board of Superintendence, with appendices.
  ROYAL UNIVERSITY OE IRELAND.
  Annual Report, for 1897.
  EXPLOSIVES ACT, 1875.
  Twenty-second Annual Report, for 1897.

  PRISONS (SCOTLAND).
  Twentieth Annual Report of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, being the Fifty-ninth Annual Report on Prisons in Scotland.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES ACT, 1864.
  Report by the Board of Trade on an application made during the year 1897 under the Railway Construction Facilities Act, 1864; and of the proceedings of the Board of Trade with respect thereto.
  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND) PENSION FUND.
  Account of receipts and payments for 1897.

  SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS FUND) (SAVINGS BANKS FUND) (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES FUND).
  Accounts for the year ended 31st December, 1897.
  Laid before the House, pursuant to Act, and ordered to lie on the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  PALATINE COURT OF DURHAM BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law relating to the Court of Chancery of the County Palatine of Durham. [No. 112.]

  SOLICITORS BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Solicitors Acts as to solicitors struck off the Roll and suspended from practice. [No. 113.]
  Presented by the LOUD CHANCELLOR; read the first time, and to be printed.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.

  SEA FISHERIES BILL.
  LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill under somewhat peculiar circumstances. This Bill is identically the same, with
  718
  two slight additions, as that proposed in 1895 in the House of Commons by Mr. Bryce, and that which was introduced into your Lordships' House in 1896, and again last year by the noble Earl the Secretary to the Board of Trade, and passed through all its stages each year. It is not for me to say why Her Majesty's Government have not thought fit to include it among the Bills they have brought in this year. I think it will, perhaps, be best for me to refer, first of all, to the two small additions to the Bill. The first proposes to give power to the officers of the Fishmongers' Company to enforce the law where they have jurisdiction. The officers of the Fishmongers' Company perform a great many very useful duties at the present time under various Acts of Parliament, and the Company are willing to give us the assistance of their officers. We are very anxious to receive that assistance in England, but I am told there is some little difference of opinion in regard to Scotland. All I can say is that I shall be ready to meet noble Lords from Scotland in any Amendment they may put down. The second addition includes skippers, as well as owners, of trawling vessels in the purview of the Bill. This is, after all, only in accordance with the present Fish Boats Act of 1883, and the Fish Boats Amendment Act of 1887, in which skippers were made responsible where they had absolutely disobeyed the orders of their owners. But it is the more necessary now than it was, say, 10 years ago, because the whole system of sea fishing, especially in the North Sea, has entirely changed of late years. Ten years ago there was what was called "single fleeting." A number of different boats belonging to different owners went to sea, and for the sake of company were fleeted together. As soon as they had made their catch they came home, and landed their fish. That has all gone now. There are very few small owners and very few single vessels. The great part of the fishing in the North Sea is conducted by large companies with large fleets, managed by boards of directors. Steam cutters are sent out with fresh provisions, and in many cases fresh crews, and to bring home the fish. The owners, therefore,

  719
  have not the same power over the fish that is brought homo as they had formerly. The fish is packed out at sea and sent home, either to Billingsgate, Grimsby, or some other port; and I am sorry to say that, whereas in former days the boxes only contained about 40 mature fish, they now contain from 900 to 1,000 fish, most of which are immature and only fit for manure. These are landed to the great depletion of the fishing ground, and to the great waste and destruction of small fish. Only the other day, to give one single instance, out of 32 tons of plaice landed in Billingsgate 31 tons had to be sold for manure. I am intimately connected with one of the largest fishing ports in England, and that kind of thing is done over and over again at Grimsby. We desire to stop this destruction of small fish, and we believe we can only do that by preventing the landing and sale of immature fish, and that we can only prevent the landing and sale of these fish by making the owners and shippers responsible. I should not think it necessary, after this Bill has passed your Lordships' House on two occasions, to say very much about it; but it is necessary for me on this occasion to endeavour to prove to your Lordships that there is an urgent and pressing necessity for immediate legislation. This is no new question. Fifteen years ago the trade first became alarmed at the great depletion of the fishing ground and the great waste and destruction of small fish. The Executive of the Sea Fisheries Protection Association, of which Sir E. Birkbeck and I are members, went very thoroughly into the question, and having considered every proposal and every plan that was put before us we came to the conclusion that the proposal of this Bill was the only effectual one which could be adopted. Without going into details with regard to the other proposals, I may briefly say that we discarded every other proposal made to us for one of two reasons—either because we did not consider they could be effectually carried out, or because we believed that they would not effect the object we had in view; and we were unanimous in our decision that the only way to prevent the destruction and waste of small fish was to stop the landing and the sale of the fish itself. In 1888 we called a conference of delegates from all the
  720
  fishing ports in the United Kingdom. I think there were nearly 200 present, and after a thorough and practical discussion, after hearing everything that could be said by many who advocated other plans, there was a unanimous vote in favour of the proposals which now form the principle and basis of this Bill. We were not satisfied with that. We let a year go by, in order that the plans might be discussed in every fishing port and centre in England, Scotland, and Ireland; and in the following year we called the delegates together again. With the full power given to them by those whom they represented the delegates again decided unanimously in favour of the proposals of this Bill. But during the course of that summer it was intimated to Sir Edward Birkbeck that foreign nations were taking an interest in this question, and had asked us to call an International Conference, at which they might be present. Another conference was called in 1890, and was held at the Fishmongers' Hall, at the invitation of the Fishmongers' Company. Delegates were present from Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain, as well as from all parts of the United Kingdom, and at the end of a two-days' conference they were all of them unanimous—not only those who came from the fishing ports of this country, but the delegates who came from abroad—in passing a resolution to the effect that the landing and sale of undersized fish should be prohibited. Since then three of the nations represented at the conference—Belgium, Denmark, and France—have passed legislation on the question, and they are only waiting for this country to pass this Bill before they convene a conference for a convention similar to that called some years ago for the prevention of the sale of liquor in the North Sea. Originally, there was a difference of opinion as to the size at which fish should be considered mature, but in 1892 the representatives of all the fishing ports agreed to the size adopted in the Bill. In 1893 we went with a deputation to the late Mr. Mundella, who was at that time President of the Board of Trade. He sympathised strongly with us, and appointed a Select Committee, of which my noble Friend Lord Tweedmouth was chairman,

  721
  and of which I was a member; and on the unanimous Report of that Committee Mr. Bryce, the following year (1895) brought in, a Bill in the House Commons, but unfortunately it was lost like many other good Bills, on account o the General Election. As I have said my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Dudley) brought in a Bill in 1896 which passed not only through all its stages in this House, but was read a first time in the other House of Parliament. Now my Lords, I will ask you to pay most earnest attention to the opinion of the Board of Trade in this matter. In November, 1896, after this Bill had failed to become law, Mr. Ritchie agreed to receive two deputations. The first was from Lowestoft, and was introduced by Mr. H. Foster, M.P., who said that—
  "The deputation was not there to deny that there was a lamentable destruction of undersized fish. He also admitted that as a matter of fact these small fish were unsaleable in Billingsgate and other markets, but said his friends did not want interference by Parliament."
  Mr. Ritchie made a very long speech in reply, and I should like to quote a few words from it. He said that—
  "As a matter of fact it was by the fishing industry that Parliament was most pressed to pass Bills of this kind, and that the industry as a whole were pretty unanimous in favour of such a Measure."
  He went on to say that—
  "There could be no doubt at all that the productiveness in particular fisheries of flat fish was decreasing, and that though the power of the catch was increasing there was no increase, but rather the other way, of mature fish. The great fishing companies and Fisheries Committee were unanimous in their desire for the Bill."
  He then went on to give a number of statistics to support his argument, and ended by saying he had never known so small an opposition to so important a Measure in all his life. A second deputation—large, influential, and representative of the whole fishing trade—waited upon Mr. Ritchie, and urged upon him the necessity of passing this Bill without further delay. Mr. Ritchie, in reply, referred to the previous deputation, and said that he had told them that—
  "It is impossible for the Government any longer to ignore the duty which lies upon
  722
  them of doing their best, when an evil ii recognised, to remedy it. The duty is the more laid upon us by reason of the fact that so many fishing Powers of much smaller dimensions than we are have already adopted legislation of a somewhat similar character, and it would be practically a shirking of duty for the Government of the greatest fishing Power in the world not to do something to remedy the evil which other nations have already recognised."
  Mr. Ritchie finished his speech by saying—and this is my last quotation—
  "I will take care that your representations are considered, in the hope that we may be able to pass into law next Session (1897) the Bill which you are met here to support. I shall be happy if I am able to be the medium of your wishes being carried out."
  That Bill was brought in, and carried through your Lordships' House last year, but not proceeded with by the Government in the House of Commons. This year we endeavoured to induce the Government to bring in the Bill early in February or March in another place, but they hesitated, and said it was opposed. We accepted the challenge, and at once called a Sea Fisheries Conference on March 30th, at which Mr. James Lowther and Colonel Brookfield expounded their ideas to the assembled delegates of the trade, and on a division had only one supporter—a schoolmaster from Ramsgate representing the opposition. I believe the opposition comes entirely from long-shore fishermen, and some smack owners at Ramsgate who desire to keep up the price of fish. It is a Protectionist opposition, and nothing less. I ask the support of the Prime Minister to this Bill, for the same reason that the noble Marquess urged your Lordships to support the Second Reading of the Aliens Bill—namely, because it is one of those questions in which other countries have moved, and in which we ought not to be behind. Speaking for myself, and, I believe, speaking for the sea-fishing industry generally, I cannot help thinking that it would be a great scandal to Ministerial responsibility and to our Parliamentary procedure if a Bill, supported by the whole trade and by three successive Presidents of the Board of Trade, was prevented from becoming law owing to a meaningless and somewhat insignificant opposition.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence to support the Motion that has been moved in such clear and explicit terms by my noble Friend opposite. I do so with diffidence because that part of the north-east coast with which I am associated has evinced no particular interest in this question. I should not trespass upon your time were it not for the fact that a meeting was held last week by those representing the trade of the Tyne, at which a resolution was carried almost unanimously in support of this Bill. Of course, it may be said that the trade of the Tyne has not the same interest in this Measure as have the towns of Hull and Grimsby, but they support this Bill on broad and popular grounds. They realise that at the present time considerable damage is done to the great fishing industry by the system which is at the present moment pursued. My Lords, they recognise that in the year 1897 over 600,000 tons of fish, irrespective of shell-fish, were landed in the United Kingdom, that 200,000 tons were received in London, and that of these, 1,284 tons were seized by the officers of the Fishmongers' Company as too small and unfit for human consumption. I know it may be said that the fears are groundless, inasmuch as the increase of take for the past year is somewhat larger than the year before. I acknowledge that that does seem an overwhelming argument. At the same time you must remember that the facilities for larger catches have increased with rapid and with large strides. Steam trawlers have taken the place of vessels absolutely inadequate, and the power of catching fish has increased with leaps and bounds. Therefore I do not think that that argument should carry weight with your Lordships. An enormous amount of fish is thrown overboard after being taken in the trawl, while some that are kept are only fit for manure. My noble Friend has dealt so fully with the subject that I will not trespass further on your Lordships' time. I support the Measure most cordially, and I trust that the noble Marquess at the head of the Government may see his way to induce the House of Commons to deal with the question as soon as possible, and allow the Bill to become law this Session.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE, BOARD OF TRADE (The EARL of DUDLEY): My Lords, as the effect of this Measure is almost identical with that of the Bill which, your Lordships passed in 1896 and 1897 on my Motion, I do not think it would be necessary for me on this occasion to do more than express the hearty sympathy of the Government with this Bill, and the hope that your Lordships may see fit to accord it a Second Reading. I think there is little doubt, as my noble Friends, have said, that, although the total catch, of the North Sea fisheries has not been; reduced of late, still the quality has very much deteriorated. After much consideration and much discussion with the various fishing authorities, I think there is little doubt that the only practical means of preventing further deterioration is to pass a Bill of this kind. Moreover, my Lords, as the House has already been reminded, other countries have adopted similar legislation, so that in passing this Bill we are only bringing ourselves in line with what has already been done abroad. There is one new provision in this Bill which I confess to have considerable doubts about—I refer to the provision by which my noble Friend seeks to exempt owners of fishing vessels under certain conditions. My noble Friend proposes that where the owner of a fishing vessel can prove to the court that the skipper of his vessel has acted against his written instructions he (the owner) shall be exempt. I cannot, help thinking that that might prove to be a rather dangerous provision, and one which might go far to nullify the effect of the Measure. After all, my Lords, the skipper of a fishing vessel is much in the same position as the coachman of a carriage. If the coachman of a carriage drives over a child in the street, the owner is responsible; and that my noble Friend should wish in this Bill to exempt the owner under absolutely similar conditions is more than I can realise for the moment. However, that is a point for consideration in Committee, and I daresay between now and then my noble Friend will give me an opportunity of speaking to him privately about it. With the exception of that clause there is nothing in the Bill to which I object, and I trust your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I do not rise to dispute any of the arguments brought forward. The object of the Bill is an excellent one—namely, to save the lives of flat fish below a certain size; but I do wish to enter a caveat against the idea that the Bill is going to be effective for that purpose. All this Bill proposes to do is to prohibit the sale of small flat fish, but what we want to secure is not the mere prohibition of the sale of small flat fish, but that these fishes should continue to live in the sea until they grow to a proper size. This Bill makes no provision for preventing the catching of these small fishes. I admit that it would be very difficult to do so, because a trawl catches small as well as big fish, and the fish taken in the trawl and returned to the sea are so knocked about, crushed, and damaged that they have little chance of living. Consequently, you will run the risk of not only destroying these flat fishes, but of preventing them from being of some use to our poorer friends in the towns. I do not propose to offer any opposition to the Bill, but I do wish to enter a caveat against its being supposed that this Bill is likely, completely, or, indeed, to any large extent, to realise the aims of the associations of which my noble Friend below the Gangway [Lord Heneage] speaks. It may do something by preventing trawlers going to fishing grounds where there is a large proportion of small fish, though I am afraid they will take the risk of catching many small, even to catch a moderate quantity of big fish. With these few words, I desire to support the Bill so far as it goes.
  LORD HENEAGE: After what fell from the noble Lord opposite [the Earl of Dudley] I can only say that if the Government are willing to accept the Bill without the additions, I am willing to delete them. With regard to what has fallen from my noble Friend [Lord Tweedmouth] I do not think the skippers or the second hands, who are generally partners in the concern, are likely to waste their time in grounds where only small fish are to be caught. The trade feel pretty certain that if we can prevent the landing and sale of small fish we shall be able to prevent their being caught.
  Question put—
  "That this Bill be read a second time."
  Agreed to.

  FLOODS PREVENTION BILL.
  The House went into Committee on this Bill.
  The following Amendments, stood on the Paper—

  CLAUSE 2.
  "Sub-section 2, page 2, line 15, leave out 'or' and insert 'and,' and after 'occupier' insert 'or either of them.'"

  CLAUSE 6.
  "Sub-section 4, page 3, line 32, insert 'or' after 'supply.'"
  "After sub-section 4, line 32, insert the following sub-section—
  "(4a) To interfere with or affect the lawful exercise of any rights of using, impounding, or diverting water without the assent of the owner or owners of such rights."
  "New clause to be inserted after clause 6—
  "Any person on whose land any such works are proposed to be constructed, or from whose land any such obstruction is proposed to be removed, or whose land is proposed to be entered upon by any county council, or their officers or servants, as aforesaid, may petition the Local Government Board, who may, if they think fit, issue an order to stay any action by any county council under this Act, and may hold an inquiry and make such order as may seem to them expedient."—(Lord Zouche of Haryngworth.)
  LORD HARYNGWORTH: My Lords, with regard to the Amendments, standing in my name on the Paper, it has been intimated to me that the noble and learned Lord who has charge of this Bill [Lord Thring] has not had time to thoroughly read these Amendments, or to consider them. They were sent in late, and did not reach him in time. It has, therefore, been suggested that it would be more convenient to postpone the consideration of them to the Standing Committee. If that course meets with your Lordships' approbation, I desire to withdraw them for the present.
  Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill passed through Committee.

  ALIENS BILL.
  The House went into Committee on this Bill.
  Question put—
  "That clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 3.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Line 11, after 'inspectors' insert 'and medical officers.'"
  "Line 15, after 'insane' insert 'deformed.'"
  "Line 17, after 'disease' insert—
  "Provided that no alien shall be prohibited from landing by an inspector on the ground that he is an idiot, insane, deformed, or a person suffering from any dangerous, contagious, or infectious disease, unless with the concurrence of a medical officer of the Board of Trade."—(The Earl of Hardwicke.)
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I do mot think I need detain your Lordships beyond a very few moments In regard to this Amendment. I hope it will be clear to your Lordships that it would be obviously unfair if only Board of Trade inspectors were to have the power of turning back aliens who were either suffering from some dangerous or contagious disease, or who are Idiots or insane. The addition of the words I am proposing would greatly strengthen the hands of the Board of Trade, and I therefore hope your Lordships will accept the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, I can offer no objection to the Amendment. The only point is that at the present moment sanitary matters of this kind are in the hands of the Local Government Board. Therefore, before I pledge myself not to make any criticism on the noble Lord's Amendment before the Bill finally passes, I should like to reserve power to consult the Local Government Board in order to find out how far the medical officers, who act for them, can be utilised for the purpose mentioned in the Bill.
  Question put.
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 1, line 14, leave out 'either' and Insert 'a person likely to become a public charge.'"
  "Line 15, leave out from 'a pauper' to 'charge,' both inclusive."—(Lord Heneage.)
  LORD HENEAGE: I understand the noble Earl accepts my Amendment.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: Yes, I accept the Amendment.
  EARL GREY: I understand my noble Friend's Amendment proposes to alter the form of this clause—to strike out the words "a pauper," and then to bring in the words "a person likely to become a public charge" in an earlier part of the clause. I would point out that the wider term naturally includes the smaller term "pauper." I suggest that the noble Lord should withdraw his Amendment, in order that we may have a clear vote upon the words which appear to contain the important principle—namely, "a person likely to become a public charge."
  LORD HENEAGE: I am quite in the hands of the House. As it is thought more convenient to have the discussion on the Amendment of my noble Friend behind me [Earl Grey] I will withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Page 1, line 15, leave out 'a pauper, a person likely to become a public charge.'"—(Earl Grey.)
  EARL GREY: I thank the noble Lord for withdrawing his Amendment. I think it will simplify the discussion which will take place upon the Amendment which I have the honour to move. My Lords, I am one of those who voted for the Second Reading of this Bill, because I was in full sympathy with my noble Friend [the Earl of Hardwicke] in his desire to strengthen the hands of the Government in prohibiting the landing on our shores of lunatics and idiots, and persons suffering from any dangerous, infectious, or contagious disease. But, my Lords, I find myself quite unable to support the proposal that further powers should be given to the inspectors of the

  729
  Board of Trade to enable them to prohibit the landing of any alien who, in their opinion, is a pauper or likely to become a public charge. I do not think any sufficient case has been made out for this great departure from the established custom of this country. That it is a great departure I do not think any noble Lord can deny, for it has been the traditional practice to give a welcome to any political refugees or other aliens who may seek an asylum in this country. So much so has that been the case, that when a similar proposal was made in the House of Commons in 1891 the late Mr. Smith answered the honourable Member who brought forward the proposal in this way—
  "The right of asylum in this country as regards political refugees has always been maintained, and the restrictions on the immigration of foreigners who may be supposed to be destitute would involve legislation which may bring about greater evils. Regard must also be had to the fact that there is a considerable emigration to the Continent."
  Sir Michael Hicks Beach said, later on, that in his opinion it did not appear that there was any sufficient reason at present for the adoption of effective measures to prevent the introduction of indigent foreigners. This was confirmed by Mr. Ritchie [the President of the Board of Trade], who said—
  "It does not appear to me there is any sufficient reason at present for the adoption of the course suggested by the honourable Member."
  Well, my Lords, my case is this: if there was not sufficient reason in 1891 for these proposed restrictions, there is much less reason for them in 1898. The arguments that were brought forward on the Second Reading were that any increase of alien immigration would be an inconvenience to our own population, might constitute a public charge, and would effect a very injurious displacement of labour. Well, my Lords, so far as the argument from the population point of view is concerned, my noble Friend opposite [the Earl of Hardwicke], who introduced the Bill, went so far as to declare that the increase of population caused by this alien immigration so seriously affected overcrowding that the words to which I object were not only
  730
  justified, but absolutely necessary in the interest of the public health. With great respect to my noble Friend, I do not intend to spend much time over that argument. We have laws against overcrowding which all members of the community, whether they are aliens or whether they are natives, are obliged to obey. If these laws are not sufficient for the purpose, then I would say introduce fresh legislation, and let the penalties be made drastic enough to stop the offence. But do not, my Lords, let us legislate for the exclusion of the indigent foreigner on the ground that our administration is so hopelessly incompetent that we are unable to force the handful of foreigners who live in the United Kingdom to obey our laws. I should be very sorry if the House were to make itself a party to a confession of such ineptitude. It is only with a handful of foreigners we have to deal. According to the census of 1891, the total number of foreigners in this country was 219,523. The ratio of foreigners to the entire population was only 5.8 to every 1,000; while in Germany, according to the last census, the ratio was 8.8; in Austria, 17.2; in France, 29.7; and in the United States the ratio of foreigners to the home population was as high as 147.7. The noble Marquess the Prime Minister, in his speech on the Second Reading, made use of this argument, that when every nation excludes aliens we should, without further inquiry, exclude them also. With the greatest possible respect to the noble Marquess, I would urge that when the position of England more closely resembles that of other countries in the matter of foreign population we might possibly with profit follow the teaching of their experience, but that until it does resemble it more closely their system need not have any necessary significance for us. It will be said that since the census of 1891 the foreign population has considerably increased. The noble Earl the Secretary to the Board of Trade stated that there had been an increase of 40,000 foreigners in the United Kingdom during the last seven years. According to the Returns of the Board of Trade that is true; but I would point out to the House that three-fourths of this increase took place in 1891–2–3,

  731
  and that during the last four years there has only been an addition of 10,000 foreigners to the population of the United Kingdom. The excessive immigration of the earlier years was, I believe, owing to the way in which the Russian authorities enforced with greater stringency the laws against the Jews. After 1893 the action of the Russian authorities became more lenient, and in the last four years there has been an increase only of 10,000 to the foreign population, or an average of 2,500 a year. That seems a very small matter on which to defend a great departure from the traditional practice of this country. It may be said that the Board of Trade figures are untrustworthy. The Prime Minister said something in that direction when a similar question was debated in 1894; but I find it extremely difficult to believe that the Reports issued by that Department over the signatures of highly-trained officials are all wrong. They all tell the same tale, and the Reports of 1895–6–7–8 all confirm and endorse the statements that were made in the Report which was criticised in this House in 1894. If the Board of Trade figures are correct, then I would urge that there is no case for legislation. If the Board of Trade figures are wrong, then there is a case for an inquiry, in order to show whether the proposed legislation is desirable. The noble Duke the Lord President of the Council suggested, when this question was last debated in 1894, that there ought to be an inquiry by a small Commission before any serious attempt at legislation was made. In face of that advice of the noble Duke, and in face of these figures of the Board of Trade, I must say I do think it would be very objectionable to insert words of the character which I propose to exclude from the Bill, unless there has been a previous inquiry, and unless the result of the inquiry shows that such legislation is desirable. Then, my Lords, the point remains—is the existence of a foreign population in our midst a national disadvantage of so serious a character as to make it desirable to stop the immigration of destitute aliens? Two arguments were used in the speeches on the second reading against the immigration of destitute aliens. The first was that the destitute alien became a public
  732
  charge, and the second that he displaced British workmen in the labour market. I can understand the supporters of the Bill making either contention a separate ground of agitation against the present system, but I cannot understand how they can build their proposals on this double foundation. It is obvious that the two' statements are contradictory, and that both contentions cannot logically be urged together. If the alien is a public charge it is because he is out of employment; and therefore he does not displace a British workman. If he displaces a British workman he cannot be a public charge. If the House is to persevere in its intention to exclude destitute aliens, it must decide upon which plea, it will depend. I will say but very few words on these two contentions. On the question of displacement, my noble Friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade said that—
  "Alien immigration is driving large sections of our working classes into pauperism."
  But where is the evidence to justify this statement? I have certainly heard it said that if there were no aliens there would be more work for British workmen, but I have heard it said just as frequently, and with equal vigour, that if there were no aliens there would be less work, and that goods now made in England would be made abroad. We are under the disadvantage of not having sufficient knowledge upon this most important question to enable us to decide whether the introduction of this handful of foreigners a year has any serious effect upon the displacement of British workmen. Personally, I do not believe that foreign immigration has this effect, and I have a telegram here from Canon Barnett—who, as your Lordships are aware, is the rector of St. Jude's, Whitechapel, and head of Toynbee Hall—in which he strongly opposes the exclusion of healthy aliens as prejudicial to the English sentiment of hospitality, and to the development of wealth. Here is an expert, living in the heart of Whitechapel, where the bulk of these aliens go, who says, from his own personal knowledge, that the exclusion of these foreigners would be prejudicial to the development of wealth. Before we

  733
  accept the dictum of the noble Earl the Secretary to the Board of Trade, that the introduction of this small number of foreign immigrants considerably displaces British labour, we ought certainly to have an inquiry on the subject. I shall be very much astonished if it will not be proved that such displacement as takes place will be shown to hare been caused not by the new arrivals working for very small wages and long hours, but by the competition of provincial factories which are enabled through the utilisation of modern machinery and the scientific combination of labour to place their products on the market at a low rate. This argument of displacement was not used by the Prime Minister. He made his appeal to the House on the ground that the continued immigration constituted a public charge, and he quoted the fact that in the parish of St. Gaorge's-in-the-East there were 980 aliens who received relief last year, and that 908 of these aliens were Russian and Polish Jews. Well, my Lords, with no disrespect to the noble Marquess I would venture to say that this statement will not be of any great assistance to our deliberations until we know how many of those were in the workhouse, how many were in the infirmary, and how many were recipients of medical relief alone, some of them not taking more than one bottle of medicine. I find that in 1893—when the high-water mark of foreign immigration was reached—there were 5,240 inmates in Whitechapel Workhouse. Of this number only 40 were Russian and Polish Jews. I find that in the Whitechapel Infirmary there were, in the year 1893, 5,864 inmates, only 59 of whom were Russian and Polish Jews. As the return of the Board of Trade shows, although the Russian and Polish Jews were 18 per cent, of the population of Whitechapel, they did not constitute one per cent, of the pauperism. Those are striking facts, and although I have no statistics to give as to the number of Russian and Polish Jews in the Whitechapel Infirmary and workhouse last year I would venture to say that the percentage was smaller than in 1893. I have figures here of the number of applications for assistance made to the Jewish Board of Guardians and the Russo-Jewish Committee, and I
  734
  find there has been a great decrease in recent years. In 1897 there were 587 applications for relief, as against 1,409 in 1893; only 469 cases were relieved last year, as against 1,202 in 1893; and there were only 332 new cases, as against 1,043 in 1893. That shows, my Lords, that those charitable organisations, which act as a buffer between the ratepayer and the foreign immigrant, are much less pressed for assistance than they were in former years. This would appear to indicate that the fear of foreign Jews becoming a public charge is not a growing one. The figures I have quoted are confirmed by the statistics of the Jewish free shelters in the East End. Last year the number of inmates who sought refuge in the shelters was 639 less than the previous year. What is true of Whitechapel is true of the provincial towns. I find that in Manchester there was a decrease of 10 per cent, in the number of destitute aliens to whom relief was given in 1897 as compared with 1896. In Liverpool, the number of recipients of relief decreased from 433 in 1894, to 383 in 1895, to 310 in 1896, and to 230 in 1897. That shows, my Lords, that the pressure upon organisations for giving relief has been not increasing, but steadily decreasing, during the last four years. My noble Friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade drew an eloquent and graphic picture of the sad condition we would be reduced to owing to the fact that a large number of those immigrants who come from the continental ports stop here, and that the best go to the United States; and he made an appeal to your Lordships that that was a state of things which no patriotic Englishman could consider with equanimity. He said England became the receptacle of a very undesirable residuum. I appeal to the noble Earl to think this question out. The figures I have quoted show that the volume of immigration very much depends on the religious and political persecution of which these aliens are the victims. If that is correct, is it not obvious that those who escape from such persecution are not the meanest of their race, but are, on the contrary, the people possessing the most enterprise and endowed with the best brain power? These men, when they arrive here, may come destitute, but the evidence goes to show that after a few years' stay in this

  735
  country, when they become assimilated to our English life, they form an industrious portion of the community, contribute to the taxation of the country, and become a source of wealth. I will not occupy the attention of your Lordships further. I will conclude by asking your Lordships to hesitate before deciding to give an inspector of the Board of Trade power to shut the door against political refugees and other destitute aliens, who have always been accustomed to look to England as an asylum, against persecution.
  LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I rise to second the Amendment of my noble Friend. Unlike my noble Friend, I did not vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, but I hope that in my very modest official capacity he will allow me to welcome him as a brand from the burning. I did not vote for the Second Reading of the Bill, because I thought it a bad and unsavoury Bill. My noble Friend has done such justice to the figures and the ratio question that I shall not bewilder myself with any statistics, or any considerations of that kind; but I quite recognise that, in supporting a destructive Amendment of this sort, one ought to give some reasons for the line one takes. I do not altogether agree with my noble Friend, that if these words were left out the Bill remains an operative one. I really think, if we can carry this Amendment—as I hope we shall—we shall knock the bottom out of what I think is a very unseaworthy ship. We hear a great deal, particularly from the noble Marquess opposite, about the difficulties the Legislature are put to owing to the wording of Bills before Parliament; but can words be more rife with ambiguity than the words, "likely to become a public charge." It seems to me that you are introducing into the Bill the most inexact of all sciences—the science of probabilities. I do every credit to the qualities of heart and head of my noble Friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade, but I am bound to say that even a Knight of the Round Table would shrink from the responsibilities which are to be imposed upon him by the noble Earl in this Bill. Passing from the ambiguity of the wording, I will only remind my noble Friend the mover of
  736
  the Bill of an appreciation one of Dickens' characters—
  "Them as is least likeliest is often more likelier far than those as it most likeliest."
  A celebrated Russian statesman divided the Nihilists into two classes—those who had nothing in their heads, and those who had nothing in their pockets. The same distinction appears to have occurred to my noble Friend who proposed the Bill, except that he was on the verge of adding a third class—namely, the deformed. I believe myself that although you may find a great many aliens who, as my noble Friend has said, come here with nothing in their pockets, you will find that a great many of them come here with plenty in their heads. I have not had time to institute inquiry, but I believe that there are many cases in the great industrial centres of the North of England where aliens, who had come over here apparently with no visible means of subsistence, have, nevertheless, proved of valuable assistance because of small inventions they have made in labour-saving appliances and industrial processes. That is another reason why I object to the Bill. I did not know that we should have such strong evidence as Canon Barnett's, but I think it is quite possible that under this Bill you will be cutting yourselves off from the possibility of the services of a very feeble, perhaps, but what may prove a very useful folk. I know that these are Second Reading considerations, and I must apologise to the House for not having made these remarks on the Second Reading of the Bill. I agree entirely with the concluding observations of my noble Friend who moved the Amendment. From olden time this country has, as it were, accepted the responsibility of mankind at large, and I should be very sorry to see England desert her great and honourable traditions upon what I consider quite inconclusive and insufficient evidence. I have very great pleasure in seconding the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: My Lords, there are two points in the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down with which I am in accord—namely, that this Amendment would knock the bottom out of the Bill, and that it really raised a Second Reading objection. I certainly

  737
  think that both the noble Earl who moved this Amendment and the noble Lord who seconded it might have given us the opportunity of hearing them on the occasion of the Second Reading, because there is no doubt that the Amendment which they have proposed and seconded would, if accepted by me, do away entirely with the object and principle of the Bill. My Lords, the noble Earl quoted several speakers in the House of Commons as having said this and that in reference to the volume of alien immigration; and he also referred to a statement by Mr. Ritchie, but he entirely forgot that since Mr. Ritchie made that statement in 1897, he has admitted that legislation of this kind is necessary. I quoted the words of Mr. Ritchie on the occasion of the Second Reading of this Bill, and I also had the honour of quoting the words of the noble Marquess the Prime Minister, who, when he spoke on the same subject in 1894, said that the time had come for such legislation. The noble Lord challenged me on the overcrowding question. It is perfectly true that on the Second Reading of this Bill I stated that on the ground of overcrowding alone I considered the Bill should be passed into law. I also stated that it was the opinion of those who were personally working in the East End, getting facts as to the volume of alien immigration, that the overcrowding question was a very serious one. The noble Earl mentioned that there were Acts of Parliament which dealt with the overcrowding problem. I can only say that I think the noble Earl cannot have studied the working of those Acts very carefully, because it is generally known that there are no more difficult Acts to administer. If you adopt the power that those Acts give you, you have to turn these poor creatures into the streets with nowhere to lay their heads. It is as much in the interest of the aliens themselves as of our own community that such legislation as this should be passed. The noble Lord who seconded the Amendment said that frequently the alien came with something in his head. I do not quite gather what he meant to convey, but I conclude he meant considerable brain talent. Well, the first thing the alien does, though he may arrive absolutely destitute, is to engage a lodging, and he is enabled to pay his rent by taking in
  738
  lodgers. Supposing he pays 8s. a week, he generally takes in four lodgers at 2s. a week each, in order to pay his rent. That is overcrowding of the worst possible type, and it was on that ground that I said the overcrowding question alone made legislation necessary. Then the noble Lord referred to the "handful of foreigners." That remark is true when they are compared with the population of this country, but they settle down in one or two limited areas, and this handful of foreigners becomes a very large quantity in these limited areas. The noble Earl made a great deal of the point that this Bill is contrary to the previous custom of this country. Well, my Lords, a good deal of legislation that has been passed during recent years has been contrary to what has been the previous custom of the country, and legislation is being passed in all parts of the world which is contrary to custom. If we are never going to do anything because it is contrary to custom, I am afraid that our legislation in the future will not be always for the benefit of the community. All the countries of Europe, except Portugal, have legislation of this kind, and I think it is high time that we passed a similar Measure, in order to prevent what is a growing and most serious evil to our own population. I will not detain your Lordships longer, but will conclude by saying that I cannot accept the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, I was not present when this Bill was read a second time, but I am not going to make a Second Reading speech. I have heard with the greatest pleasure that my noble Friend does not intend to accept this Amendment, which would be completely destructive of the good which I am sure will result from this Bill. It does not seem to me that under the terms of the Amendment it would be quite in order to discuss the general question of the effect of cheap foreign labour in displacing British labour; but at the same time I would remind my noble Friend opposite, who moved the Amendment, that the parallel of the United States is not very relevant, because he must bear in mind that the capacity of the United States for receiving foreign labour is greater

  739
  than that of the United Kingdom. To contrast the comparatively small number of foreigners who come into this country with the whole population is not quite a fair argument either. To ascertain the effect of that foreign labour it should be contrasted with the native labour employed in the comparatively small and poor trades with which that cheap labour competes. It has a very detrimental effect on the native population engaged. My noble Friends who proposed and seconded the Amendment have expressed great anxiety lest political refugees might be excluded under this Bill, but I think the cases are extremely rare in which political refugees have become chargeable to the rates in this country. Although the argument is a strong one sentimentally, I do not think there is anything very practical in it. Neither is there any danger of that class of foreigners who could be described as possessing inventive faculties or great genius being excluded, because obviously a man who is likely to became a charge on the rates is not only a man who is a pauper and has no friends and no trade, but who is not likely to be able to make 41 living for himself. Under these circumstances, I cannot gee what possible hardship will be inflicted. As to paupers and other persons from foreign countries likely to become chargeable to the rates I am inclined to think that the principle adopted parochially of sending such persons back to their own country is a sound one.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I want to ask one or two questions with regard to this clause. At one time a large proportion of aliens who came to this country come here en route elsewhere. Many thousands passed through this country every year, and were carried in British ships to the United States and other parts of the world. Is it intended to prohibit that trade? This clause has no reference to the question whether an alien is intending to remain here or not. The alien may equally be excluded whether he is an alien intending to settle here, or whether he is an alien on his way to other parts of the world. The greater number of aliens who come here belong to this last category. Now, it seems to me that we have no reason—
  740
  even the arguments used do not indicate any reason—for excluding these aliens. Their passage through this country, so far from being mischievous, is beneficial. Our carrying trade benefits by them, and it seems to me that no arguments have been used which will justify dealing in any way whatever with that class of aliens. The only result of legislation of this description would be to damage certain industries of this country without benefiting the country in any way whatever. The other question I want to ask is, how is an inspector to discover by inspection whether an alien is likely to become a public charge or not? A man does not carry that upon his face. If he is able-bodied and has brains, although he has no money, he might be extremely likely to become a charge upon the rates. He will be likely to become a charge. What is this test which is going to enable the inspector, by inspecting passengers, to distinguish between those two categories? I understood the noble Marquis the other day, when I was dealing with a somewhat similar question, to maintain that the Bill will not necessarily exclude an able-bodied man because he had not money in his pocket, because, although he had not money in his pocket, he would, nevertheless, be able to work, and so not become a public charge; but then, how is the inspector—because that is all the Bill professes to do—merely by inspecting the passengers, to discriminate? What sort of inspector will be able to tell by looking at the passengers whether they are likely to become a public charge?
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: Perhaps I may be allowed, in the first place, to answer briefly the two questions which have been asked by the noble Lord opposite. In the first place, he asks whether any difference will be made between aliens who land in this country with the view and intention of staying here, and aliens who are en route for America. I believe it is a fact that the Bill as drawn does not differentiate between the two, but my noble Friend will see that the concluding paragraph of the Bill gives power to the Board of Trade to make regulations for carrying out these provisions. Therefore, under these regulations, I take it that it will be quite within the power of

  741
  the Board of Trade to allow aliens who declare themselves en route, and who show their tickets to America, to pass through, whilst subjecting those who admit their intention of remaining to the examination and inspection provided for by the Bill. I do not suppose that any-body wishes to put an end to the through traffic of people from foreign countries to the United States, or to strike a blow which would undoubtedly be a serious blow to certain shipping industries in this country. At the same time, it seems to me that there would be no difficulty in meeting the point raised by the noble Lord in the way that I suggest. Then, as regards the second point. The noble Lord asks, what is to be the test applied by which the inspectors are to make up their minds whether an alien is likely to be a public charge or not. My answer to that is that the initial want of money is the test. The onus of proof would lie upon the alien, and if he is unable either to show the inspector that he has means by which he can support himself, or that he has friends to whom he is going who would undertake to support him, then I would say that that man is a pauper within the meaning of the Bill, and would not be allowed to come in under this Act. I think, perhaps, the Bill will be clearer if the word "pauper" were changed for "a person without means of support." I agree that there might be some difficulty in defining absolutely what you mean by "pauper." A pauper in this country means a man who is in receipt of poor relief, or has been in receipt of poor relief, and obviously that definition could not be applied to an alien landing here, about whom we know nothing. It seems to me, therefore, that if the word "pauper" were omitted and "a person without means of support or subsistence" put instead, it would be better, because the Act would then read—
  "Inspectors appointed by the Board of Trade may board any vessel arriving with immigrant passengers at any regulated port, and may inspect the passengers, and any inspector may prohibit the landing of any alien who, in his opinion, is either an idiot, insane, a person without means of support or subsistence, a person likely to become a public charge," and so on.
  Then again, if there is any doubt, I cannot help thinking that the regulations
  742
  of the Board of Trade would be quite sufficient to instruct the inspector. I cannot see that there is any difficulty in meeting these points fully, with the exception of the suggestion which I have made. I was very glad to hear my noble Friend so vigorously resist the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl. I quite agree with him that if the word "pauper" and "person likely to become a public charge" were omitted, and you only prohibited those people who were suffering from a contagious disease and those who were idiots, the whole force and scope of the Bill would be lost. The complaint is that you have landing in this country a certain number of people who undersell in our crowded cities English labour. There will be a controversy as to whether there is a real displacement or not. The noble Earl may doubt whether there is such a displacement or not. On the other hand, he has only to read the Reports of the Committee of the House of Commons which inquired into this subject: he has only to read the Reports of men like Mr. Freak, the secretary of the Bootmakers' Association, before the Labour Commission: he has only to read the evidence given before the Committee over which my noble Friend presided, to see that witness after witness declared that there was this displacement—that in many of these trades when they first remembered them English labour was employed, and that now English labour was not employed to nearly so great an extent. Therefore, with this expert evidence before us, I contend that, at any rate, we have sufficient ground for saying on this side of the House that there is displacement of English labour, and that that displacement of English labour should cease. Well, my Lords, as my noble Friend has pointed out, although the number of people who land may be a small number in relation to the total ratio of our population, the fact remains that these people settle in certain districts, and that the ratio of these people compared to the inhabitants of those districts, is a large one. I will only trouble your Lordships with one other point. The noble Earl opposite seems to think that the introduction of legislation of this kind would constitute a

  743
  dangerous precedent. In other words, that, if we exclude immigrants from other countries, other countries may retaliate and exclude us. But, my Lords, they have already done so. As my noble Friend has pointed out, the United States of America, our Colonies, and several other countries have adopted legislation of this kind of a very drastic character. This legislation of other countries is not a dead letter: it is enforced without difficulty; and I do not think that in adopting legislation of this character, which is in conformity with the legislation of other countries upon the same subject, we are running any danger of bringing upon ourselves retaliatory measures. Then the noble Earl, again, says that it has never been the custom of this country to close its doors against political refugees, but I do not think that you would call the type of alien that we pro pose to exclude under this Bill a political refugee. Nobody suggests that men who have been exiled from their own countries for leading great political movements should ever cease to find a sanctuary in this country. That, I think, is the custom which has always been enforced here, and which we shall always retain; but nobody, I think, can justly and logically say that men of the type of the Polish Jew, who come over here in such numbers, without a shilling to support himself, who takes a lodging without being able to pay for it, and who seeks to undersell English labour by force of his power to live under conditions under which English labour could not thrive, bears any comparison to the ordinary political refugee. I earnestly hope that your Lordships will reject this Amendment, and allow my noble Friend to carry the clause in the larger form, in which it is drawn.
  LORD FARRER: May I be allowed to follow up the questions put by the noble Lord below me by a further question? The noble Lord the Secretary to the Board of Trade, who has just sat down, stated that the Board of Trade would have power to make regulations. He further stated that one of the tests would be—and, of course, such a statement comes with great authority from the noble Lord, associated as he is with the Board of Trade—whether a man had any means of subsistence. I want to know
  744
  what he intends to be the meaning of "means of subsistence." Supposing a man comes over here with nothing—
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I said "initial, want of money."
  LORD FARRER: Very well, initial want of money; that answers my purpose still better. Supposing a man to come without a sixpence in his pocket, and supposing at the same time that he comes with the character of being a very efficient and able workman—of a man who would be a credit to English industry, and a man whom English employers, would be glad to have in their factories. Is he to be excluded under these regulations of the Board of Trade because he has no money in his pocket? My Lords, I speak with a little feeling, having been, in the Department myself; and I do think that this Bill, as it stands, or as the noble Earl proposes to amend it, places a burden upon the Board of Trade inspectors which, no matter how efficient they may be, they will be unable to perform.
  LORD LUDLOW: I quite agree with the noble Lord opposite that these inspectors will have very onerous duties to discharge, and I do not think it can, be expected that they can discharge those duties in any other than what I will call a rough and ready way; but there is one provision in this Bill which has been lost sight of, but which, to my mind, is an extremely valuable one. It must not be forgotten that a clause in this Bill provides that if any of these aliens are prohibited from landing they are to be sent back at the expense of the owners of the ships, and the effect of that clause, I believe, will be that owners of ships will be extremely careful as to the class of aliens they bring to this country.
  LORD CLIFDEN: My Lords, I want to say a very few words upon this matter. The noble Lord the Secretary of the Board of Trade has made poverty an accusation against these poor men. Upon that point I quite agree with the noble Lord that that is not a very great evil. It may be an evil to the men who suffer from it, but it is not an evil to society. The man may be industrious and willing, and I do not see why he should be excluded from this country on

  745
  the ground of poverty alone. Then the noble Earl pleads for protection—for protection, pure and simple—for English labour; but that is a doctrine that I for one am not very fond of. The noble Earl, in refusing to accept this Amendment, said that one of his objections to it was that the speech made by my noble Friend who introduced it was a Second Beading speech. I do not see why he should not make a Second Reading speech now if he likes to. But there is one thing the noble Earl has omitted to notice, and that is that what he has said has knocked the case for this Bill into a cocked hat. One of the arguments used on the Second Reading in support of this Bill was that there were statistics to prove that the British workmen were being swamped by large numbers of these immigrants. It now turns out that they are a very small number indeed. I voted against the Second Reading of the Bill, and why my noble Friend who moved this Amendment did not do so, considering the views he possesses, I cannot imagine.
  EARL GREY: Because I was anxious to keep out the lunatic and the idiot.
  LORD CLIFDEN: I will not trouble your Lordships any more. I hope shall go to a Division on this subject, and I hope that the noble Lord will stick to his Amendment. It did my heart good to hear Lord Grey pleading in this House for liberty.
  LORD TURING: I should be most unwilling that your Lordships should think that it was the opinion of the Special Committee, or even of the majority of that Special Committee, that the immigrants were a source of injury to our trade, or that they become a burden on our rates. I formed, and I know that my noble Friend below me formed too, exactly the contrary opinion. It was, in my opinion, proved to demonstration with regard to these poor Jews, who are said to come over in such large numbers, that first of all they did not come over in such large numbers, because a great many of them were simply in transit to Liverpool; and, next, it was proved that they never come upon the rates
  746
  because the Jewish Guardians, as they are called, are a charitable institution, and invariably assist their co-religionists. To my mind the evidence proves beyond all doubt that these poor fellows make exceedingly good citizens, that they very soon learn their business, and that they become some of the best workmen to be had in the East of London. I cannot, therefore, imagine how it can be said that the experts informed the noble Lord that immigration was injurious. In my opinion, we drew exactly the contrary conclusion.
  LORD STANMORE: It is not my intention to trouble your Lordships. I am not going to make a speech, but I do wish to say before going to a Division that, having come down to the House with a perfectly open mind upon the matter, the speeches made on this side of the House quite as much as those as on the other—perhaps more so—have made me make up my mind to vote in favour of the Amendment. The argument of the noble Earl, who spoke from the Front Bench on this side of the House—so far as it was an argument—was directed, not against those who are likely to become a charge upon the public, but against those who are likely to earn a livelihood at the expense of the British workmen. And an argument was brought forward to prove that this Bill would be no hindrance to political refugees entering this country. The noble Earl said that he had no wish to exclude the loaders of great movements abroad. But have those leaders no followers? Are not those followers likely to be among the most indigent of those who are likely to come over under such circumstances? For the Bill itself I certainly would vote, but I am not inclined to support the clause which the noble Lord proposes to amend without more need being shown for that clause, although I hope that that adoption of this Amendment would not have the effect of knocking the bottom out of the Bill.
  Question put—
  "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  The House Divided:—Contents 79; Not-Contents 32.

  CONTENTS

  Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor)

  Clonbrock, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Devonshire, D. (L. President)

  Colville of Culross, L.

  De Mauley, L.

  Portland, D.

  de Ros, L.

  Richmond, D.

  Erskine, L.

  Rutland, D.

  Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Farquhar, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Harris, L.

  Zetland, M.

  Heneage, L.

  Hood of Avalon, L.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward)

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun)

  James, L.

  Carnwath, E.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare)

  Cawdor, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl [Teller]

  Cranbrook, E.

  Craven, E.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian)

  Derby, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore)

  Dudley, E.

  Fortescue, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Hardwicke, E. [Teller]

  Llangattock, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Ludlow, L.

  Minto, E.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Ravensworth, E.

  Manners, L.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby)

  Bangor, V.

  Morris, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Newlands, L.

  Knutsford, V.

  Norton, L.

  Llandaff, V.

  Plunket, L.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Poltimore, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Aldenham, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington)

  Amherst of Hackney, L.

  Arundell of Wardour, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton)

  Ashbourne, L.

  Bagot, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway)

  Balfour, L.

  Basing, L.

  Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

  Belper, L.

  Boston, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran)

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton)

  Tollemache, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort)

  Windsor, L.

  Churchill, L.

  Zouche of Haryngsworth, L.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam)

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Ripon, M.

  Fairer, L.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel)

  Chesterfield, E.

  Hatherton, L.

  Crewe, E.

  Hawkesbury, L.

  Grey, E. [Teller]

  Herries, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Herschell, L.

  Morley, E.

  Kelvin, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Lingen, L.

  Loch, L.

  Aberdare, L.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden)

  Davey, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  748

  Reay, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller]

  Wantage, L.

  Rothschild, L.

  Welby, L.

  St. Levan, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss)

  Stanmore, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Thring, L.

  Amendment proposed—
  "Line 17, after 'disease' insert—
  "Provided that no alien shall be prohibited from landing by an inspector on the ground that he is an idiot, insane, deformed, or a person suffering from any dangerous contagious or infectious disease unless with the concurrence of a medical officer of the Board of Trade."—(The Earl of Hardwicke.)
  Question put—
  "That the words proposed be added to the clause."
  Agreed to.
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: May I move an Amendment to clause 3?
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: No, not unless it is at the end of the clause.
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: May I move to omit the word "dangerous"?
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: No, that is already passed.
  Question put—
  "That clause 3 as amended stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  Question put—
  "That clause 4 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 5.
  Amendment proposed—
  "Line 24, after 'inspectors' insert 'and medical officers.'"—(The, Earl of Hardwicke.)
  Question put—
  "That the words proposed be added to the clause."
  Agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  Question put—
  "That this be the title—'The Aliens Bill."
  Agreed to.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I will report the Bill as amended to the House.
  Question put—
  "That this House resume."
  Agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported.

  METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT ACTS AMENDMENT (BY-LAWS).
  LORD MONKSWELL: This is a very small Bill, and entirely explains itself. It is to enable the London County Council to make by-laws for the following purpose:—
  "Requiring persons about to construct, reconstruct, or alter drains in connection with buildings, to deposit with the sanitary authority of the district such plans, sections, and particulars as may be necessary for the purpose of ascertaining whether such construction, reconstruction, or alteration is in accordance with the statutory provisions relative thereto, and with any by-laws made under the said section."
  It is perfectly clear that such a power is eminently desirable, inasmuch as prevention is better than cure. This is a Bill which will enable every corporation and sanitary authority to say that such and such a construction or drain is wrong rather than to say afterwards it must be altered. I understand that the Government agree with this view, but the difficulty appears to be this: that the Government has hardly made up its mind as to what Department should be entrusted with the sanctioning of these by-laws. I will give an instance. When this Bill was put under my charge, I was given
  750
  to understand that the present authority co sanction the by-laws was the Home Office, but that the Home Office had expressed the opinion that it was not the Home Office, but the Local Government Board that ought to have the power of sanctioning such by-laws; whereupon I approached the Local Government Board upon the matter, and, after some correspondence, I was assured that the Local Government Board had nothing whatever to do with it, and was referred to the Home Office. Upon that I wrote to the Permanent Secretary to the Home Office, and he wrote me a letter expressing the utmost surprise that I had placed the matter before the Home Office at all, because he said that the Home Office had agreed with the Local Government Board that they, for the future, would have nothing whatever to do with the sanctioning of these by-laws. Under these circumstances, it is not for me to express an opinion as to which is the proper authority to sanction these by-laws; but if it is a desirable Bill, surely it ought not to be defeated because the Departments concerned cannot agree as to which Department is to do the work. I think it would have been impudence on the part of the London County Council to make any suggestion in this matter to either Department. All I am anxious to do is to get the Bill passed into law, and I myself, as representing the London County Council, have not the least objection as to whether the by-laws are sanctioned by the Home Office or by the Local Government Board, or by both.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In the chaotic state of things, which is new to me, perhaps I may be permitted to express an opinion. I am very doubtful as to which Department is to move in this clause. Like a good many other people—I should say like most people—I have had my little difficulties with drains, and it appears to me, as I suppose it appears to everybody else who has had experience in those matters, that the object is to get the evil repaired with the very shortest possible delay, as any considerable delay is not only a matter of great inconvenience, but also a matter of very serious injury to health. Now, without in the least denying to the London County Council all the qualities which its admirers attribute to it, I

  751
  imagine that it shares with all other Departments the defects of not being able to conduct its work with any great rapidity. In this case I understand that before you can mend your drains—before you can stop the source of typhus which is infecting your dwelling—you must obtain the leave of the London County Council in the first place, and of either the Home Office or the Local Government Board in the second place; and unless public departments, both municipal, political, and Imperial, alter their nature very rapidly, I fear that that means an interminable delay. I do not say that that is a reason for resisting the second reading of the Bill, but I think that some provision will be necessary for enabling urgency to be declared and for requiring the opinion of the County Council and of the Home Office to be given in a reasonable time.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: It seems to mo that there is a difficulty arising in this Bill, something of the nature to which the noble Marquess has drawn attention. Where there is to be a great reconstruction of drains upon a large plan, I think it would be very often an advantage, and that no great inconvenience would arise from the delay necessitated by this Bill in submitting the plans to the proper authorities. But it struck me, in reading this Bill, that it applies, not only to large works, but that, in point of fact, the deposit of plans would be required with regard to the smallest construction of drains. I do not think that can hardly have been intended by my honourable Friend. If the smallest alteration to a drain involves a correspondence with the county council upon the subject, I think it is pretty obvious that practically such a system could not be worked. I do not myself see exactly what alterations ought to be made in the Bill, but without going entirely to the length that the noble Marquess has gone to in objecting altogether to such an arrangement as this, I do think that some care will be necessary to see that the Bill is not made applicable to such very small matters as might, in point of fact, produce both nuisance and delay.
  LORD MONKSWELL: We only desire to make by-laws so that persons shall
  752
  deposit with the sanitary authority of the district their plans; I do not think, therefore, that there will be much delay.
  THH MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not imagine that a sanitary authority is any better than the London County Council—I should rather say it was worse.
  Question put—
  "That the Bill be read a second time."
  Agreed to.
  Bill read the second time.

  RESERVE FORCES BILL.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE):I beg to move the third reading of the Reserve Forces Bill.
  Question put—
  "That the Bill be read a third time."
  Agreed to.
  Bill read the third time.
  House adjourned at 6.30.